Chief Deputy Treasurer Richard Ellis and Mark Walker, a two-term state representative, are running for the office. Ellis has accused Walker of illegally offering him a job and a hefty pay raise if he would drop out of the race, which Walker has denied.

Ellis had argued that with the June 24 primary election nearing, he and voters deserve to know as soon as possible whether Herbert would refer the case to the Attorney General's Office.

But Herbert, who must gather information and decide if an investigation is warranted, said he will not decide whether to go to the attorney general until after the primary. He contends that any such action would unduly influence the election, which will determine which candidate will run in the November general election.

The high court released its single-paragraph ruling about an hour after Friday's expedited hearing that while Herbert "has no discretion to refuse" to make his decision in a reasonable time, he does have "broad discretion over the methodology used in the process and the factors considered therein.

"Herbert likewise has considerable discretion over the timing of his decision, subject to the reasonableness requirement," the justices wrote.

Walker, who had accused Ellis of playing politics, said Republicans should be above "intraparty bickering" and was pleased with the ruling.

"Now the voters of the state can move past the negative campaign attacks and focus on the issues," he said in a statement. "It is my sincere hope that my opponent will now resume a clear dialogue with the voters based in fact and on the issues."

But Ellis said after the hearing that his "whole purpose wasn't politically motivated. It's an integrity issue over whether this warrants further investigation. In my mind, it's a violation of election code, whether I become the next state treasurer or not."

During the hearing, Thom Roberts, the assistant attorney general representing Herbert, argued that Herbert has the authority to decide when to release such information.

"People will have a little tiny piece of information and they'll draw a large conclusion," Roberts argued.

The justices repeatedly questioned where the authority to delay for such a reason is written into law.

They also said they make decisions without regard to which people making the case will be hurt. And Justice Michael Wilkins argued for letting the electorate make its own decisions.

"You have to give the voters the opportunity not to be stupid," he said.

Despite the scrutiny, Roberts was pleased with the ruling.

"The lieutenant governor is gratified that the court recognized that he has discretion in regard to the carrying out of his duties, which he takes very seriously," Roberts said.

Ellis said he is not finished pursuing the matter, and will sit down with his lawyers early next week to determine what the next step will be.

smcfarland@sltrib.com