Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters say judge overturned ‘‘Utah Fits All’’ despite two-thirds legislative vote
Summary
During public comment at a meeting, two speakers argued that a judge improperly nullified a law they called "Utah Fits All," asserting the bill had passed both chambers with two-thirds majorities and criticizing judicial intervention in the legislative process.
At a public meeting, two commenters argued that a judge had effectively overturned a law they identified as "Utah Fits All," which they said passed with two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers.
The speakers framed their remarks as a separation-of-powers concern. One said the legislative process—where, the commenter argued, issues are worked out between the two chambers—should not be undone by a single judge. "Or the house and the Senate because that they issues with the bills usually get weeded out in the legislature between the 2 bodies. And that's why you have the 2 separate bodies. It was not up to a single judge to decide whether these 400 people did their job or not, or 4 35 in the house and another a hundred in the Senate. So you got 5 35 people there and you got 1 judge that can rule against that," the commenter said.
A second commenter pressed the same point about the judiciary's role, saying judges should interpret and enforce laws rather than reopen legislative debates: "And if it passes, your job as a judge is just to interpret and and help enforce it. Your job is not to rehash everything that just went through the legislative process and just decide, well, I I don't agree with any of them, so we're we're not gonna enforce that 1."
A third speaker summarized the argument and named the measure. "Well and remember, each legislator represents a constituency, and the legislature as a whole represents the entire state. And Utah Fits All, the original bill that created Utah Fits All passed with the 2 thirds majority in both House and Senate. That is a veto proof referendum proof majority. And and a judge just vetoed the law and will of the people," the commenter said.
There were no formal votes or board actions recorded on this topic during the meeting; the transcript captures these remarks as part of public comment. The statements in this article are attribution to the meeting speakers and reflect the claims they made; the meeting record does not include a court opinion or other documents confirming the commenters' characterization of judicial or legislative actions.
The discussion raises a separation-of-powers complaint from members of the public who believe a court ruling invalidated legislation they said had broad legislative support. The meeting record does not show follow-up directions to staff or a formal response from a legislative or judicial official on the subject.
