OCR Text |
Show For U Against ssionV: . jjncrei! andra ifropositioo isproviT , 'No. 3 s dired lectors! i thetj )n ofl'l LEGISLATIVE """RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT J0,casi by the members of the 1982 Legislature on final passage: 'SE;(75 members): Yeas, 57; Nays, 12; Absent or not voting, 6. ' ATr- (29 members): Yeas, 28; Nays, 0; Absent or not voting, l. Official Ballot Title: Shall Article VI, Section 5, of the State Constitution be amended to require members of the Legislature to continue to reside in their districts during their terms of office. I IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS PROPOSAL conn!"6 ls no Present law requiring a legislator to ! eier !f ,0 live in ,ne district from which he or she was I been, , ng ,he term of 0lfice- In ,he past' there haV6 ; lhe 'a lew occasions where legislators have moved out of district in which they were elected, but continued to ' office that district for ,he remainder of the term of i ' ! orreTr,heproposed revision would prohibit a state senator ' he0rleSenta,ive from continuing to serve as a legislator if i electert ,'?oves out 0 'he district from which he or she was : wuld V 3 le8islator moved from the district the office I in, u "e considered vacant. The office would then be ! apDoin, prov'ded by law. This requires the Governor to j 'maqualifiedpersonofthesamepoliticalpartyasthe i i l ! ! former legislator to serve the unexpired term until the next general election. Effective Date This amendment, if approved by the voters, would effective beginning January 1, 1983. FISCAL EFFECT The proposed revision of Article VI, Section 5, will not have any significant fiscal impact on state or local government. )on M. Memmott, Director Office of Legislative Research State Capitol Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 7- Arguments for LEGISLATORS NEED TO RESIDE AMONG THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT! To be an effective legislator requires close ties to the people that a legislator represents. It is essential, therefore, that legislators actually reside among their constituents to be able to understand and experience first-hand community problems and attitudes. The enactment of Proposition 3 will ensure that legislators maintain this close link to their constituents. OUR NATION IS BUILT ON A FOUNDATION OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN GOVERNMENT! Our Founding Fathers established a system of government based on the concept of elected representation repre-sentation to express the will of the people. To ensure that all people are represented equally, the Constitution requires that states be divided into legislative districts based on population. Legislators are to be chosen from among the actual inhabitants of each district to represent repre-sent local interests. When legislators do not actually reside in the legislative districts from which they are elected and live in other districts, this fundamental concept of equal representation is altered. THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION IS AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHETHER LEGISLATORS MAY LIVE OUTSIDE THEIR LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS ONCE ELECTED! The present Constitution is not clear about where legislators are to reside once they are elected. Therefore, There-fore, a legislator elected from Southern Utah may actually reside in Salt Lake City. This is more than a question of moving across the street or to a close neighborhood. THIS AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. VOTE "YES" ON PROPOSITION 3!. Representative Samuel S Taylor 3682 South 5th East Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Representative Nolan E. Karras 2195 West 4250 South Roy, Utah 84067 .1 Rebuttal to Arf Arguments in favor of Proposition No. 3 The whole idea is still "would you rather !J migr represented by one you elected, or by someone a Man! pointed by the party and the Governor?" hidd Representative Taylor's argument of "why to j ,tl!j residency requirement at all?" may even have so: te merit. If a majority of the voters of a district wo: y a prefer someone outside their district (again, by major lllle vote) whom they feel could better represent then- curr why not? Representative Taylor further argues about Disc 21. Doesn't it seem strange that those who wererd vocal, they themselves lost their elections. Fromtte ' I've polled, the stand they took on this issue contrite to their defeat. I con No, Representative Taylor, I don't believe it I the; what the people want just what the political be r ition wants.! I by; May I make rebuttal to an argument I'm sure! surface before the election. That is "that the Ui-j legi State Legislature voted approval on this issue." No,' j by i did not vote approval, we only voted to allow this if-j am, to be decided by the voters and rightfully so. our I personally believe there are better ways-sc I jj as requiring a special election. Take a close look a: majority of the appointments made by the Governci and you will vote a resounding "NO" on this issue. Representative Keith E. Jorge" 5472 North 3100 W Amalga, Utahl R. 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 f the impact of such an amendment. In particular, e vo(ers should know that any vacancy will not be filled 1 by a new election. Rather, the vacated seat will be i filled by appointment of the Governor according to current statutory procedures. We elect our representatives because we agree i with their philosophical positions and feel that they i ate the individuals who can best represent our interests. A rigid restriction which forces a duly elected representative repre-sentative to resign simply because he or she moves "own 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 represented by someone you actually elected than V someone appointed by the Governor? Lastly, during the last six years the question of legislative residency has been debated several times "fine Legislature. At no time during these debates has yone been able to point to a single instance where our current policy has been abused. Unfortunately, "e whole issue seems to be one of partisan politics, e should not amend our Constitution for such narrow rjsons. The bottom line can best be expressed by t he saying, "Unless it's broke don't fix it!" VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITION 3 Representative Keith E. Jorgensen 5472 North 3100 West Amalga, Utah 84335 ' -19 Rebuttal to j Arguments in opposition to Proposition No. 3 K I The opposing argument suggests that it is better to continue to be represented by the persons elected f; rather than someone appointed by the Governor in 1 situations where legislators move outside'their district I after their elections. Presently, when a legislative vacancy occurs, for I 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 l Governor then appoints one legislator from the three nominated as an interim legislator until the next 1 general election. Generally those members whose 1 names are submitted adhere to the same political and social philosophies as the legislator who moved outside his district. It bears repeating here in response to the opposing p argument that this is more than a question of merely moving across the street. Allowing legislators to move I far outside their districts after their election under- I mines the basic principles of representative govern- R ment. UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF REPRESENTATIVE k GOVERNMENT. Li M VOTE "YES" ON PROPOSITION 3! Representative Samuel S Taylor 3682 South 5th East Salt Lake City, Utah 84 106 I Representative Nolan E. Karras k 2195 West 4250 South Roy, Utah 84067 2: f? i i i i t' I COMPLETE TEXT OF PROPOSITION NO. 3 RESIDENCY REQUISITE FOR LEGISLATORS A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BUDGET SESSION OF THE 44TH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF UTAH; RELATING RELAT-ING TO THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT; REQUIRING LEGISLATORS TO CONTINUE TO BE RESIDENTS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THEIR TERMS OF OFFICE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS RESOLUTION PROPOSES TO AMEND ARTICLE VI SECTION 5, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF UTAH. Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Utah, two-thirds two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses voting in favor thereof: Section 1. It is proposed to amend Article VI, Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the State of Utah to read: -2 Sec. 5. No person shall be eligible to the c senator or representative who as of the last datep: by law for filing for the office is not a citizen of the. States, twenty-five years of age, a qualified vote: district from which he is chosen, a resident for tte of the State, and for six months of the district tor he is elected. No person elected to the office of se:; representative shall continue to serve in thatoE ceasing to be a resident of the district from wtiictit Section 2. The secretary of state is directed tc: this proposed amendment to the electors of the! Utah at the next general election in the mannerp: by law. Section 3. If approved by the electors of the si; amendment shall take effect on January 1, 1983. 0- |