OCR Text |
Show Arguments Against The Cnnstiiutinn was written In eliminate government tyrany. not to have he government chain people down by limiting their powers This const it lit ninal revision will take away 01 K riy;ht to hac a candidal' run against a judge in an election. It limits individual lights lo remove judges from office by permit t ing UNOPPOSED RETENTION ELECTIONS every ten years for Supreme (imii Judges and every six years for other judges. Ask yourself these questions: (1) What form of government has uncontested elections ? (2) What kind of government does not allow competition in candidates? (3) What kind of government has moved justice away from the people by making government unaccountable to the people through the voting process? (4) What kind of government allows only one candidate per office on the ballot ? (unopposed retention elections) (5) What form of government eliminates scrutiny by the people? (ti) What form of government muzzles the people in the balloting system? (7) Inderthe American check& balance system of government should the judiciary police itself without scrutiny from the people? ( H) H hy put the elitist Judicial Council & Judicial Conduct Commission, two functioning committees, in the Constitution thus making them difficult to eliminate or change should the need arise? This constitutional revision goes beyond the point of E( LFSIVE ( U B forming a It allows the Judu ial Bran h to rise above t fie level of the people instead of serving the itizenry. This atrocity is perpetuated bv the judiciary for the convenience of the judiciary and it should be offensive to FREEDOM Vote LOVING PEOPLE. AGAINST Proposition ! Representative Francis Hatch Merrill 42MI South s:(s East. Salt Lake City, Ftah 84107 The people need to know that Proposition 3 proposes drastic undesirable changes in our constitution. There are two or three good suggestions within the proposal, however, several very bad provisions are included within the package. The good provisions should be submitted to the people rather than take it or leave it' in a single package. Proposition 3 will give unprecedented power and authority to the judicial branch of government. For instance, the present constitution reads that "judges maybe removed from office by two thirds vote of both houses of the legislature". This gives the people through their representatives some control. Proposition 3 would remove this safety valve and the judicial branch would account only to themselves for their action. This would also take from the people the inherent right to elect judges. This would also give the Supreme ( ourt unprecedented power arid authoiity to govern the practice of law in Ftah, including who would be admitted to the bar and under what circumstances. The proposed article was rushed through a special session of the legislature without time to go through the regular legislative process. It may be we need some changes, this proposal certainly is not the answer. There are many legislators who voted to have the proposed amendment on the ballot, yet themselves will vote Proposition 3. AGAINST Proposition No. against Vote Senators Barlow, Bangerter concur! 3. Matheson, (Iverson, Sandberg. Senator E. Verl Asay Senate Chairman, Judiciary Study Committee 4857 South 1950 West. Taylorsville, I tah Mils Rebuttal to Arguments against Proposition Xo. 3 Ftahns fespect the U.S. Constitution and the principles it outlines. A most important principle is the need for an independent judiciary. The constitution provides for the President to appoint federal judges, subject to review by the U.S. Senate. If approved, federal judges are appointed lor life. Proposition 3 proposes a similar method for selecting state judges. However, Proposition 3 contains additional safeguards: nominating commissions to screen applicants, and periodic review of judges by the people. Proposition 3 actually includes more protections for selecting and reviewing state judges than the U.S. Constitution does for federal judges. Selection methods similar to Proposition 3 are used in many other states. These procedures have been very effect ive at attracting good judges and removing poor ones. It has been shown that poorjudges are often more likely to be removed with retention elections than with contested elections. Contested judicial elections raise the possihlitv (if serious abuse. For example, election campaigns require money, usually raised by contributions. Forjudicia! elections, money comes primarily from lawyers and other persons who regularly appear before judges. This situation ran easily result in conflicts of interest and compromise the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Proposition 3 is one of the most thoroughly studied proposals ever presented to Ftah voters. It has been carefully reviewed by state and national authorities for nearly five years. Most of the changes have not been suggested by the courts, but by citizens concerned that Utah maintain an effective court system. VOTE FOR PROPOSITION 3! Senator Karl N. Snow. Jr. Chairman, Constitutional Revision Committee 1847 North Oak Lane, Provo, Utah 84804 Representative G. La.Mont Richards House Chairman, Higher Education Study Committee P.O. Box 25717, Salt Lake City. Ftah 84125 |