State v. Hutchinson

Utah, Plaintiff The STATE Appellant, HUTCHINSON, Defendant

William L. Respondent.

No. 16087.

Supreme of Utah.

Dec.

H17 Hansen, L. Phil Hansen of Hansen & Salt City, respondent. for defendant and Lake STEWART, Justice: Defendant, for office a candidate Commissioner, County Lake Salt was having charged with violated Re- County, vised Ordinances of Salt Lake requires filing campaign state- of campaign ments and the disclosure con- provides: That tributions. section Campaign Statements. his Every candidate election secretary shall file

designated committee furnished with the clerk on forms clerk, full, and itemized correct things all statements of monies and expended value received and monetary candidacy ac- the furtherance of said set forth in cordance with schedule this section.

[*] ^{[*] [*] [*] [*] [*]} 5. All shall be dated and statements commit- signed by the candidate secretary. tee provisions is a comply Failure to those misdemeanor. in two complaint charged

A defendant the name and report (1) counts: failure $6,000 his elec- contributor to address of a supple- to file (2) failure campaign, tion the dis- disclosures of campaign mental obligations. charge campaign debts court filed a motion Defendant ground that complaint on the to dismiss the of the Utah was in violation the ordinance the mo- The court Constitution. County Lake was tion and held Salt authori- statutory without constitutional which de- ordinance under to enact the ty charged and dismissed fendant was complaint. court appeal taken to district

An was court That which affirmed dismissal. observing decision a memorandum wrote “... true that our completely been not Supreme Court issue, Gen., Hansen, on this Robert B. R. Paul case Atty. consistent [but] Supreme Dam, Atty., majority Court] Van former [Utah grants City, plaintiff appellant. Salt Lake cases have indicated preserve health, for the strictly or counties are to be to cities implied strued to the exclusion of promote prosperity, improve the mor- carrying out reasonably necessary als, order, peace good comfort powers grant- of the expressed convenience of the and the inhab- that, ed.” The court noted on the other thereof, may and obe- itants ... enforce hand, Kusse, Lake Salt by dience to such ordinances ... fine (1938), 93 P.2d 671 and Lake Salt by imprison- sum less than $300 Allred, (1968), 2d months, by ment not to exceed six both “suggest county fairly that a imprisonment such fine and .... [Em- power to enact ordinances ... under phasis added.] general welfare clause of 17-5-77 § [Utah grant of Legislature The similar has made a Nevertheless, Code court Annotated.]” power to the cities.2 held express authority that there is no The in this case is whether specific issue state statutes authorizing the enactment of 17-5-77 Lake by provides itself § 1-10-4 and nothing there was § County legal to enact the ordi- authority could “implied any express power be from contribu- campaign nance for disclosure of that would justify the enactment of these tions, specific or whether there must abe ordinances.” Accordingly, the court held authority for counties to enact unconstitutional, the ordinance dealing with disclosures of cam- measures appeals.1 the ordinance in paign financing to sustain Defendant contends that because the pow- question. Defendant claims that Legislature has not authorized specifically municipalities strictly ers of con- must counties to requiring enact ordinances dis- County strued and that because Salt campaign closure of contributions in specific, delegated authority did not have to elections, Salt Lake had no to issue, enact the ordinance in the ordinance enact question. the ordinance in Alterna- is invalid. tively, defendant contends that the ordi- The requiring rule strict construction nance is invalid because state statutes have powers delegated by Legislature preempted regulation. the field of rule which municipalities counties and is a Concededly, the district court was correct archaic, unrealistic, unresponsive in holding Legislature has not ex- the current needs of both state and local pressly authorized enactment of an ordi- governments effectively nullifies the requiring campaign nance disclosure of con- legislative grant general police power However, tributions in county elections. Furthermore, although counties. upon has conferred cities rule supported by of strict construction is and counties the all enact nec- State, some cases in this it is inconsistent essary promote measures to other cases decided this Court —a health, morals, and welfare their permits choosing situation that between (1953), citizens. Section U.C.A. flicting precedents support particular amended, provides: result. The board commissioners pass all repugnant Rule, ordinances ... not strict con- requires Dillon’s law ... necessary proper to provide struction delegated powers jurisdiction appeal pur- chapter, necessary This prop- Court has of this and such as are VIII, suant to Article provide 9 of the Utah safety preserve Constitu- er to for the tion. health, promote prosperity, improve morals, order, peace good comfort provides: 2. Section 10-8-84 city and convenience of the ants and the inhabit- They may pass rules, all ordinances and thereof, protection proper- and for the regulations, law, repugnant make all ty therein .... necessary carrying discharg- into effect or ing all and duties conferred

