The ACLU of Utah always has a presence at the Capitol during the legislative session, and this year was no exception!

During the 2008 session the ACLU of Utah:

• Responded to requests by lawmakers and the media for information as to the constitutionality of bills on more than 20 occasions.
• Attended at least 20 committee hearings.
• Testified against or in support of four bills (and were prepared to testify on at least six other occasions, had time in committee meetings allowed).
• Distributed at least nine letters and/or fact sheets to members of the Utah Legislature regarding the constitutionality of proposed legislation.
• Participated in ongoing meetings with and mobilized coalition groups to influence potential legislation in the following areas: immigration, LGBT rights, reproductive freedoms and voting rights.
• Organized a legislative break in the Senate and the House, providing an opportunity for members of the legislature to hear directly from staff and board members about our legislative priorities for the 2008 session.
• Hosted an information session at the Capitol for members/supporters regarding the bills the ACLU was tracking.

For more information on specific bills or issues, please follow the links below.

Voting Rights
Reproductive Freedoms
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgendered Rights
Immigration
Law Enforcement / Fourth Amendment
Open Government
Real ID
First Amendment

Voting Rights

We worked with Ogden Representative Neil Hansen to sponsor two bills addressing election reform: HB 175, “Election Law Reforms,” and HB 317, “Election Day Registration.” HB 175 sought to amend the process by which voter eligibility is challenged, to prevent the abuse of challenges for improper purposes and intentional voter disenfranchisement.

Unfortunately the bill died in the rules committee, but we (and county clerks across the Wasatch front) feel that this is sound legislation and intend to pursue its passage in the upcoming interim and 2009 legislative sessions. HB317 would have implemented Election Day Registration (EDR) to allow voters to register and cast a ballot on election day. States that have enacted EDR have experienced increased voter turnout and a decrease in voter disenfranchisement due to voter challenges.

In advance of the legislative session, the ACLU of Utah organized a forum to debate the merits of EDR. The forum was attended by county clerks from the Wasatch front and from Idaho, election officials (including representatives from the Lieutenant Governor’s office), coalition partners (including The League of Women Voters and Demos), and lawmakers. While the bill died in the rules committee, we hope to use the year ahead to educate lawmakers on the advantages of EDR for all Utahns.

We worked diligently to persuade the Utah Senate to reject SB 210, “Proof of Citizenship Required to Vote,” which would have created barriers to voter participation by those who are lawfully entitled to vote in this state. The ACLU of Utah testified against the bill in committee hearing, arguing that there is no evidence of voting by illegal immigrants and that the new restrictions would impact only lawful citizens who do not have citizenship documents, such as the elderly, disabled and minorities. We distributed a letter to the Senate floor, issued a press release that generated news coverage, and worked behind the scenes with lawmakers and coalition partners. As a result, the bill died in the Senate.

Reproductive Freedoms

Luckily for Utahns, bills limiting reproductive rights and health freedoms were off the radar early this session. However, we actively tracked the following bills:

HB 236 “Abortion Ban;” the sponsor withdrew this bill.

A bill was introduced that attempted to do away with the judicial bypass process by which a pregnant minor can obtain an abortion without the consent of her parents. The sponsor withdrew this bill.

HB 316 “Involuntary Substance Abuse Treatment for Pregnant Minors” initially allowed for mandatory substance abuse treatment for pregnant women. The ACLU of Utah participated in discussions with coalition partners and members of the health community, in which we expressed our concern about the constitutionality of this bill, particularly with regard to its implications in the areas of equal protection and reproductive freedom. The bill was ultimately modified by the sponsor and passed as a bill that we wholeheartedly support: giving preferential substance abuse treatment to requesting pregnant minors.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Rights

The ACLU of Utah worked to support HB 89, “Anti-Discrimination Act Amendments.” This piece of legislation developed by coalition partner, Equality Utah, sought to provide workplace protection from discrimination for members of the LGBT community. We distributed a letter to members of the House of Representatives urging legislators to consider “the real and important need for state legislation providing protection from workplace discrimination for lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender individuals." The bill was assigned to interim committee study, giving lawmakers an opportunity to understand the degree to which these protections are needed for employees in Utah.

