Code-Co's Internet Access to Utah Law: http://www.code-co.com
As of Monday, March 24, 2003, Governor Leavitt had completed his action on all bills passed at the 2003 General Session. Governor Leavitt vetoed 4 bills, vetoed one item in one appropriation bill, wrote a letter of explanation on one bill he signed, and signed into law all other bills passed this year.
Below are the letters Governor Leavitt wrote to explain his actions as published by the Governor's Office.
March 24, 2003
The
Honorable L. Alma Mansell
President of the Senate
and
The Honorable Martin R. Stephens
Speaker of the House
Dear President Mansell and Speaker Stephens:
This is to inform you that on March 24, 2003, I decided, after careful consideration and study, to veto H.B. 105, INTERNET PRIVACY AND SECURITY AMENDMENTS, and have transmitted it to the Lieutenant Governor for filing.
We live in an age of rapid technological change. The Internet has changed and will continue to change our society dramatically. One of the important goals of my administration is to use this powerful tool to provide government services online. E-government transactions cost less, are more convenient, take less time to process, and do not require travel to a government office. They are also available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
With all of these advantages, however, there is potential for misuse. The privacy and security of Internet transactions is important to the success of e-government. The same can be said of private Internet transactions. House Bill 105 attempts to address this important topic. I share the sponsor's desire to protect the security and privacy of these transactions.
In its original form, the bill mandated a number of restrictions on Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") as well as on state government. In the course of debate, the Legislature ultimately opted to drop the restrictions on ISPs and engage in further study. I am vetoing this bill because the restrictions it imposes on state government also deserve further study. In their current form, I believe these restrictions are somewhat impractical and will increase the costs and burdens of e-government unnecessarily.
I have a high
degree of confidence in the present security of our state system
and the privacy of the transactions we now process. I pledge to
engage in further study of this topic and to seek continuous improvements
in the privacy and security of e-government.
March 24, 2003
The
Honorable L. Alma Mansell
President of the Senate
and
The Honorable Martin R. Stephens
Speaker of the House
Dear President Mansell and Speaker Stephens:
This is to inform you that on March 24, 2003, after careful study and consideration, I decided to veto S.B. 165, GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE AMENDMENTS, and have transmitted it to the Lieutenant Governor for filing.
Senate Bill 165 requires the governor, when making a judicial appointment, to "immediately provide" to the Senate a variety of information, most of which is acceptable to me and which I already supply. One aspect of the bill, however, is unacceptable. It is a provision that requires me to forward "the name, address, and telephone number of each person who gave information to the governor or his staff about the judicial appointee," whether the information was solicited or not.
I consider this requirement to be akin to an impediment on free speech, both mine and of those who comment on judicial candidates.
I am certain legislators would react negatively if I adopted a rule that before I sign a bill they must forward to me a complete list, including names, addresses and telephone numbers, of all lobbyists and constituents who have expressed an opinion on the bill.
The objective
of reviewing candidates for judicial office is to get the best information
possible. This proposed change in the law will have a chilling effect
on my ability to do that. Those who comment to me or my staff have
an expectation of confidentiality. Some comments come from sitting
judges who may have to work with the person about whom they are
commenting. Others are members of the bar who could well have to
appear before that person in court. Many others who comment are
members of the Legislature. The very act of commenting about a judicial
candidate provides a premise for later prejudice. While I am confident
the Senate would intend to keep my list of contacts confidential,
I believe they are as equipped as I to receive or solicit comments.
They have 60 days within which to review my choice of a single appointee.
I have only 30 days within which to review the five to seven nominees
forwarded to me by the judicial nominating commission.
I feel a heavy responsibility to make selections for judicial office
after most careful consideration. It is in my interest to be as
helpful as possible during the Senate's confirmation process as
well. I thought the recent Supreme Court confirmation process went
very well, considering it was a new - and consequently somewhat
tense - experience for all concerned. I congratulate the Senate
for its good work. The public benefitted from the Senate's careful
review. I invite the Legislature to respect my selection process,
as I respect their confirmation process, and work cooperatively
toward the best choices possible. In the spirit of cooperation,
I am willing to comply voluntarily with the other provisions of
S.B. 165 and would consider the bill's reenactment without the requirement
for names, addresses and phone numbers. However, I do not think
any of the three branches of government benefits from that proposed
additional constraint on candor and discretion.
March 24, 2003
The Honorable L. Alma Mansell
President of the Senate
and
The Honorable Martin R. Stephens
Speaker of the House
Dear President Mansell and Speaker Stephens:
This is to inform you that on March 24, 2003, I decided, after careful consideration and study, to veto H.B. 168, FILLING MIDTERM VACANCIES IN THE LEGISLATURE, and have transmitted it to the Lieutenant Governor for filing.
