Proposed amendment fails
HJR17 died after Richard Schwermer, assistant court administrator, ran off a long list of problems — including the courts inability to order criminals to prison — should the amendment pass.
After the House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted it down 9-6, sponsoring Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, confronted Schwermer, chewing him out for not bringing his concerns to Hughes prior to the meeting. Hughes maintains HJR17 doesn't not pose the problems Schwermer suggests.
HJR17 is a "proactive attempt" to side-step problems seen in about 30 other states where state courts have ordered spending by the legislature and governor, said Hughes in debate over the amendment.
The Kansas Legislature recently was ordered by its high court to spend an extra $285 million on public education. In West Virginia, a court ordered a large sum of taxpayer dollars go into the state employee retirement system.
While no Utah court has "legislated from the bench," Hughes said the Legislature and citizens through a constitutional amendment should make it clear courts can't do so.
"What's the hurry?" in getting the amendment before voters this November, asked Snow.
Hughes asked the rhetorical question of whether in 2004 Amendment 3 — changing the Utah Constitution to specifically ban gay marriages — went before the CRC or was studied for another year. "I think I know the answer," said Hughes.
Actually Amendment 3 was rushed through the 2004 Legislature and then won wide approval by voters that November, passing 66-34 percent.
Public education advocates, including the Utah Education Association, the state's largest teacher union, have for years opposed measures that could, in some way, constrict spending on public schools. Several committee members who are staunch public education supporters spoke against HJR17.
But it was Schwermer's testimony that likely sank the bill.
Utah does not have an activist court that's been accused of legislating from the bench, he said.
"In fact our court has shown appropriate restraint on this problem" seen in other states, said Schwermer.
"Under this notion of being proactive, you are creating a great deal of (other) problems," he said. "We could not require someone to pay a filing fee, not enforce a civil judgment, not order someone to jail, not order someone to prison, not order a county to pay for (a poor person's trial attorney) or take someone into foster care."
All those actions take some kind of funding by the state or a local government, and HJR17 says courts can't order a state or local government to spend money on something, Schwermer said.
Hughes said the bill has been public for some time and neither Schwermer nor any other court officials brought up any concerns.
Hughes said he'd gladly take his amendment to the CRC and work with the judicial branch to accommodate their concerns — but asked that his bill go forward for consideration this year.
But several committee members said there was little time to consider all the broad-ranging consequences of HJR17; the committee then voted the bill to interim study.
E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com
You can be the first to comment on this story.