IQ11 away 1868.3 was soon swept Rule. was first enunciated Dillon governments, during peri- widely adopted rule was rule in an was formulated era when municipal govern- mistrust of great od of were legislatures jealous farm-dominated only and has been viewed as ments4 “the of their and when scandals gov- by which extensive possible alternative were notorious. has been authori- be conferred powers may ernmental it, critical for liter- ty, analysis without limit with a measurable municipalities, our ally subsequent hundreds of cases. upon their abuse.”5 arose, doc- As it the strict construction courts, the Dillon Rule to applying corporations applied trine clauses, viewed have not local govern- but it has been extended to pow source of independent the latter as an ment and must be faced generally enu er, by specific, but rather as limited liberalizing powers. local approach to any See, g., authority. e. grants merated rule sends Robinson, 77 Utah City American Fork seeking of additional legislatures grants 168, 292 P. 249 to doubt powers; it causes local officials Sutter, 533, 216 P. 234 it power, stops govern- their and however, opinion More reasoned recently, fully. programs developing mental from the rule has regarding validity stimulated The strict construction rule has noted the changed. One largely responsi- is home rule efforts and rule of con harmful effects that the strict rule. Because ble for the erosion home exer had the effective struction has be ex- authority: rule should municipal importance cise of of its appropriate time. critically from time to amined or lib- Any vestige of inherent delegated powers erality construing in omitted.]6 [Footnotes Dillon, Executors, Municipal Corporations Moody’s F. 238 25 Iowa 4. J. 3.In Merriam v. (5th 1911). quoted (1868), Judge ed. The author the follow- Dillon stated: Lowell, ing language Spaulding v. Pick. from law, taken a must be for settled that [I]t Mass.) 71, (40 75: municipal corporation possesses and can ex- rule, corporations, aggregate a following powers “In as ercise the First, and no others: words; majority a is in granted express the act will of deemed and those in second, necessarily law the and will of the whole ... as the implied act those neces- corporate body. consequence The sarily act of the powers expressly grant- to the incident bound, is, minority only ed; third, that a must be not absolutely those essential without, against consent. Such ob- but their objects corpora- purposes declared duty, ligation may onerous convenient, extend simply indispens- but tion —not amount, per- pay money an unlimited able; fourth, any fair doubt as to the exist- lands, services, form to surrender ence of a against is resolved courts obvious, therefore, that if this like. corporation against the exist- — liability in- unlimited and were to extend to power. ence of the citizen, by being objects, definite a mem- widely applied mu- Dillon’s Rule been deprived corporation, might his ber of nicipal corporations, including Even counties. personal rights and most liberties. valuable though municipal corporation is not a danger against security in a this sense, Corpo- McQuillin, Municipal in its strict stated, steady principle that adherence to the (3rd 1971), rations ed. it is 2.46 2.46a §§ corporations only their can exercise quasi-municipal corpo- often as characterized members, respective over their complishment for the ac- ration and as such within the broad defini- falls ob- of limited well defined corporations, municipal tion of id. 2.07- §§ at jects. [Emphasis added.] have 2.07b. Counties in this State been char- corporations by quasi-municipal acterized as Tooke, Operation of Munic- 5. Construction and County, Shaw v. Salt Lake Powers, Temple ipal 273-74 L.Q. (1950); they therefore municipal scope fall within the cor- Intergovernmental Advisory on Commission porations Dillon For Rule. Statutory Relations, State Constitutional herein, expressly the reasons stated we aban- Functional, Structural, Upon the Restrictions don the rule of strict construction of Government, 24 and Personnel Powers of Local (1962) county powers insofar as it has heretofore Advisory (hereinafter cited as Commis- had a basis in Utah law. sion). transmuted into our constitutions and pointed Frug, As out in As A They ignore laws. toto fact L.Rev. that Legal 93 Harvard Concept, local self-government does not owe its (1980): origin to constitutions laws.... Dillon, cities troubling Most all to disregard They the fact it is a part “best fitted managed by were those of the liberty community, of a an ex- experience, intelligence, their business pression of freedom, community moral character.” Their capacity and heart of our political was “too both unwise management often institutions. They refuse to major concede, therefore, extravagant.” change A right is a just was therefore needed to city government beyond sense city government fully public achieve unlimited control, state but rather it is good. dedicated to common nothing more than privilege, [Foot- to be [Emphasis original.] tively problems with the with which it must 63, Lake City, 3 Utah 1 P. 160 deal. In a time of almost universal education has been applied in cases numerous since intense, substantial, and of and sometimes time, that g., Layton e. City Speth, Utah, v. functioning citizen of proper interest 578 (1978); Rapid Utah Transit Co. government, local we do share the be- not v. Ogden City, 546, 89 Utah 58 P.2d 1 unwor- generally lief that local officials are Robinson, American Fork City v. 77 Indeed, thy of of governed. the trust those 168, Utah 292 P. 249 (1930); Lake City Salt processes grassroots the if democratic Sutter, v. 533, 61 Utah 216 P. 234 well, level function then it is not do not Tavern, In Mayflower Nance v. will likely oper- that our state (1944), 150 773 Court the stated: Frug ate much further states: better. The most extensive rebuttal to Dillon To city determine whether or a was published Eugene McQuil- in 1911 by power to enact any particular ordi- treatise, lin in his multivolume The Law nance legisla- the court must look to of Municipal Corporations. In an exhaus- grant power tive of Constitu- McQuillin tive survey, traced the histori- tion of of If the State Utah. there is a cal development municipal of corpora- concerning reasonable doubt the exist- tions and found the theme essential to be ence of a particular power, that doubt a right to self-government. local He re- should against city, be resolved jected suggestion that cities were cre- power [Emphasis should be denied. state, ated by the arguing that “[s]uch [a] 520; Utah at 150 P.2d at added.] [106 position well-established, ignores histori- 774.] cal easily McQuillin facts ascertainable.” strongly criticized courts that failed to See also Parker v. Provo City Corporation, uphold right self-government: of local Utah, 543 P.2d 769 (1975). judicial decisions denying right of self-government local without ex- ignored But the has also rule press reject guaranty, constitutional attempting on occasion without to distin

the rule grants of construction that all instance, guish it or it. For overrule of are to be interpreted Doran, 401, 131 Lake 42 P. 636 City v. Utah light Carta, Magna the maxims of Crossman, (1913), City of v. Ogden City rather development of English rights (1898), specific grants P. governmental Utah powers prior time; is, that given interpretation the common law of broad were

H21 Young, court; enfeeble governments v. Court to local on the Hargraves and in (1955), up unjustified assumption 2d 280 P.2d 974 construc- strict Utah required holding a ordinance delegated powers necessary tion of is specific interpretation both broad abuse. The enactment of prevent on the as reliance grant power, well conferring police welfare clause general clause. also Salt general welfare See directly on the was to en- powers counties Howe, P. 705 reasonable, act neces- them to able (1910), Rupp City, Grantsville appropriate way further sary, and (1980), which the court of their public welfare citizens. clause for relied on the welfare potential limitation The ultimate and, without dis upholding governments people is the abuses issue, construed that cussing broadly vigilance It is their and sound themselves. clause. govern- all by which democratic judgment abusing governments of local fear end, are and direct- ments in the restricted justification delegated powers their as a powers who abuse ed. Officials is a slur strict construction of those ought not have been they entrusted right ability people on the be, not, long tolerated. usually protection govern Adequate themselves. short, accept the simply we do not interference with against abuse are not proposition governments provided statewide legitimate interests scope legisla- to be with the full trusted electorate, control, state supervisory the needs tively granted to meet construction, judicial review. Strict contrary, their local constituents. On the in the face particularly history political of our institutions simply to local governments, large concept— measure founded in on the stat- plain language eviscerates the if not theory practice at least in ute, Legislature, the intent nullifies —that is of government local the unit the more local seriously cripples and effective political problem, with a that can deal government. exercise of and more effective efficient ample safeguards There are likely to be. power is abuse the local against any of at Advisory is Com- by This view shared governments, level. Local as subdivisions State, Intergovernmental Relations powers granted exercise mission on those urged governments to them the Ritholz v. which has that local by Legislature, State Commission, Lake, 385, 2d 284 P.2d City given powers, Advisory Salt broad delegated (1955), Report 702 exercise of a The supra, n. at 72. Commission’s subject imposed to the is limitations states: by state statutes and state and federal con legislatures believes The Commission that A empower stitutions. state cannot local in broad delegate powers local should governments to do the state that which by The abuse local terms. do. In itself does not have to troubles Commission broad addition, without au governments are wide- currently is minimally. not thority any by, pass prohibited to fact way. The spread serious with, statutory or in conflict law. state is no more conceivably might occur abuse Allred, v. 2d City Lake 20 Salt Utah deny pow- delegations to broad reason Also, (1968). 437 434 ordinance is P.2d an deny knife Boy er to Scout than invalid if it intrudes an which the into area Addition- might he cut himself. because Legislature preempted comprehen by if a opinion ally, we are legislation partic sive intended to blanket part is a delegation of power functional ular field. in the local power residing total responsive

