This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Richard Ellis and Rep. Mark Walker are set to face each other for the Republican nomination for state treasurer in the June 24 primary election. But two legal objections to Walker's candidacy have been raised, one of them by Ellis.

Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert is the election officer in charge of looking into whether a special investigation is necessary, and he has declined to act prior to the primary. That's a disservice to the candidates and the electorate.

Ellis, the current chief deputy treasurer, claims that Walker offered him a quid pro quo in March. "He said if I drop out of the race, he'd offer me a job," Ellis told The Tribune. If true, such an offer would be a violation of Utah law. Walker denies the charge. "We had discussions [about the campaign] but nothing was ever offered," he said.

The second issue with Walker's candidacy is less a question of evidence, however. The Utah Constitution prohibits a legislator from being elected to a state office for which the Legislature has voted to raise the pay during the term in which the legislator served. That clearly seems to apply to Walker, because a bill passed in 2007 raised the treasurer's pay substantially, although a court might have to rule on the issue.

Ellis filed his complaint May 29. State law requires the lieutenant governor to "gather information and determine if a special investigation is necessary." If the lieutenant governor so determines, he is supposed to refer the information to the attorney general, who then appoints a special counsel to decide whether there has been a violation. If there is enough evidence to establish probable cause, the attorney general then appoints a special counsel to pursue the matter in court.

Herbert says he has gathered information about the job-offer charge, but he has delayed making a decision to refer the matter to the attorney general until after the primary. Herbert issued a statement, saying, in part, "I am concerned that any action on my part at this time could influence participation in or the outcome of the June 24 primary election."

That may be so. But Herbert should not let that influence the timing of his passing information to the attorney general. Voters know what they know. Justice delayed is justice denied.

If Walker wins the primary despite the controversies, any delays of the investigation by Herbert simply leave his candidacy under a cloud longer. If he loses, the issue of his being a legal candidate becomes moot.

Herbert should do his duty and let the chips fall.