Utah voters will be asked to decide six changes to the state constitution on Tuesday - one being the hotly contested issue of whether citizen initiatives concerning hunting and fishing should require a two-thirds vote of citizens at the ballot box or just the traditional simple majority vote.
The wildlife issue - Proposition 5 - has seen a $600,000-plus public-issue campaign put together by a number of wildlife groups in support of the two-thirds vote. TV advertisements have been running for several weeks advocating passage.Opponents of Proposition 5 don't have those resources. Lead by a bipartisan group of legislators and the League of Women Voters, the anti-Prop. 5 group has raised around $30,000 to say wildlife groups shouldn't have special protection in the constitution from citizen-initiative efforts.
As is often the case, most of the six proposed amendments are not controversial.
Only two - Propositions 4 and 5 - had enough interest that Lt. Gov. Olene Walker's office could find someone to write an opposition statement for her official voter information pamphlet, distributed throughout the state each general election. That pamphlet was included in major newspapers last Sunday and is available on the World Wide Web at (www.governor.state.ut.us/menu/html/elections.html).
PROPOSITION 1
(Legislative residency)
Prop. 1 would amend the constitution to make it clear that eligibility requirements for state senators and representatives apply to the time frame immediately before filing for the office as a candidate.
While the Utah Constitution has always set forth time frames of eligibility, the question arose whether the three-year state residency requirement, and the six-month in-district requirement, meant the time just prior to candidate filing or any time during the candidate's lifetime.
Under the last instance, could a person have lived in Utah 30 years ago, move back into the state a week before the candidate filing deadline and claim he had met the residency requirement?
To clearly say that a person must be a resident three years just before filing and six months in the district where he is running just before the filing, the amendment was introduced and passed by the 1998 Legislature.
PROPOSITION 2
(Property of married women)
Back in 1896, a woman's legal status was different than it is today.
So while Proposition 2 appears to take away property rights for married women, it really doesn't, said Rep. Afton Bradshaw, R-Salt Lake City. It's a cleanup of language written into the Utah Constitution in the 1800s on a subject covered well in contemporary federal law and numerous court cases.
"Women's rights will be absolutely the same," said Bradshaw, who sponsored the companion legislation that passed in the Legislature last session.
On Tuesday, voters will decide whether the state should update the Utah Constitution regarding property rights for married women.
Proposition 2 asks whether the state constitution should be amended to repeal the provision regarding real and personal estate and property of married women. It repeals a section that states property for a married woman acquired before or after marriage remains her separate property and "shall not be liable for the debts, obligations or engagements of her husband."
Utah's Constitution Revision Commission, charged with updating and cleaning up the state's top document, came across the outdated language in a routine survey.
The commission's concern is if the law is interpreted literally, "it means women have more rights than men," Bradshaw said.
"This was written when women had few rights, especially when it came to divorce. This was an assurance that their property was secure." But many protections have been adopted since then.
But is the issue covered somewhere in state law? "I asked the same question myself," Bradshaw said. "And the answer I got is that it is absolutely everywhere."
PROPOSITION 3
(Trust lands)
Proposition 3 hopes to clear up confusion about the use of "trust" lands granted to Utah when it became a state.
The proposition would add to the Utah Constitution language that clarifies the status of these public lands in Utah, said Doug Bates, director of school law and legislation for the State Office of Education.
About two-thirds of the land in Utah is owned by the federal government; about 23 percent is privately owned and the balance, 7 percent, is owned by the state of Utah. These state lands can be divided into three categories: sovereign lands, agency lands and school and institutional trust lands.
The school and institutional trust lands - with 3.7 million acres - are the largest part of the state's public lands.
Constitutional language written after Utah was granted the trust lands through the national enabling act says all of the lands granted by Congress were "accepted and declared to be the public lands of the state, and shall be held in trust for the people, to be disposed of as may be provided by law, for the respective purposes for which they have been or may be granted, donated, devised or otherwise acquired."
That wording has "unfortunate consequences" largely because many people failed to read all the way to the end of the sentence, according to Rep. Kevin Garn, R-Layton, sponsor of the companion legislation.
"As a result of the failure to read the whole sentence, public school and other trust lands were given away and used or sold for much less than fair market value, resulting in losses to the schools of hundreds of millions of dollars," Garn wrote in a position paper supporting Proposition 3.