In view of all correc- it will be governing body these restraints and more measures, it for this appropriate tive is not to control. popular [Id] XI, 1 gives

The wide encoun- constitutional diversity problems status § by county municipal governments tered existed they counties as the time of all, be, realistically are not and cannot ef- Constitution, they are adoption of the legislature fectively dealt with a state “recognized legal subdivisions this ” sixty days every years sits for two .... 2 and 3 of that arti- Sections importance. deal general with matters of respect to Legislature cle restrict Thus the manner in which the changing county seats rule of operates militates in favor of a addition, lines. it should be noted judicial permits construction locali- charter cities have been endowed with even ties to deal with problems by their XI, wide-ranging powers by more Article § legislative action. I, 5 of the Constitution.7 See also Article § provides rights 25 which that those enumer- provision, welfare general The § ated in the “shall Constitution not be grants county commissioners of each strued impair deny others retained two types authority. distinct In the first people.” instance, power given implement spe- Second, grants cific of authority. the coun- grant general welfare ties, are independent an source of duplicated by counties is a similar general to act for the welfare of its cities, has on several this Court citizens. Thus provides authority 17-5-77 § squarely occasions sustained ordinances “pass all and make ordinances rules solely on the basis of the welfare regulations, law, all repugnant neces- Glines, Layton City clause. v. sary for carrying discharging into effect or Allred, (1980); Lake v. Utah 2d Salt and duties conferred 437 P.2d ” title .... part second of that section Kusse, 93 P.2d 671 empowers counties pass ordinances that Utah, Compare Rupp City, v. Grantsville “necessary and proper provide Layton City 610 P.2d 338 But see health, pro- preserve Speth, (1978), in which morals, mote the prosperity, improve the on a Court struck down an ordinance peace order, good comfort and conve- narrow construction of the nience of the county and the inhabitants specific legislative grant clause and a thereof, and for the protection property power. therein.” In Allred the defendant was convicted of Nothing sug- 17-5-77 or in Title 17 violating City a Lake ordinance Salt gests general that the welfare clause should directing police a officer a location where to be narrowly strictly or construed. Its he could obtain sexual intercourse for hire. language breadth of the opposite demands necessary This Court did not deem it to Moreover, conclusion. the Constitution express statu- address the issue of whether does not Legislature allow the unlimited tory grants of sufficient to authority were government. discretion to deal with local empower municipal governments pass to delegation power by Leg- The broad of the Rather, the in in question. up- ordinance islature to the counties is consistent with conviction, holding the stated: the court provisions constitutional which establish governmental counties as entities and “We are of the place opinion general that the certain aspects of county government police power be- is a sufficient of author- grant yond the of Legislature. the Article ity city to authorize the ordinance involved police, sanitary provides regulations 7. Section 5 of XI Article for a charter and similar government municipal corpora- law, form of general for not in conflict with the and no expressly city tions. states that each enumeration of in this Constitution granted authority forms a charter the to law shall be deemed to limit or restrict the powers relating general authority exercise all fairs, grant hereby to af- of conferred adopt limits, and to and enforce within its ” Dunn, Utah, 300, power. 437 welfare Peck v. 2d at this case . ... 20 Utah (1978), P.2d 367 cert. denied 436 U.S. at 436.8 (1978); 2822, L.Ed.2d 770 Buhler v. S.Ct. Kusse, defendant was supra, the Stone, Utah, ordinance City victed under a Court, Call the case decided prohibited driving while under A recent Jordan, In re- intoxicating liquor. City of of West influence ignored (1979),9 also the rule narrow to defendant’s claim sponding powers. The issue city to construction of authority pass not have City did ordinance, City the authori- of West Jordan City argued stake was whether to require to subdividers statutory had under two had ty been of a percent the land area first, providing that a dedicate seven provisions: a statute public the movement subdivision to “regulate prospective municipality could streets, pub- use and of the citizens of traffic on sidewalks and benefit alternative, Jordan, pedes- movement of West places, including lic pro- This vehicles,” equivalent 15- value of land in cash. trians as well as of R.S.U. § second, power delegated enact grant a to vision was sustained under 8-30 general to a general cities § ordinances furtherance statutory welfare, well as other power, This welfare R.S.U. 15-8-84 general subject dealing with the provisions un- Court held that had of which pass but none provision planning zoning, to der the welfare municipali- a any authority upon conferred the ordinance. The Court stated: in kind or cash ty require payment whether question There be some aof use of the citizens” the “benefit and regulate 15-8-30 See. [the discuss or did not City of West Jordan city. pertain not movement of does traffic] conflicting cases deal- reconcile attempt move- only of the actual regulation Rule, case is in but that ing with Dillon’s prevention ment of traffic actual in Allred results reached harmony with the driving; racing and immoderate Kusse, supra. is, permits only the section whether occur operation they on these acts as our These consistent decisions an act giving power prevent without government. basic framework itself, permitted, if condition which Standford, of traffic or might affect the movement (1901), P. 1061 stated: racing or immoder- likely result right implies Constitution [T]he this seems a narrow driving. ate While county, to each self-government construction, not now be decided it need system right to establish a 15-8-84, R.S.U. because we Section think recognized expressly provi- [the given create power is enjoined. The an pass definitely permits sion] administer government, not to while under prevent driving created. system when to such liquors. intoxicating influence [97 provide towas right Utah at 93 P.2d at 672.] action, to run put for and machinery those deci- Particularly operate, relevant here are the disfranchisement government this ordi- upholding sions Hurlbut, 24 Mich. which, specific People v. people. nances in the absence 44, 103. When legislative grants Am.Rep. derived their 9 power, from separate established grant of authority general government from a solely 6, 1980, Rehearing on March rehearing. 9. was In 8. This case was decided on Allred, City City prior but was limited opinion, v. of West Jordan v. Call 254, (1967), the dedica- 2d 430 issue of whether the ordinance was the constitutional taking of held to be an unconstitutional ultra vires. tion constituted (1980).] property 1257 [614 1124 state, compelled each is to bear its Lake County Comm’rs, Board of 28 Utah 2d 121, burdens,