House Bill 168 started out as a technical clean up. An amendment changed the bill's character to remove from the governor the right to fill midterm vacancies in the Legislature and confer that right instead on the speaker of the House and president of the Senate for vacancies in the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively.
The founders of our nation rightly recognized the potential for one branch to seek to increase its authority at the expense of another. Human nature being what it is, the founders provided us with checks and balances. The success of our democracy depends on continuous, unbending allegiance to separation of powers and checks and balances. Because H.B. 168 takes a step - even a relatively small step - in the wrong direction, I feel compelled to veto.
I do not want to overstate possible negative motives legislators may have had in passing this bill. I have come to recognize that my ability to appoint new legislators is largely ceremonial. The governor appoints new legislators selected by the party leaders and delegates who selected the prior holder of the seat for candidacy.
However, the governor's appointment authority has importance in one significant way: The governor is a neutral party with respect to the internal governance of the legislative chambers. Put more directly, the gubernatorial appointment of a new legislator is unlikely to influence internal leadership politics. The net effect of this bill is, in contrast, to strengthen the political base of the sitting chairs of the House and Senate. The governor's ability to appoint new legislators to vacant seats is clearly a check on the power of the chair.
A lesson can be drawn from the appointment of judges. Our system of checks and balances provides that the executive selects a judge, subject to Senate approval; not one but both of the other branches thus provide a check on the judiciary. If sitting judges appointed new judges, they would be able to perpetuate their own, perhaps erroneous, viewpoints and build allegiances to one another that would make politics, not the law, the supreme consideration in court.
For similar reasons, sitting legislative leaders should not be able perpetuate their own leadership base by appointing new legislators. I feel it is my duty to exercise my check on the legislative branch by vetoing this bill.
March 24, 2003
The Honorable L. Alma Mansell
President of the Senate
and
The Honorable Martin R. Stephens
Speaker of the House
Dear President Mansell and Speaker Stephens:
This is to inform you that on March 24, 2003, I decided to veto S.B. 251, FIREARMS REVISIONS, at the request of the bill's sponsor and have transmitted it to the Lieutenant Governor for filing.
Under current law, it is a criminal offense to shoot a gun from a vehicle; shoot at road signs; shoot railroad equipment; shoot power poles or utility property; shoot in or around state-owned campsites, picnic sites, beaches, and golf courses; or shoot within 600 feet of private dwellings, barns and other buildings without permission of the owner.
Senate Bill 251, as intended by the sponsor, added that it would also be unlawful to discharge a weapon in the direction of occupied vehicles and dwellings.
In the course
of debate, the bill was amended to require that for all these offenses
a prosecutor must prove that the offender acted "knowingly
and intentionally." In lay terms, "knowing and intentional"
may seem only to mean "on purpose." In criminal law, however,
these additional words increase the standard of proof considerably.
To get a conviction for any of the above acts, a prosecutor would
need to prove the state of mind of the offender with objective evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt. In effect, the bill as passed decreases
the enforceability of the current law substantially. I agree with
the bill's sponsor that this bill should not become law.
March 24, 2003
The Honorable L. Alma Mansell
President of the Senate
and
The Honorable Martin R. Stephens
Speaker of the House
Dear President Mansell and Speaker Stephens:
This is to inform you that on March 24, 2003, I vetoed the following line item of appropriation in S.B. 3, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT II, and have transmitted the bill to the Lieutenant Governor for filing.
Item 65 To Department of Human Services - Division of Substance
Abuse and Mental Health. From General Fund $8,200. To implement
the provisions of House Bill 109, 2003 General Session.
This item is unnecessary, as HB109 did not pass.
March 24,
2003
The Honorable L. Alma Mansell
President of the Senate
and
The Honorable Martin R. Stephens
Speaker of the House
Dear President Mansell and Speaker Stephens:
This is to inform you that on March 24, 2003, I signed S.B. 66, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT, and transmitted it to the lieutenant governor for filing. As I reviewed the bill, I discovered a funding issue that needs correction.
Funding to implement the bill includes $3,255,666 in Fiscal Year 2004 for local law enforcement. The Legislature put funds into the newly created Alcoholic Beverage Enforcement and Treatment Restricted Account for that purpose, but it failed to make the required appropriation to local law enforcement. This oversight ought to be corrected, and I intend to place this issue on the call of a special session.
Click here to go back to the top of this bill.
