Nov 03
Legislating from the Bench
2008 at 8:21 am | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 3 comments
It’s never good for judges to over-turn, interpret specific codified policies passed by the peoples’ elected officials and signed by the governor into law.
When a Utah judge overturned a deadline in our election law, that judge was stepping outside of judicial duty and responsibility. Read HERE.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Or, maybe the judge was just enforcing the (perhaps poorly worded) law. A similar situation occurred in 2006 too, with several candidates. There wasn’t much outcry then. Legislators had two years to fix the law if they thought the ruling was off, but didn’t. Perhaps reinstatement really is the action contemplated by code?
“(c) Notwithstanding Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) [disqusalification for failure to file], a state office candidate is not disqualified if:
(i) the candidate files the reports required by this section;
(ii) those reports are completed, detailing accurately and completely the information required by this part except for inadvertent omissions or insignificant errors or inaccuracies; and
(iii) those omissions, errors, or inaccuracies are corrected in an amended report or in the next scheduled report.”
(UCA 20a-11-206)
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Tom,
There was a big outcry in 2006. And the Legislature did “fix” the law since then.
The law is clear that a report has to be filed; if not, the candidate is off the ballot. Subsection (c)(i) of the part you cite reiterates that a report must be filed. Timely reporting is crucial for transparency. It creates a problem, when the Courts feel free to rewrite reporting criteria. The criteria simply are not that complex to follow.
I think Utah has a great judicial system, and I don’t believe that our courts engage in much judicial legislating. But, on this issue, it creates the question — “where will it end?” After letting the state school board candidates back on in 2006 and this candidate back on, it could seem like a result-oriented outcome, if the courts actually do keep someone off the ballot in the future as the law requires.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Steve, as I read the code it seems to say the candidate isn’t disqualified if they file the report–even if they could be DQ’d under (1)(a) or (1)(b). At least two district judges apparently agree with this interpretation.
This is, to the best of my recollection, the same language we had in 2006. Can you help me out and point me to the bill that changed it? It would have had to have been in the 2007 or 2008 sessions. This section of code isn’t listed as altered in the 2007 session [pdf], and the search page for 2008 showed two bills. (HB 41 didn’t pass, SB 21 changed the file date from Sep 15 to 31 Aug, but made no other changes.)