Buttars, best-known as the sponsor of a failed bill questioning classroom instruction of evolution, apparently has decided to take on the U.S. Constitution and Utah Constitution simultaneously.

The conservative West Jordan Republican has asked state attorneys to draft a bill defining the separation of church and state outlined by America's and the state's founding documents. At the same time, he is proposing legislation to require state judges to face legislators in a second confirmation hearing after their first term in office. Critics say such a law would undermine the sacrosanct division between the branches of government.

Buttars, who admittedly loves the attention his legislation draws, invokes proverbial "activist judges" as the bogeymen justifying both bills. He says the separation of church and state outlined in the Constitution and interpreted by jurists "is built on a house of cards and judicial activism."

"It's gotten ridiculous. We have Christmas wars and White Cross wars," said the chairman of the Judicial Confirmation Committee, referring to battles between atheists and the state. "The state has become hostile to religion."

Few details about the bill are available; Buttars is keeping it secret while attorneys work on the language.

Buttars' other bill to change judicial retention rules is much more public. Buttars believes the vast majority of Utah judges - "about 98 percent," he says - are doing their jobs just fine. It's the others, the ones who have overstepped their bounds, he wants to hold accountable. He has a growing list of a dozen cases where he says judges have ignored or redefined state law - including a divorce battle over insurance.

"Judges should not be out there making law. They should be honoring the law," Buttars said.

He suggests lawmakers should be able to call in for another confirmation hearing those judges whose decisions have gone too far. Short of removing the judge, legislators could just use such a hearing to educate citizens who vote in the judge's retention election.

Buttars acknowledges he has not reviewed whether such a law would be constitutional. Legal scholars and judges alike say Buttars is creating a problem where none exists. They say Buttars' legislation would upset the time-honored, delicately-balanced separation between the branches of government. The U.S. and Utah Constitutions already provide frustrated lawmakers a simple remedy for errant judges - they can simply change a law if they do not like a judge's interpretation. Disgruntled voters can dump a judge they don't like.

In addition to those checks and balances, Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham notes that judges are reviewed in regular performance evaluations that are published in voter information pamphlets. And the Judicial Conduct Commission reviews all complaints against individual judges. She says Buttars' legislation threatens to inject politics into the judicial process - a splintering of the branches of government that America's founders wanted to avoid. "I have concerns about any proposal that would interfere with the ability of judges to make decisions in individual cases that are based entirely on the facts of the case and are not influenced in any way by outside sources," Durham said.

Former University of Utah Law School professor John Flynn, who specialized in the Utah Constitution, agrees. He says Buttars' legislation would be constitutionally "suspect." Beyond that, "it's asinine and absurd."

"Judges are supposed to be removed from political pressures and the political process. Judges have no powers other than deciding cases and writing decisions," he said.

Some lawmakers, including Buttars, are particularly outraged by a custody dispute between two women still pending before the Supreme Court. Last year a lower court judge awarded visitation to the estranged former partner, who is not the child's biological parent. This year, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. vetoed a bill to nullify custody agreements between unmarried adults after concerns were raised about step-parent and grandparent rights.

Durham said she hopes Buttars' legislation is not aimed at a particular ruling in that case. "That's a very specific indication of the way in which the system should not work. One branch of government should not be able to intimidate the judicial branch with regards to any specific cases," she said.

At least one member of the Judicial Confirmation Committee is not convinced Buttars' proposed change is necessary. Logan Republican Sen. Lyle Hillyard, an attorney, says the judicial confirmation and retention system is "working well enough."

"I don't think the Legislature - with our political agendas - should be choosing judges," Hillyard added.

---

Tribune reporter Glen Warchol contributed to this report.