SB 299, “Revision to Local Government,” sought to limit the ability of municipalities to create domestic partnership registries. We participated in meetings with members of Salt Lake City Mayor Becker’s staff, the city attorney and coalition partners to devise a strategy to halt the bill. The bill ultimately passed both houses of the legislature, but was modified on the Senate floor such that it’s only real impact is that the registry may not be called a “domestic partnership” registry.

HB 318, “Utah Adoption Amendments” attempted to remove the restriction prohibiting cohabiting individuals from adopting or providing a foster home to a child in need. We actively followed the progress of this bill, and hosted a film screening on the topic, entitled “The Freedom Files: The Freedom to Parent.” Unfortunately the bill died in the rules committee. We remain dedicated to preserving the rights of members of the LGBT community to have a family, as well as promoting the best interests of children to be in a safe and loving home. Our efforts to undue this harmful restriction will continue in the future.

Immigration

Immigration legislation, with its equal protection and due process implications, quickly became a focal point for our work at the Capitol. The ACLU participated in weekly meetings with a group of business, church and community organizations, which worked actively against many of the immigration bills.

We aggressively opposed HB 237 "Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act", as well as HB 98 and HB 257 (both of which required use by public and private employers of the federal employment verification program to verify the legal status of workers). We distributed a letter to the House in opposition to HB 237, and developed a fact sheet in response to HB 257, which was shared with legislators and immigration coalition partners. Additionally, we testified against HB 257 in both the House and Senate committee hearings. These efforts were not made in vain, as all three bills failed to pass.

We ardently opposed SB 81, "Illegal Immigration" and instead called for support of SB 97, "Immigration Task Force," charged with studying the immigration issue in Utah. We sent a letter to the Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Standing Committee outlining the many negative civil liberties implications of SB 81 and mobilized our supporters with a call to action to stop the bill in its tracks. Even when some groups acquiesced to a modified version of the bill, we maintained that SB 81 is bad policy and is preempted by federal law. To this end, we sent additional letters to the full Senate floor and to members of the House. Despite our best efforts the bill passed both houses, although with a delayed implementation date of July 2009. Unfortunately, in the final minutes of the session, SB 97, which would have created an immigration task force in Utah, was unable to pass.

Law Enforcement / Fourth Amendment

We were proactive in drawing legislators' attention to the constitutional flaws of HB 156 "DNA Sample - Felony and Certain Misdemeanor Arrests," which would have required law enforcement to take DNA from people simply arrested, rather than actually convicted, of any crime. We provided fact sheets highlighting the constitutional problems with the bill to members of the House. As a result, the bill was modified in the committee hearing to limit DNA collection to those convicted of certain Class B misdemeanors (current law already allows DNA collection from individuals convicted of felonies and certain Class A misdemeanors). Lawmakers were ultimately concerned with the risks involved in collecting DNA from additional classes of convicted criminals, and thus, did not pass the bill.

Open Government

We brought attention to the problems inherent in SB 260 "Disclosure of Public Employee Disciplinary Actions Amendments," which would amend the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act to keep all law enforcement disciplinary files secret. We pressed our concerns with the Salt Lake Police Department and Mayor's Office, which resulted in a substitute bill that would keep information private until after internal investigations are complete and disciplinary actions taken. This bill died in committee, thus preserving the right of the public to have access to police misconduct records.

REAL ID

We worked actively with Representative Donnelson to introduce HB 449, "Implementation of Federal REAL ID Act" which would prohibit Utah from participating in the national program. We testified before the Utah House Government Operations Committee in support of the bill; consequently, the bill passed to the House floor, where it regrettably died. We will continue our efforts to halt the implementation of REAL ID in the coming year.

First Amendment

SB 75, “Prohibiting Gang Activity,” purported to lawfully target members of gangs involved in criminal activity. We were concerned about the constitutional implications of the bill as drafted and determined that the bill was vulnerable to constitutional challenge on the basis of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association, as well as concerns of vagueness and over breadth. We provided this information to members of the Senate. Although the bill passed the Senate, it died on the House floor.

March 28, 2008

Return to top of page