Two New Developments in the UEG Citizens Inititiative Ethics Reform Matter

As far as we're concerned, the importance of the signator privacy issue pales in comparison to the electronic signature validity issue

To kick off the morning discussion, we'll highlight a couple of new developments in the Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) citizens initiative ethics reform matter:

1) Yesterday, June 24, 2010, UEG lawyers transmitted a "demand letter" to Lt. Governor Bell's office, requesting clarification of the Lt. Governor's position with regard to UEG electronic signatures in the wake of Tuesday's favorable Utah Supreme Court decision, wherein the court ruled that electronic signatures are valid in the case of candidate petitions. Essentially the UEG has drawn a line in the sand, providing four days to either confirm acquiescence to the ruling in the Anderson matter, or in the alternative to get ready to go back to court. Yesterday's UEG press release fleshes out the details of this UEG tactic:

• UEG 6/24/10 Press Release

Read the UEG demand letter here:

• Copy of UEG Letter Sent To Lt. Govenor Bell

It thus appears that one way or another, we'll have a resolution of the electronic signature validity issue fairly quickly.

2) The Standard-Examiner reports this morning that the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 opinion yesterday holding in a State of Washington case that that people who sign citizens initiative petitions don't have an automatic right to keep their signatures confidential:

• Names on ethics initiative petition might be revealed

As our readers will recall, on 4/15/10, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups granted the UEG's request for a temporary restraining order to keep petition signers' names secret, and he's kept the UEG case under advisement, pending a decision in the above U.S. Supreme Court case. Insmuch as the U.S. High Court has now ruled that citizens initiative petition signators do not enjoy blanket privacy, and since SCOTUS has now sent the case back to the lower Washington trial court for a determination of whether State of Washington signators are otherwise entitled to privacy under any special facts in the Washington case, it's likely that Judge Waddoups will follow the same course, and issue his own findings on the issue of whether Utah petition signators deserve special privacy protection on the basis of threats or harrassment from opponents of the UEG petition in Utah.

Whether the latter development presents a genuine setback or merely a minor annoyance with respect to the UEG case we don't know, but as far as we're concerned, the importance of the signator privacy issue pales in comparison to the electronic signature validity issue. And as to that issue, keep your eyes on Weber County Forum, folks. When it becomes clear which course of action the Lieutenant Governor's office has adopted, you can be sure that our gentle and ethics reform-minded WCF readers will be the first to know.

Who will be the first to comment? Who wants to predict whether the Lt. Governor will amiably "roll over," or whether UEG lawyers will wind up dragging a kicking and screaming Lt. Governor Bell back into court?