Utah lawmakers are debating and passing bills that might be constitutional, or might not be. It would be hard to tell from the stock "constitutional note" now attached to legislation.

The notations, found at the end of every bill, originally were intended to provide expert advice on how likely a proposed law would be to infringe on rights guaranteed under the Utah or U.S. constitutions. But, these days, people in and out of the Legislature wonder if the notes serve a meaningful purpose.

The reason? A policy adopted before last year's session applies a very broad, stock sentence to virtually every bill. It says: "Based on a limited legal review, this legislation has not been determined to have a high probability of being held unconstitutional."

The term ignores proposed laws that are nearly certain to be challenged on constitutional grounds and those that courts would "possibly" or "likely" throw out. That means lawmakers deciding how to vote on a bill don't have much solid information about how the bill might affect citizens' free speech, free association, access to courts and other basic rights.

Members of the public reading bills face the same dearth of detail about a bill's constitutionality.

This year, all but two of the 700 bills introduced end with the stock sentence.

Meanwhile,a number of bills have been attacked as unconÂstitutional.

So, are lawmakers and their constituents getting enough information about the bills?

Brian Barnard, a Salt Lake City lawyer known for his constitutional lawsuits, doesn't think so. He calls the new notes "weak" and "meaningless."

"If I were a legislator, I would want to know more," he said.

Taking a contrary view is Rep. Dave Ure, R-Kamas. He wanted to get rid of constitutional notes altogether. Lawmakers, he said, would do much more personal research about each bill's constitutionality, and would debate the question more intently, if they did not have a lawyer-written note at the bottom of every bill.

"We're falling back and using this as a crutch," he said. "Those are things [constitutional issues] we should be arguing in this body."

Gay Taylor oversees the team of attorneys that draft the bills - and write the constitutional notes - for lawmakers.

"They are our clients," she said, "and we try to work with them to produce the best product for them and for the state."

She said she saw a need to change the constitutional-note policy after a conversation with someone from the American Civil Liberties Union, who indicated that the organization used the notes as a tip sheet for bills to target.

"That's quite ridiculous," said Dani Eyer, executive director of the ACLU of Utah and the person who had that discussion with Taylor.

"We analyze the bills on our own and make our own conclusions on them," she said. "We've never needed those notes or waited for them for guidance."

It's not clear what sort of fiscal impact the new standard is having on taxpayers, whose contributions to the state treasury are used to defend the constitutionally questionable laws.

Last year's "anti-porn" bill by Rep. John Dougall, R-Highland, is already in court. A group of bookstore owners, Internet sites and the pornography industry filed a lawsuit shortly after the measure passed. This year the Legislature is back - at Dougall's urging - and has already begun to repeal parts of the adult-content registry established in the bill.

Dougall told colleagues recently that last year's legislation was intended to "send a message." But even in its conception - months before he pushed it in the Legislature - he was "willing to go close to the constitutional line" to raise the risk of prosecution for the Playboys and Penthouses of the world, according to attorneys' notes on the bill.

Eyer, leading the plaintiffs, noted the state will be footing the bills of four sets of attorneys, not including its own, if it loses the case.

It is no secret that defending some of these "message bills" can be expensive. In Pennsylvania last year, the taxpayers' tab is expected to run into the millions over a law, since struck down by the courts, mandating the teaching of so-called intelligent design in public schools.

So far this year in Utah just one bill, SB133, on liability protections for charitable care, has been flagged because of constitutional concerns. House members Monday sent the bill to a year's study.

Meanwhile, at least a half-dozen bills have been labeled unconstitutional by their critics. They include Utah's evolution-disclaimer bill and the proposed gay clubs ban, along with a trio of bills by Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, to curb what he calls "frivolous lawsuits" by environmentalists.

fahys@sltrib.com