Had he observed the Utah Legislature, the Founding Federalist might have been moved to say that, without the possibility of a veto, some measures would not receive any deliberation at all.
In a Legislature where some members seem to think that research and understanding are for wimps, there is often a need for a firm but polite veto, not as a blow in a battle but in the manner of a teacher sending an assignment back for more work.
Among the measures that Professor Jon Huntsman Jr. should flunk this year are:
l HB100, a bill that would wrongly limit public access to the courts when public construction projects threaten environmental damage.
As part of a long-nursed and misplaced grudge left over from the delay of Legacy Parkway, that bill would require nongovernment groups to post a crippling bond to cover any costs inflated or profit lost due to litigation.
Only after the bill was passed did we learn that just managing that process is likely to cost taxpayers $100,000 a year, and that state and federal agencies are pointing out that the ability of concerned people to sue over environmental rules is a key part of the designed checks and balances.
l SB35, a significant change in the way the state parcels out sales tax revenue to cities, passed in the session's closing hours with no apparent understanding that it would cost some smaller cities millions of dollars.
There are valid criticisms of the way those taxes are distributed now. But to just pull the plug on a revenue stream that cities have come to count on, forcing higher property taxes, reduced services, or both, is irresponsible.
l SB41, a bill that would prevent apologies and explanations offered by doctors from being used against them in malpractice lawsuits.
That might be a good way to make the practice of medicine less adversarial. But the rules of evidence are set by the judicial branch, not the legislative.
And vetoes are issued by the executive, not just when bad bills have been written, but when bills, like these, have been written badly.