own and not assume those of the 499 P.2d 270 158-59, other. at P. 66 [24 1062.] The courts of other states have also held general power that a welfare clause confers The reason providing appropriate pro- in addition to and beyond granted by government tection for local was stated in specific statutory grants. Birkenfeld v. 477, State v. Eldredge, 27 Utah 76 P. 337 129, City Berkeley, 17 130 Cal.3d Cal. (1904):10 465, Rptr. (1976); 550 P.2d 1001 Leaven The fact every provision is that worth Atchison, Club Owners Assoc. v. 208 Constitution relating to this important 318, (1971); City Kan. 492 P.2d 183 of Du subject appears to manifest an intention luth Cerveny, 511, v. 218 Minn. 16 N.W.2d to bring through those whom is to (1944); Lehrhaupt Flynn, N.J.Su possible be exercised close as as 250, per. (1976); 356 A.2d City of Hobbs subjects upon whom oper- is to Biswell, 778, (1970); 81 N.M. 473 P.2d 917 ate —to preserve right of local self- 317, Lowery, Krolick v. A.D.2d N.Y. government people, to the and to restrict (1969); S.2d Adams v. of New every upon encroachment right. such Kensington, 357 Pa. 55 A.2d 392 And, seen, as has been this is in harmony Dixson, Pasco v. 81 Wash.2d with history, with our American constitu- 503 P.2d 76 law, tional with our notions of decentrali- A leading authority in local zation of power, and spirit with the law asserts majority this is the rule. genius of our institutions. Utah at [27 McQuillin Municipal Corporations states: 485, 76 P. at 340.] Municipal corporations ordinarily are More recently, Court, in accord with empowered statute, by charter or after that philosophy, expressly held a rea- enumeration of specific powers, their sonable latitude of judgment and discretion act, do any power exercise ren- is essential for a county commission to exer- der any service which contributes to their cise express its implied powers. Gard- general welfare, good government, good ner v. Davis County, 523 P.2d 865 order, or the like. A provision of this (1974); Cottonwood City Electors v. Salt character usually general is called a wel- County See also Garel v. place Board of Commis- citizens. It would an unwarranted bur- Summit, sioners of the 167 Colo. upon legislature specify den each and (1968), which stated: designated govern- service which the disagree We do not entity may the rule lawfully .. . that mental undertake. As possess only powers counties such Rhyne, are Municipal stated in C. Law 4-8 § expressly delegated to them. We are of (1957): opinion, however, requirement that the of an legislature, The state in order to obviate express delegation pre- does not difficulty making specific enumeration being clude general it from made in terms. delegate of all it intends to legislature may delegate The general authority in municipality, usually confers some running terms without afoul of the terms. Home rule charter enact- Gaunt, constitution. 385, In Hazlet v. 126 Colo. ments or amendments be couched in the 250 P.2d upheld this court purpose gen- most terms. The Reorganization School District Act of 1949 in eral welfare clause in a statute to extend face of permitted an attack it that it municipality beyond of a those an power. delegation legislative unconstitutional specifically things enumerated to other upholding quoted the act we necessary accomplish following from 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law municipal government. Special charters are 138: conferring often gen- concluded with a clause legislature required legislate is not pass eral may all ordinances which guidance agencies of executive further necessary promotion for the practicable, and, than is if the circumstances health, safety municipality and welfare of the require, may express or standard which are not in conflict with the constitu- merely general terms. general tion or laws of the state. P.2d [447 * * * * * * at 210-11.] day age Counties required in this and are to undertake innumerable services for [their]

H25 health, morals, good peace and order of of clause. general or grant fare promote which in community, its welfare may passed be it ordinances Under commerce, trade, and manufac- beneficial, they industry, and necessary and courts, ture, pro- carry appropriate and to out valid adjudged will be object of the contemplated consonant in the creation they are reasonable and vided of omit- municipal corporation. general powers with the and [Footnotes and inconsistent corporation, not ted.] Constitution, trea- the United States with nec- not be construed power is statutes, ties, and and and laws delegated light specifically in of essarily of the state. Biswell, supra, In of powers. City Hobbs aby of power The exercise conferred upheld a of of New Mexico Appeals the Court pow- grant of general general welfare or pawnbrokers under city regulating ordinance aby er must be exercised munici- clause similar to Utah’s. general provision a welfare rule, pal corporation, general as (1953) 14-16-1 Compare § N.M.Stat.Ann. of or form through an ordinance other In with Utah Code Ann. 10-8-84 enactment. legislative municipality authority of referring ^{[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*]} under the general welfare provision, the adopting au- court “The ordinance stated: clause, general A welfare similar B, to as thority of subsection often referred a mu- granting extremely clause, of independent liberally construed nicipal corporation, au- adopting and in addition to ordinance wide municipality accord to a discre- statutes.” thority by specific conferred police power. in tion the exercise at [473 919.] increasing cases, indeed, reveal an judicial Pennsylvania a clause Supreme inclination under such in wider dis- Adams municipal adopted position accord to authorities a similar Pa. 55 A.2d Kensington, nondiscrimi- of New cretion the reasonable and case, exercise, faith, plaintiff po- In that natory good enforcement of enjoin brought interest. While an action public lice it, the licens- clause, required guise city or under the under boxes, boxes, me- juke personal rights recognized ing of music property ground on the by organ- vending machines guaranteed law and chanical authority unreasonably city re- not have ic cannot be did provisions strained, upholding ordi- regard pass the ordinance.12 uniformly courts nance, once obvi- “It is at authority as for a reasona- the court stated: ample clause exercise, faith, good of broad this constitutes provision ble ous that powers, ‘gen- and such extremely broad municipal activity protect varied inflicting penal- McQuillin,Municipal Corporations 24.- to enforce all ordinances 11. §§ (3d 1969). persons 43-.44 rev’d ed. or other inhabitants ties thereof, exceeding three hun- violations not statutory grant The court referred to offense, any recoverable dred dollars for one authority follows: as costs, judgment impris- together with with authority “In addition to the ninety days, onment, exceeding if the not city by provisions vested act, each judgment not and costs shall amount of said be city pow- council of each shall have [the Provided, however, paid: no That ordi- ordinances, adopt all make such er] * * * passed be made nance contravenes or shall * * * inconsistent or restrained provisions violates the Constitution and laws of this Common- States or of of the United the Constitution wealth, may expedient necessary be as Commonwealth, any act of Assem- or of this bly proper management, the the peace, care and control be hereafter or that heretofore * * * maintenance of [Jd., city.” passed and in force in said good government, safety and welfare 394, quoting Third Class A.2d * * * city, and also all such ordinances 23, 1931, cl. sec. P.L. Law June * * * may necessary and to 54.] exercise of the * * affairs; self-governments in all county always been lib- and city have to city, changed welfare clauses’ eral since municipalities the Dillon construed to accord to Rule was erally formulated. Sev- eral of the discretion in the exercise counties in State, a wide for example, power.” [Id., currently 55 A.2d at confront police large 395.] prob- serious lems caused accelerated urban growth. of the facts Closely point with the The problems same however, are not so acute N.J Lehrhaupt Flynn, case is instant in many other counties. Some counties are which dealt (1976), 356 A.2d 35 Super. experiencing, and others may soon be ex- disclosure of validity with a financial periencing, explosive economic growth as the township without adopted by a result of the development of natural re- The for such action. express authority sources. problems The that must be solved specif is no “[Although stated: there court by these counties are to some unique extent municipal en statutory authorization ic to them. According a plain meaning ordi actment of official financial disclosure legislative grant of general power nances, local such general power adopt to local governmental units allows each local delega is inherent in the broad legislation ” to be responsive to the particu- police power tion of .... lar problems facing it. rule which These cases state the adopt in When the State has we this case. Local power paralyzed should not be local general welfare power un- problems critical should not remain have inde governments, governments those solved officials ses- while await a biennial from, and in addi pendent authority apart of Legislature sion of the ob- hope to, authority to specific grants pass tion taining of a of au- passage special grant appro reasonably which are ordinances Furthermore, legisla- thority. passage of of that objectives related to the priately tion coun- appropriate needed for some e., providing i. for the power, public ties because other may press fail health, morals, Lake City and welfare. Salt legislative leg- business or the disinterest Allred, 20 Utah 2d parts islators from other whose State (1968). And the not interfere courts will other, experience constituencies the means legislative with choice of pressing, problems. granting them more directly arbitrary, selected unless it is power cities and counties the ordi- to enact or is with the prohibited by, inconsistent welfare, nances to further of, the state laws or the or federal no re- political doubt took such of this the United constitution alities into consideration. Specific authority may grants States. to limit under the serve the means available county has that a therefore hold We clause, general welfare for some limitation of its preserve purity imposed on the exercise may was entitled The process. electoral particular directing the use of by can disclosure that financial to conclude gener specific grants manner. But should legitimate directly serve the didates would latitude ally be construed reasonable special achieving goal purpose gener light language un exercise not be able to interests should supplement al welfare clause which without in local elections due influence found in specific delegation. being brought light. their influence Broad construction of the of coun- ties and cities is current consistent with argued support The Dillon further governments.

