Comments on: Did Utah’s Legislature Ignore the Constitution?

By: UtahTeacher

UtahTeacher — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:40:23 +0000

Governor Huntsman apparently agrees it’s not an appropriations bill and is justifying his decision by the distinction. Would his statement hold a lot of sway in a courtroom?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8658959

Huntsman, however, signed the bill without any line-item vetoes Thursday. The governor’s spokeswoman, Lisa Roskelley, said vetoing parts of the bill was not an option.
“Line-item veto only applies to appropriations items, and most of [SB2] was actually statutory,” Roskelley said.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:16:27 +0000

“Standing” was one of my first questions too. One strategy would be to join as many plaintiffs as possible: legislators who originally opposed the bill, representatives of political organizations (e.g. PTA), parents, taxpayers affected by the property tax changes, businesses that might be adversely affected, etc. I would think anyone affected by the bill should have standing. (IANAL, but if that weren’t the case, and only the governor or legislative body were given standing, and such an interpretation would render the section moot.) Still, any suit could not be brought until the issue becomes “ripe,” which could change depending on what action (if any) the governor takes.

Daniel is right about the presumption of constitutionality–not only is a bill presumed constitutional until challenged, the courts will grant deference to the legislature in evaluating constitutionality. If a conflict exists, they will rule (if possible) in a way that presumes constitutionality.

One interesting bit of history: In 2006, the State Board of Ed suggested an education omnibus bill that bundled three separate programs might be unconstitutional under this article (HB 181). The legislature was still in session; the bill was quickly substituted with a version containing only one program.

By: Jeremy Manning

Jeremy Manning — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:48:36 +0000

Yeah, I was just thinking about that.
I wonder Who would have standing to pursue legal action on the legislation?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:20:03 +0000

Here’s a dirty secret–a duly passed law is constitutional until a court says it isn’t. Because this is the case, legislators have little incentive to care about a bills constitutionality unless it is blatantly unconstitutional. Sad but true.

By: Jesse Harris

Jesse Harris — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:02:19 +0000

What’s most alarming is that either nobody on the Hill knew that it wasn’t Constitutional or nobody cared. Oh the irony that legislators who spend so much time talking about the US Constitution can’t be bothered to read the state one.

By: Dignin

Dignin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:33:52 +0000

You know Jeremy the television industry has been thriving on this same ideal of packaging a ton of crap together and saying take it all or you don’t get the good stuff. Honestly who wants five home shopping channels in their basic programming package? I’d wager that 95% of Utah is very concerned about their T.V. programming yet the industry thrives on this “take it all or nothing” technique. Why wouldn’t the Utah legislator do the same thing? Especially when only 10% or less of Utah slightly cares about what the legislators are doing up there in their fancy building.