The intent of this language has been litigated many times, Bates said. "People want to use the lands for purposes ranging from roads and garbage dumps to wilderness without any compensation whatsoever."
The effect of the change will be to remove confusion, avoid future losses through the misuse of trust lands and save taxpayer funds by eliminating lawsuits questioning the status of the trust lands, Garn wrote.
Gov. Mike Leavitt supports the proposition. There is no recorded opposition.
PROPOSITION 4
(voting rights of felons)
Utah State Prison inmate Roy Don Juan Droddy is determined to get out the vote - even if it means campaigning in the prison yard and chow line.
Droddy, who is serving time for credit card fraud, is fighting to keep his right to vote. It's a right he could lose after Nov. 3 when Utah voters decide the fate of Proposition 4, aimed at stripping the voting franchise from felons serving time behind bars.
"Voting has always been something that's important to me. Being in prison, all you hear is the inmates complaining all day along," Droddy said. He tells them, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."
Droddy and other anti-proposition activists believe Utah's 5,200 prison inmates - if they will register and vote - could be a decisive factor in keeping the state one of only four that allows convicted felons to vote. The others are Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont.
But their task is large. Only about 60 inmates cast absentee ballots in the last election, said Department of Corrections spokesman Jack Ford.
Still, inmate advocate groups have placed hundreds of absentee ballot forms in the state's prisons and jails and report a rising interest among felons in retaining one of their few social privileges.
Paula Jones, director of the Utah chapter of Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, said that before the Utah Legislature approved placement of Proposition 4 on the ballot, only about 5 percent of the state's inmates were registered voters.
She believes that figure has since ballooned to about 30 percent.
"It's pretty impressive . . . it's kind of hilarious," Jones said, given past voter apathy among prisoners.
"I'm not sure if we're going to win, but I think just the registration and voter turnout is going to make a large statement. I think they're going to be shocked," Jones said. "I think it's going to be close."
Rep. Carl Saunders, R-Weber, who introduced the measure, won't predict the outcome but said the issue enjoys broad support from the law-abiding majority. He is unaware, apart from inmates and their families, of much opposition.
Nevertheless, there remains a niggling doubt, a concern a felon's vote could make the difference.
"I've known lots of elections decided by one vote," Saunders said. "Wouldn't it be something if an election was decided by someone on murderers' row?"
Saunders' concern is also philosophical. He is against allowing the lawless a voice in a system they, by their actions, have rejected.
For their part, proposition opponents argue the right to vote gives prisoners a meaningful investment in their communities.
"I think there are a lot of inmates that would like to be affiliated with their community and be a part of decisionmaking," said Marianne Johnstone, a member of the Prison Information Network's board of trustees. "If they can fit into their community, then they will more likely to be part of it and not a problem in it."
For Droddy, the voting right for inmates is simply a way to have a say in an environment where everything else is dictated.
"Maybe he (an inmate) loses, but at least he was able to express his views - and that's important here. We aren't allowed to express our views too often," Droddy said.
Though the prison population is a small percentage of the 1,125,010 registered voters in Utah, the inmates and their advocates are undeterred.
"I think there are enough (inmates) registered to vote and enough family members that it's going to make a difference. I'm very curious to see how it ends up. I don't think it will be the grand slam Saunders thought it would be," Jones said.
Droddy believes that between inmates, their families and friends, possibly as many as 42,000 "no" votes against Proposition 4 could be mustered. But will that be enough?
"I hope so. I'm doubtful. We need all the support we get."
C.G. Wallace
Associated Press
PROPOSITION 5
(Wildlife initiatives)
Proposition 5 would change the state constitution so that any future ballot initiative on hunting or fishing laws would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority to become law.
Proponents say voting for Proposition 5 is a way for Utahns to protect the state's current wildlife regulations and practices from tampering by animal-rights groups from outside the state.
Opponents say Proposition 5 is a threat to the democratic process because it gives an unfair advantage to one group by making their individual votes count for more than another person's vote.
Proponents say if Proposition 5 fails, the door would be open for outsiders to use the state's initiative process to limit Utah's hunting and fishing practices. They point to what has happened in states like California, where cougar hunting was banned in 1990.
Opponents fear that if Proposition 5 passes, the door will be open for special-interest groups to similarly "raise the bar" for the passage of ballot initiatives that deal with other issues such as education, taxes and transportation.
