All but one Utah House Republican voted Wednesday morning to strip from the attorney general and elected county attorneys the final say in civil matters, saying that authority should reside with the governor and county commissions.
It was clear from the outset of the debate on HB139 that most Republicans favored the bill, most Democrats opposed it. Only GOP Rep. Jordan Tanner, R-Provo, voted against the measure. All Democrats present also voted no. The final vote was 49-20; the measure now goes to the Senate.At the heart of the matter, said House Minority Leader Dave Jones, is the public perception that the bill is an attempt by GOP legislative leaders and GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt to get back at Democratic Attorney General Jan Graham.
Jones, D-Salt Lake, said he doesn't personally believe that, but the public does. "This is seen as a partisan jab" at Graham, said Jones.
Bill sponsor Rep. Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, admitted that he has "lost the press war." But he maintained that giving the final responsibility for civil actions to the governor, the county commissions -- the executive branch of government -- is good public policy and should proceed.
He accused Graham and her supporters of making the argument partisan.
He said he watched one TV news report in dismay with his teenage daughter where, Curtis says, Graham said the Republicans' motives may have something to do with her being a woman.
"I was accused of being a sexist," said Curtis, adding nothing could be further from the truth.
Graham, who has said she doesn't plan now to run for attorney general again in 2000, has questioned Curtis' and the Republicans' motivations. She promises to challenge HB139 in court if it passes and is signed into law by Leavitt.
Belatedly, Curtis and GOP leaders tried to take Graham out of the debate by amending the bill in committee to make it take effect Jan. 1, 2001 -- the time a new attorney general takes office after the election.
Jones and Rep. Patrice Arent, D-Cottonwood Heights, both said there could be real constitutional questions on the bill. And those questions could be discussed for a whole year and still have time to get a constitutional amendment before citizens in the 2000 election.
Arent, who has worked in the attorney general's office, said when legislators wanted to give Leavitt his own attorney the action was taken after a year of hearings, a recommendation by the Constitutional Revision Commission, a two-thirds vote by the Legislature and approval by voters.
None of those steps will be taken here, she said.
But Curtis said legislators' staff attorneys have said there are no constitutional questions.
Curtis said lawmakers shouldn't wait, that the firestorm of partisanship will just reoccur next year and no other decisions insights will be made.
What we have here, said Curtis, is the fact that Graham and other attorneys general before her have "usurped" the power of making civil decisions from governors over the years.
Rep. Brad King, D-Price, said he was voting no on the bill because "my constituents voted for this attorney general," generally support her actions and don't want her duties changed by the Legislature. Graham has twice beaten GOP candidates for attorney general.
Jones said the bill, coming on the heals of a GOP-controlled budget committee cutting Graham's budget for 1999-2000 by 3 percent, gives the perception that the Republicans are out to get the only statewide elected Democrat in office.
But Republicans denied there was any connection between the bill and Graham's budget reduction.
In an interview Wednesday, House Speaker Marty Stephens said the Republican lawmakers and Gov. Mike Leavitt had been talking privately "for three or four years" about the issue.