needs local It is statute unconstitutionality Rule strict construction is antithetical entire preempted and state Utah has effective efficient the State of government. do not regulating elections. We complexities matter of confronting governments, on argument is not based degree agree. to which the nature of and a those between the ordinance problems direct conflict varies from

H27 health, Rather, promote public statute, for the ar- morals there is none. welfare; preempted by state or are state upon the existence of gument rests an attempt regulate or to campaign disclosures otherwise legislation requiring subject the nature of the for certain state of- area running candidates requires regula- uniform state does not evi- matter itself legislation But that fices. delegated Legis- specific power part an on the tion. Of course dence intention municipalities imply to a restriction preempt dealing to local ordinances lature power, of that Thorpe v. the manner of exercise with local candidates.13 See Co., 265, 153 P.2d but on the exercise of such Bamberger R. 107 Utah the restriction Kusse, reason- to to permit 97 is be construed (1944); 541 Salt Lake attaining the (1938); Battey v. and latitude in able discretion Utah 93 Ritchie, 320, 273 969 to be achieved. purpose 73 P. Utah P. Howe, to contrary defendant’s Finally, contentions, au grant general welfare to con- pertain only The state restrictions Article does not violate thority counties for state requirements tribution disclosure XI, I, 4 of or Article § § sec- governor, for the offices of candidates I, requires the Constitution. Article § state, attorney general, retary laws. The operation uniform Corrupt Practices 20-14-7. The State § clause, applies general welfare § governments to county Elections Act leaves that The fact uniformly to all counties. the cir- for themselves whether determine power differ county may exercise that each imposition of cumstances necessitate moment. In is of no constitutional ently require- contribution disclosure campaign not if im impracticable, deed it would county for or offices. ments concept of mockery possible, and re- disclosure subject campaign all counties self-government require quirements is not that reflects need one others. as all same ordinances have the uniformity. requires for With differences uni I, only Generally Article § of Utah laws, counties in the State jurisdiction nature within the formity wealth, and oth- Finally, the con respect population, with they operative. XI, relationship er factors which have a Article § mandate of stitutional sys is processes, a uniform integrity provide of the electoral Legislature reasonable, legisla- applicable not government, of state county in the absence tem of in 1973 with the was amended tion, county provision should deal that each because that op Legislature provide of its electoral problem integrity allow to be government The or- appropriate. deems tional forms processes as it provision is conflict, That directly approved by referendum. do not dinances in this case In any problem. and are relevant to the instant with state statute not impliedly, peradventure event, beyond it is clear not for that reason unconstitutional. does not system a uniform sum, strict construc- the Dillon Rule of various all the laws within uniform require not to restrict tion is to be used systems government. Legisla- by the of a under a wisdom, effective- judge do prevent We not ture of ness, practicality means using counties from reasonable the fac- concern ourselves authority. question, or grants of implement specific allegations which underlie they unless tual issues County ordinances are valid ruleWe law; in this case. rationally against defendant superior do conflict with reenacting in a re- contrary, negated enacted in 1971 an On Act, Corrupt 20- exclusively occupy § Practices in Elections vised an inference of intent U.C.A., seq., seq., repealing 14-1 et U.C.A. 20-14-1 et field only has, ordinance under which this police power fact, delegated been action brought is constitutional. specific under the circumstance. All exer- cise of police power govern- by local judgment of the lower court is re- derivative, ment is inherent, none is and it versed, and the case is remanded for a trial is the exclusive prerogative of the State to on the merits. establish the conditions under which it will be exercised. If government local discerns CROCKETT, J., HALL, J., C. concur. a condition which merits through control police power, MAUGHAN, this matter should be sub- (dissenting): Justice legislature mitted to the representa- so that reasons, following For the I dissent. All tives of the entire state may resolve wheth- statutory references are to Utah Code An- problem er the should be addressed on a notated, 1953, as amended. local level. The analysis of majority opinion uti- It is foregoing within the context of the lizes the familiar technique erecting principles specific delegation that the man, case, straw in this princi- abstract police power in Section 17-5-77 should be ple of law Rule, identified as Dillon’s interpreted in this case. throttling it with the evocative shibboleth of local control. majority The then inter- There are posed two basic issues in this prets Section 17-5-77 as a carte blanche case, County whether the had the authority delegation power of the state police to local ordinances, 1-10-4, to enact (Sections these government, unless there be a specific and 1-10-8, Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake direct conflict between state and local law. County) and whether the had occu- This interpretation is inconsistent with the pied the practices entire field of corrupt multiple statutes, legislature wherein the elections, Chapter Title 20 and Section confers specific powers duties on local 10-6-18, Annotated, Utah Code 1953. Both government, and distorts the nature of the argued issues were appeal. on police power. alone, Either standing opera- issue on the The State is the sole reposi- and exclusive here, tive facts against would be resolved tory of the police power, neither the federal the County. Consequently, we direct our government nor local has such inherent attention to each. power. police awesome, The power is for it right confers the The District to declare an act a Court in a de- crime memorandum deprive an individual of his cision liberty County stated the relied on Section property 17-5-35, in order to protect or advance the and particularly on 17-5- Section public health, morals, welfare. as its statutory grant authority The decision of whether problem should pass the ordinances. The District Court be deemed one of local concern and should observed, although this Court had not been be regulated police power under the should completely consistent in case on the initially be decided legislature repre- issue, the majority of the cases had indi- senting all the citizens of this state. The grants cated cities counties legislature may then delegate elect to the were strictly to be construed to the exclu- power to local to deal with the sion implied powers reasonably nec- specific area of concern. equally essary in carrying out the legislative judgment to deny delegating this expressed powers granted. The District power to government. expressed Court opinion was cer- there palliative

The suggested tainly express no majority authority enabling opinion that ordinances, citizens can enactment change and there was law by electing new officials provides nothing implied no from any express relief for the previously individual convict- that would justify the enactment of the ed and avoids the basic issue of whether the ordinances.