Proponents of Proposition 5 have raised more than $600,000 to fund their campaign - about 10 times more than opponents have collected.
Groups supporting Proposition 5 include Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Dixie Wildlife, Moab Sportsmen, the Utah Trappers Association, the Northern Utah Big Game Hound Association, Safari Club International, the National Field Archery Association of the U.S., the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, four members of the Utah Wildlife Board, the Utah Farm Bureau, Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever.
Individuals in favor of Proposition 5 include Utah Jazz forward Karl Malone, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, Utah Senate President Lane Beattie, R-West Bountiful, Utah House Speaker Mel Brown, R-Union, Utah Republican Party Chairman Rob Bishop, former Utah Wildlife Resources director Doug Day, Sportsman's Warehouse president Stuart Utgaard, Utah State University wildlife professor Terry Messmer and BYU wildlife professor Hal Black.
Among the groups opposing Proposition 5 are the Utah chapter of the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters of Utah, Common Cause, United We Stand America, the Humane Society of Utah, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the Predator Education Fund, the Great Salt Lake Audubon Society and the state Constitutional Revision Commission.
Individuals opposed to Proposition 5 include Rep. Merrill Cook, R-Utah, Congressional candidate Lily Eskelsen, Utah House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake City, state Sen. Dave Buhler, R-Salt Lake City, state Sen. Millie Peterson, D-West Valley City, state Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, and former Utah first lady Norma Matheson. A number of non-incumbent candidates for state office also have announced their opposition to Proposition 5.
Proposition 5 is not a citizen initiative seeking to change Utah wildlife laws. It is a measure placed on the ballot by the state Legislature that would make it more difficult for such initiatives to pass.
In the 1990s, voters in a number of other states have been presented with citizen initiatives aimed at changing wildlife laws. Here are how some of those efforts turned out:
Arizona: A 58 percent majority banned the use of leghold, instant-kill and snare traps and poisons on public land in 1994.
California: A 52 percent majority banned cougar hunting in 1990.
Colorado: A 70 percent majority banned the hunting of bears in the spring or with bait and hounds in 1992; a 52 percent majority banned the use of leghold, instant-kill and snare traps in 1996.
Idaho: A 60 percent majority rejected a 1996 initiative to ban the hunting of bears in the spring or with bait and hounds.
Oregon: A 52 percent majority banned the use of bait to hunt bears and the use of hounds to hunt bears and cougars in 1994.
Washington: A 63 percent majority outlawed the use of bait to hunt bears and the use of hounds to hunt bears, cougars and bobcats in 1996.
Zack Van Eyck
Deseret News staff writer
PROPOSITION 6
(Review of Tax Commission cases)
Several years ago, the Utah Supreme Court struck down a new law that basically created a "tax
court" in Utah. The tax court was created by the Legislature as a means to get an "independent" hearing in state court in a tax appeal case.
Previously, state appellate courts could hear an appeal of a state Tax Commission or county board of equalization decision, but like all appeals, no new evidence could be presented, only decisions of law could be decided.
Proponents of Prop. 6 say that leaves the Tax Commission and county commissions - sitting as boards of equalization - being the judge and jury in tax matters: The commissioners set tax rates and guidelines and hear appeals as well.
Prop. 6 changes the constitution, allowing the Legislature to set up a tax court system if it so desires. And it does. A statute has already passed that would set up a six-judge special panel to hear tax appeals from the Tax Commission and boards of equalization.
The proposition is also retroactive. Thirty-one complicated tax appeals that were in the Utah court system were stopped by the Supreme Court's ruling outlawing new court trials for tax cases. Those cases will go forward in state courts if the amendment passes next Tuesday.
Prop. 6 has no apparent opposition. Lt. Gov. Olene Walker's office couldn't find anyone to write an opposing statement for the official voters information pamphlet.
*****
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
6 constitutional amendments
Utah voters Tuesday will accept or reject six proposed changes to the state's constitution:
1. Changes residency requirements for legislative candidates - three consecutive years in Utah and six months in their districts immediately before filing to run for office.
2. Repeals a specialized provision regarding property rights of married women.
3. Clarifies school and institutional trust lands.
4. Restricts incarcerated felons from voting and anyone convicted of a felony from holding public office.
5. Public initiative regarding hunting and fishing must pass by two-thirds vote; other initiatives would continue to require only a majority vote.
6. Allows state district courts to review tax matters.