Show Outlines Amendment No 5 S LED Proposals Proposal Proposition No MANDATORY 5 MANDATORY 5 RETIREMENT OF JUDGES Shall a new section be added to Ar- Ar Ar Article Article VIII of the State Constitution to to V provide that the Legis Legislature lature may adopt standards for mandatory retirement o of f judges and for removal of judges from office 0 J 1 Intent and Effect Under existing Utah constitutional 1 law a w there is no legal way to remove judges from office during the terms to which they have been appointed or elected except by impeachment or orby orby orby by the somewhat similar procedure of a vote of two-thirds two of the members of both legislative houses No Utah judge has ever been removed from office by either of these thes e procedures Utah judges m In may a y forfeit their office by abs absenting enting themselves from their jurisdictions for more than ninety cons consecutive ve days unless s granted a special time extension by the Governor None of the existing provis provisions ions for removing judges from office would be affected affect cd by the proposed propos ed amendment A number of states beginning with California California California Cal Cal- in 1960 1960 2 have adopted procedures for mandatory removal of judges for willful misconduct misconduct misconduct mis mis- conduct in office or willful and persistent failure failure failure fail fail- ure t to o perform their duties or for habitual intemperance or to impose mandatory retirement retire- retire retirement retirement ment in cas case e of phys physical ical or mental disability seriously interfering with the performance of duties which is or is likely to become permanent permanent permanent perma perma- nent in nature The proposed amendment would be permissive permissive permissive per per- I missive requiring legislative action to give it practical effect Such legislation could not be made applicable to actions committed prior to its enactment The proposed propos ed amendment would provide that any determination requiring re retirement retirement re- re or removal shall be he subject to review as to both law and and facts acts by the Supreme eme Court Arguments For Proposition No 5 Supporters of Proposition No 5 assert that Utah law now offers no practical cal method for removing judges from office for mental or physical disability o 0 or r for 0 r misconduct It i is s further argued that Utah's practice of 01 having judges run or reelection against their record instead of in open elections virtually assures their reelection and that the public is not adequately adequately ade ade- tely protected e against judicial i incompetency c c or or misconduct con Arguments Against Proposition No 5 Opposition to Proposition No 5 appears to be meager and principally rt based on uncertainty uncertainty uncertainty as to how the Legislature might implement implement implement ment the proposed amendment Some jurists have expressed fear that a mandatory retirement retirement retirement retire retire- ment age might be imposed without proper re regard regard regard re- re gard for the value of judicial experience Other jurists and members of the bar however ex express express express ex- ex press the belief that the thc proposed constitutional guarantee of Supreme Court review of any action brought under the proposed law would provide sufficient protection to judges Liquor Initiative Petition A AIn AIn AIn In addition to the five proposed constitutional constitutional constitutional amendments Utah voters will find on this years year's ballot an initiative proposal to change the states state's liquor control law This vote will not be permissive If the proposal is approved by a majority of voters a specific law will have been enacted which cannot be vetoed by the t h c Governor and which will take effect five days after the election General effect of the proposed law would be to legalize under certain conditions sale of liquor b by y the drink in Utah Proponents and opponents of the proposal differ in their interpretations interpretations interpretations inter inter- of the precise effects the law would have Details of the interpretations of both sides have been widely circulated in the press and over the air and are available to interested citizens from a number of sources and are therefore not repeated here |