H29 17-4^1 provides it had con- tion several counties The District Court stated corporate political, v. Kusse1 and Salt state are bodies sidered Salt Lake relied specified Allred2 cases on powers “and as such have there was cer- County, acknowledged and it title and such other are nec- cases, suggest- in these language tain essarily implied.”5 fairly ed a had the view that advocates general welfare enact ordinances under the welfare clause of 17-5-77 Section clause of 17-5-77. District Section broad, general grant of the constitutes a considering those explained after police to counties. This sec- state’s cases, it difference discerned substantial tion similar Section of a to cities and grants same influence and regulate driving under the interpreted on a number been this court wording gen- the prostitution under In Lark v. Whitehead6 the of occasions. 17-5-77, and welfare clause of eral Section welfare urged, general under the campaign financ- being regulate able to clause, legislative had a body The District Court ing county elections. matters. grant power in criminal concluded: alleged city was better It was also the meaning, “... Given its the broadest to would adverse- determine what qualified con- type Court fails to see how safety, peace good order ly affect the language regulated can be under duct legisla- state inhabitants than the of its was enabling neces- ordinances ‘such are responded: This ture. Court sary provide to for the proper (122 Ogden City “In v. Nasfell health, the preserve promote the 344, 346, (1952)) this court P.2d 507 249 morals, peace and improve the prosperity, prin- was stated that it committed order, convenience of good comfort and have none of the elements ciple cities thereof, and the inhabitants fair, reasona- sovereignty concerning ble, the ex- substantial doubt The was cor- ruling of District Court power is resolved istence of vires, and were ultra rect. ordinances (city) and against the corporation courts There no therefore void. constitutional denied; grants conferring provisions police to the exclu- are strictly cities construed non- matters counties or cerning local on rea- which are not implied powers sion of corporate political chartered cities. These out sonably necessary carrying have and none of bodies no inherent express powers grant- cannot sovereignty; they the elements of ed.”7 them and go beyond powers granted Corporations Municipal McQuillin 2 In powers in a must exercise such reasonable 801, 10.24, it is (1966 Rev.Vol.), p. Section police power manner.3 The exercise of the stated: por- sovereignty, is an attribute state “It has but not to been said in some cases may delegate,

tion ‘general municipal powers which have relinquish, municipalities, do in a or statute sovereignty.4 none of the elements of Sec- welfare’ clause charter 1. 97 Utah 343, 346, (1972). 113, (1939). 28 Utah 6. 2d 502 93 P.2d 671 298, (1968). 20 Utah 437 434 2d P.2d City Utah, Layton Speth, v. 578 P.2d 7. Also see Larsen, Utah, (1978); Allgood v. P.2d 828 545 3. Bohn v. City, Lake P.2d Salt 79 Utah 8 City Corporation, (1976); v. Provo Parker 530 (1932). 591 Sandy Utah, (1975); Johnson v. 543 P.2d City Corporation, 28 Utah 2d P.2d 4. Salt City Lake International Association City Corpora v. Salt Lake Stevenson Firelighters, (1977). 563 P.2d 786 tion, 7 Utah 2d City Electors v. Lake Cottonwood Salt 5. See County, 2d general for its authority, sources wel- enlarge powers specifically not extend ”8 clause, . suppress .. houses of

granted, fare (Section 10-8-41) and to punish prostitution distinguishable from case The instant (Section 10-8-51). This prostitutes Court relies, others, on which insofar authority did not determine whether municipal government as in the others under welfare clause general conferred solely exclusively its rely did not sufficient, State, by ruled the was since it general on the welfare but authority complete laws comprehensive and enacting on express statutory cited and relied other pre-empt- had sexual offenses pertaining grants authority generally which dealt rehearing the Upon that field. case12 challenged ed subject with the matter of the the prior reversed completely this Court ordinances. accepted the conten- decision. Court Kusse,9 the viz., city, welfare tion authority regulate on both its traf relied enact the ordi- conferred clause clause, as fic and was, the case it is a nance. rationale of prohib an basis to sustain ordinance pro- police power exercise proper while influence of driving ited under the morals, challenged public tect the intoxicating liquor. This stated there bear a reasonable appeared whether the might question be some as to protec- relationship preservation en regulate permitted to traffic public tion of morals. However, actment of the ordinance. the definitely permitted general welfare clause in the 1968 thoughtful In a case note It pass to such fur city the an ordinance. Preemption Law Review person’s prohibition said the of such ther General Municipal and the Exercise Wel- driving was propelling definitely or a car A Anti-Prostitution Or- City’s fare Powers: safety related of the closely and to the dinance, con- apparently the author states proper preservation inhabitants and the test flicting cases can reconciled This Court the case of ty. distinguished concerning in some of the cases suggested Sutter,10 wherein Salt Lake there gen- under the validity the an enactment city statutory authority was no for a to eral welfare clause: prohibit intoxicating liquors. possession is “... Whether an ordinance reason- said: pro- related ably substantially and power pass “. .. There was an ordi- to health, interest public tection sale, and prevent disposition, nance to safety, or morals. liquors; intoxicating manufacture of but explains decisions The author this Court’s posses- power prohibit as there said the to reasonable rela- compatible with a appear not be sion could inferred from standard, only those ordi- tionship since sale it was not neces- prohibit to because affecting general wel- immediately nances sary accomplish prohibition to such nor upheld. interests fare have been implied incident of fairly was as an power.” such influence of al- Driving “... under the cohol, to greater for threat example, is In Salt Lake v. Allred11 the authori- safety merely possessing than alco- public ty city making to enact an ordinance authorization; maintaining without hol person one to to it a crime for direct and their prostitutes rendezvous for committing for the an any place purpose public morals injurious is more was chal- clients act of sexual intercourse for hire playing keeping pin than ball machines lenged. city statutory cited three (1967). Whitehead, 6, supra, Utah 2d is cited in 11. 19 8. Lark v. note supplement supporting principle. as 2d 12. 20 Utah supra. 9. Note 1 10. 61 Utah 216 P. 234 autho- tion storm sewers. This Court its began When

