OCR Text |
Show Rebuttal to Arguments against On the surface, a requirement that legislators must either live in their district or resign from office might seem like a sensible idea. However, such a blanket restriction carries with it some important hidden consequences. Voters should be fully aware of the impact of such an amendment. In particular, voters should know that any vacancy will not be filled by a new election. Rather, the vacated seat will be filled by appointment of the Governor according to current statutory procedures. We elect our representatives because we agree with their philosophical positions and feel that they are the individuals who can best represent our interests. A rigid restriction which forces a duly elected representative to resign simply because he or she moves down the street does not ensure that the people will continue to be represented by a new legislator with these same viewpoints. Doesn't it make more sense to be represented by someone you actually elected than by someone appointed by the Governor? Lastly, during the last six years the question of legislative residency has been debated several times by the Legislature. At no time during these debates has anyone been able to point to a single instance where our current policy has been abused. Unfortunately, the whole issue seems to be one of partisan politics. We should not amend our Constitution for such narrow reasons. The bottom line can best be expressed by the old saying, "Unless its broke don't fix it! VOTE "NO ON PROPOSITION In Presently, when a legislative vacancy occurs, for whatever reasons, Utah law requires that the duly elected officers of the same political party from which the legislator was elected shall submit to the Governor of Utah the names of three prospective members. The Governor then appoints one legislator from the three nominated as an interim legislator until the next general election. Generally those members whose names are submitted adhere to the same political and social philosophiesas the legislator who moved outside his district. bears repeating here in response to the opposing argument that this is more than a question of merely moving across the street. Allowing legislators to move far outside their districts after their election undermines the basic principles of representative government. UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF REPRESENTATIVE It GOVERNMENT. VOTE "YES" ON PROPOSITION 3! Representative Samuel E. Jorgensen 5472 North 3100 West Amalga, Utah 84335 S Taylor 3682 South 5th East Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Representative Nolan 3 Representative Keith opposition to Proposition No. 3 The opposing argument suggests that it is better to continue to be represented by the persons elected rather than someone appointed by the Governor in situations where legislators move outside their district after their elections. Arguments E. 2195 West 4250 Karras South Roy, Utah 84067 |