OCR Text |
Show Arguments for from nearly 90 of the legislature. We need Proposition 3 to gire our courts tools to address contemporary problems. The Utah Supreme Court hears too many cases! Our requires the supreme court to hear every appeal from the major trial courts. Last year the court heard nearly MOO appeals. This makes the court's caseload one of the most burdensome in the country. Many of these appeals are of questionable alue. They waste time and prevent the court from hearing more important matters. Our constitution Vote "FOR" Proposition 3! ei nst it ui inn Senator Karl N. Snow Chairman. Constitutional Revision Commission 1x17 North Oak Lane, Provo, Utah 84104 Representative 0. LaMont Richards House Chairman. Higher F.ducation Study (ommittee P.o. Box 23717, Salt Lake Citv, Utah 8412") prerents the court and the legislature from taking action to solce this problem. Proposition 3 will amend the constitution so actions can he taken to reduce the supreme court's workload. Courts need to be free from outdated restrictions! The I tab Constitution was written in 1896. It established a court system to meet 1896 needs. Unfortunately, the constitution is not flexible enough to meet changing situations. For example, the constitution limits the fines which some courts may impose. Most drunk driring offenses still carry only a $299fine, a figure set in 1896. The constitution does not allow some courts to impose higher fines. Proposition 3 rill remote outdated restrictions from the constitution. Rebuttal to Arguments in favor of Proposition No. 3 The idea that Utah's Constitution is outdated is a socialist myth perpetuated by political opportunists in an attempt to deceive the electorate. The Judicial Conduct Commission has S'EITR removed a judge from the bench lot misconduct. Why should this appointed group be included ir the Utah Constitution? Political rhetoric would have you believe Proposition not eliminate checks and balances on the judiciary-- THIS IS THE DARKEST OF POLITICAL LIES. It is espoused by those who would tin it our Constitution into a document of TYRAWY. Unopposed elections of any type are not the "American Way." No. 3 does . attract good judges and remove poor ones! should be selected solely on professional Ideally, judges merit. They should not be selected because of political ties or reasons. There should be checks so no other one group unduly controls the selection process. In addition, the people should be able to review a judge's performance. The selection process in Proposition 3 meets these goals. It balances the interests of the governor, the legislature, the courts, and the people. Proposition 3 also provides for a judicial conduct commission to investigate complaints against judges The conduct commission has authority to dtsipline or remove poor judges. Proposition 3 will help Utah must , Legislators voted to have Proposition No. 3 on the ballot for you, the voter, to decich- about om judiciary. - "POWER ABSOLUTELY!" Proposition CORKI PTS. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS Preserve your freedoms. ote AGAINST" No. 3. lb piesentau-.Eiancis Match Merrill 4280 South 8Js East. Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 maintain quality judges. Utah needs an independent judicial system! The l .S. founding fathers provided for an independent judiciary in the U S. Constitution. Our state judiciary should also be independent. Some important judicial responsibilities are open tor onirol by other branches of government. Proposition 3 places these responsibilities with the judiciary. Proposition 3 will proride for an independent judiciary. Utah needs a w ell managed judicial system! Utah has many different courts. While their roles are different, many of their needs are similar. It is important that a central coordinating body exist to address the needs of the whole judicial system. Proposition 3 provides for a judicial council with representatives from all courts. The council is headed by the chief justice of the supreme court. It provides for better coordinai ion between the courts. Proposition 3 will proride for a judicial system. 3 been carefully studied! Proposition has Proposition May we point oul argument for Proposition the fallacies in the preceding 3: Paragraph 1: The Supreme ( emit does have an overload of cases. A simple amendment would allow them to meet in two panels, one hearing the ciril rases, the other the criminal cases. Paragraph 2: The Constitution in 1787, is still not of our country, written outdated. Dnnk driving penalties are more severe than ever be fore. Paragraphs 3 and 4: The last State Supreme Court appointment was anything but ideal. Seilher the people nor their represent atires had any say uhatsoererin that selection. Proposition 3 would make it worse than erer. Paragraphs 3 and G: Most of the points in Proposition 3 have been rejected by the legislature time and time again. Sow we ask you, the people, to confirm that action. Vote has been studied for 5 years. It is supported by all levels of the judiciary and groups associated with the legal community. It is supported by the governor and received a favorable vote 3 AGAINST Proposition :;! Senator E. Verl Asay hdinnan. Senate Judic iary Committee 48oi South 1930 West. Lnlnrsvilie. Utah 84118 ( 16- - |