pool. legislature the state citing implied the sale analysis by principles prohibit municipalities rizes powers and include those neces- incidental alcohol, place to sell the maintenance of sary give expressly effect powers clearly antagonistic is alcohol more granted, and the “General Welfare Clause” unlawful than state-sanctioned enlarges powers neither nor con- annuls of alcohol.”13 possession special grant. ferred 17-6-77, provides: Section on particularly concentrated county commissioners “The board provision concerning the contract rules and all ordinances pass a mini- wage. minimum fix repugnant all regulations, make wage prescribe mum and to hours effect into carrying law, necessary generally re- day’s constitute a labor are duties powers and discharging the garded police power. an exercise of the as are neces- title, and such by this ferred power was explained police The Court provide sary proper state, inherent while health, promote preserve the no to enact corporation has inherent morals, peace and prosperity, improve corporation de- police regulations. Such order, and convenience comfort good solely legislature rives its from thereof, inhabitants power as only police and can exercise such there- of property protection for the fairly powers. of its is included ” in; ... oth- distinguished from The Court decisions jurisdictions the charter er where question The issue thus reduced to the comprehensive municipalities are far more challenged of whether ordinances are than the case this state. substantially reasonably related no express “There is this state promotion improve- prosperity upon a munici- implied conferred morals, order, peace good ment of the by implication pality directly comfort convenience the city to to contractor authorizes a dictate The of this its inhabitants. circumstances employ- he pay the shall his wages answer; compel there is negative case jurisdiction, ees. inasmuch ... In this rela- neither a substantial nor reasonable of the elements municipalities have none purposes tionship between the aforecited exerting given sovereignty their the of elected campaign disclosures provision we think powers, the county officials. This matter is best illus- the respect proposed contracts by trated three cases: Bohn v. Salt Lake wage be ruled out.”17 minimum must Revene,15 Salt Lake City,14 urged, an case, city In Revene Tavern, Mayflower Inc.16 Nance ordinance, closing hours of bar- setting the In Bohn the issue concerned the authority police bershops, of the was a valid exercise city of the provi- include special certain delegated by sions in a contract to construct storm sew- safety preserva- regulate ers. These provisions solely were included community. tion of health purpose of alleviating unemploy- as whether the issue Court characterized situation, ment which this described Court was a rea- closing of the hours fixing wholly as a collateral condition to the ob- of the scope regulation sonable within jects and purposes sought e., by construc- did it have delegated power, i. police 16. 108 Utah 13. (1944). p. 1968 U.L.R. 14. 79 Utah 8 P.2d 591 p. 17. at 131 of 79 15. 101 Utah objects declared of the cor- protection relationship to

reasonable states, ‘indispens- or as Dillon poration, public. the health of of the de- accomplishment able’ to the of the observed, purpose if the The Court objects. We therefore hold that clared working hours limit the ordinance were to to enact such civil cities have no was too indi- the method operators, of the ” rights legislation... . results far wider accomplished rect and hand, express there is no working hours. In the matter at limitation of than mere authority on conferring cases from further examined observed, act con- corrupt practices in all of enact a jurisdictions other author- fixing cerning of hours local elected officials. Such concerning the those cases wel- of the courts from the barbershops, ity implied all cannot be of business of it does relation- 17-5-77 since reasonable fare clause of Section had there was no held substantial, direct, sufficiently public. not have a ship protection to the specific general immediate effect on the relied on the recited and opinion then set forth therein. welfare interests fair, reasonable, substan- principle preemption, concerning regard tial doubt the existence With issue against the in a 1968 Utah Law Review critique is resolved the courts illuminating. ante) (cited denied. The and discussed corporation, issue. begin analysis we our of that ruling was: With it however, standard, municipality “We find that the was not “The direct conflict was insofar as it soundly grounded to control is not delegated the in which jurisdiction either under from a closing barbershops, extrapolated hours of municipali- Section the state constitution general police power given its ordi- 15-8-61, pow- powers to enact or under the ties all residual law. nances not in conflict with state regulate er to certain named businesses. Utah’s un- specific legislative jurisdiction, In the absence of a contrast to this no power have providing municipal- municipalities enactment so for the chartered made act, express grants ity opinion independent we are of the Therefore, municipali- closing legislature. of barber- requiring from en- police logically prohibited could shops ty is an invalid exercise by a state statute power.”18 acting an ordinance evidencing an intent to restrict challenged ordi- In the Nance case lan- although the statute’s legislation, concerning provided rights nance for civil directly guage plain meaning or did restaurants. The said cities had no A more ten- with the ordinance. conflict original legislative power. inherent or in the second approach able for the court power to enact an is determined Allred, note City v. opinion [Salt legislative the of by re- expressly supra] would have been to If there be a reason- Constitution Utah. stan- on the direct conflict ject reliance concerning able doubt the existence of a preemption expressly dard and hold doubt is resolved particular power, ap- conflict is occurs when either direct is denied. against city, through legislature, or the state parent The Court held: enactments, oc- statutory comprehensive rights “. .. The power to enact civil cupies the field. express legislation is not been “Preemption by occupation has by or stat- either constitution by words jurisdictions in other widely adopted ute, implied necessarily fairly nor is it or court’s re- consistent with is expressly in or incident to the powers powers....”19 municipal stricted view of granted. it cannot be held to be Likewise accomplishment essential of the concluded: The author 424. 18. 19. p. U.L.R. 511 of 101 124 P.2d 537.

H33 Management Corp. In Overlook Terrace preemption, “In its treatment recognized expressly Board,22 have court should v. Rent Control the Court ex- doctrine preemption-by-occupation was a created plained preemption judicially statutory policy, the state’s and evaluated proposition on the a munici- principle based re- scheme, uniformity to interest in State, agent an can- pality, is Absent such preemption solve the issue. preemp- In a contrary not act to the State. direct- only an those ordinances approach, initial analysis tion there must be an deter- or language with ly conflict either subject or mination as to whether the field clearly are plain meaning of the statutes in- operates, matter which the ordinance preempted.”20 effects, cluding its is the same in which Corporations McQuillin Municipal In 6 be has acted. If the answer 268-270, 21.34, pp. (1969 Rev.Vol.), Section affirmative, following questions then it is stated: pertinent to the determination “A state concern may matter be of applicability preemption: treat- an it calls for statewide extent that with 1. Does the ordinance conflict beyond ment and is the control of a mu- law, conflicting either because state case, nicipality. In such a law a state is, (that field of or does occupy policies operational effect may lawfully particular a legislation so that is no room for Legislature there forbid the ordinance what Indeed, super- regulation. statutes permitted per- or does the ordinance has nonconflicting sede or over even prevail forbidden)? mit what the has instances, some where ordinances in [Citations] regulation calls for exclusive matter intended, or expressly 2. Was the law ex- legislative virtue of intention the field? be exclusive in impliedly, to implied; and pressed necessarily [Citations] implication may arise from nature subject 3. Does the matter reflect words, a subject regulated. In other over municipal prevail uniformity? ordinance cannot need for ... statute, supersede and the ordinance pervasive Is state so scheme invalid, is stat- where ordinance and coexist- it comprehensive precludes exclu- fully, ute relate to a matter that is regulation? ence [Citations] sively validly covered statute. ‘as ob- 5. Does the ordinance stand an events, legisla- “. .. In all ‘whether the and execu- accomplishment stacle to the occupy exclusively ture undertaken to objectives’ tion the full given legislation is be deter- field Legislature? [Citation] analysis mined in case an upon statute, and circum- the facts by occupa- preemption principle

stances was intended to it both sound reasons. tion is based on otherwise, in operate.’ determin- Stated may that an ordinance logical necessary ing legislature whether the intended rea- statute found to conflict to the exclusion occupy particular field contrary a state son that of all court look regulation, Legislature. the by established scope of the purpose whole and the first enactment to legislative required is not scheme and a sworn make requiring candidate to language find intent in the solely such an campaign and used in of all his election the statute.”21 statement Lane, 99, 857, Cal.Rptr. In re 22 372 20. 1968 428. 58 Cal.2d U.L.R. 897, Mirin, (1962); v. 90 899-900 Lamb Beverly 329, 80, Municipal (1974); 21. Lancaster v. for 82 Summer Nev. 526 P.2d Hills, 805, 609, 548, Cal.Rptr. Teaneck, 6 100 Township Cal.3d 494 P.2d 53 251 A.2d N.J. of 681, Court, (1972); Superior 761, 682 70 Galvan v. (1969). 764-765 642, 930, 851, Cal.Rptr. Cal.2d 76 452 P.2d Hubbard, 119, (1969); 935-940 In re 62 Cal.2d 321, 451, A.2d 22. 71 N.J. 393, 809, Cal.Rptr. 396 P.2d 812-815 1973, legislature funds were In the in appeared, whom such its expenses and Utah, 1911, of wisdom, was in Laws reporting contributed to determine either that 125, requirement This Chapter Section 213. particularly all not a candidates was officers of cities of applied only elective prevent corruption efficacious means or substantially A the first and second class. candidates, was an undue burden on other in today is Section similar statute in effect offices, state principal than those the U.C.A., Legis- In the 1953. pro- still and the other enactments would passed prevention lature an act for the egregious corruption. hibit acts of of elec- punishment corrupt practices of of the nature history From a review the tions, 1917, Chapter Laws of Utah comprehensive enactments legislative of the emerges a intent legislative there clear 1(2) this act term Under Section of practices corrupt the entire of every per- occupy field meant and included “candidate” is, once, process. in the elective or contemplated son for whom it de- was logical and facts. any political votes more consistent sired that be cast at election, convention, and who primary concerning requirement A some reporting expressly to be so con- tacitly consented (10-6-18), governments local was retained sidered, except president candidates for supports concept which inferentially Under vice-president the United States. reporting in other units of local act, Section candidate was Additionally, was government rejected. required to make a detailed disclosure all legislation expressly was no there receipts and disbursements. impliedly any units authorized Sjostrom In v. Bishop23 this Court ruled regulations concerning enact apparent objective both of the afore- process. corrupt practices legislative against safeguard cited enactments towas foregoing, From the the conclusion by requiring corrupt practices in elections County ordinances compelling Salt Lake sources elected officials to disclose in conflict con- with the state expenditures funds. process, corrupt practices trol in the elective Utah, Chapter Laws means exclusively and to determine and the reporting- definition of a candidate objective. accomplish this requirements contributions and concerning one which merits aspect There is other gover- expenditures were confined to e., consideration, inconsistency i. the total nor, state, gener- secretary attorney position majority opinion 20-14-1(2) al. Sections [See 20-14-7.] cerning the Attor- However, there a series of remains prosecute appeal and the action ney this comprehensive enactments Section Loddy, of this Court pro- through 20-14-24 20-14—47 to Section case, in this Particularly pro- corrupt practices hibit in elections whether there is a issue of where serious viding punishment violation. The any statutory regulating cor- complex scheme legislation many years indi- period over preempted rupt practices elections on legislative cates a to insure intent Attorney General regulations, of the electives statewide basis the purity appeal. The prosecuted should have this process corrupt practices. by prohibiting approach County Attorney’s interest objective accomplish means to this validity sustaining are directed to long so subject legislative discretion ordinance, provincial position provi- does not violate constitutional interests completely antagonistic sion. From 1917 one of until objec- majority state. The accomplish legislative people means to jealously-guarded tive was the all requirement for candidates further attenuates delegate po- report prerogative their and legislative contributions disburse- ments. The conse- government. lice to local 373, 376, 23. 15 2d

H35 are of in this case opinion quences people are enti- magnitude that

such a argued the issues briefed

tled to have representative, statutory legal their

Attorney General.

WILKINS, (dissenting): Justice

I concur in dissenting opinion Mr.

Justice MAUGHAN on the first issue he

addresses, namely, that Salt Lake

lacks authority to enact the ordinances in

question. HARRIS, Plaintiff, Defendant

William B. Appellant,

in Intervention TANNER, McPhie, H. Grace

Genave H. Durfee, H. Grant Har-

Bannie H. Respondents,

ris, Defendants and Harris, Plaintiff Intervention

James H. Respondent. the ESTATE of James

In the Matter

Henry HARRIS, known as James also H; Harris, Deceased. HARRIS, Plaintiff B.

William Appellant, McPHIE, and Genave Harris

Grace Harris

Tanner, of the Estate of Co-Executrixes Deceased, Harris, Henry

James Harris McPhie Genave

Grace Harris

Tanner, individuals, Defendants and

Respondents. No. 16810. Skeen, Lake Salt E. J. & Skeen Skeen of Utah.

Supreme Court in interven- defendant City, plaintiff, Jan. appellant. tion and Larew,

Hollis Hunt and Melvin G. S. Hunt, Kinateder, City, Larew & respondents. defendants and TUCKETT, Retired Justice: appeal This is an from decision County in case District Court of Tooele notes refused omitted.] in such measure as the legislative agents of the people for If were once there valid reasons being time determine. rule, [Footnotes supporting they we think have [Id. omitted.] 1113-14.] largely lost force their effective important local self-government, as an part system government, stituent our The Utah territorial court referred to the must have sufficient to deal effec- Dillon early Rule as Levy 1881 in v. Salt

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Hutchinson

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 9, 1980

Citation: 624 P.2d 1116

Docket Number: 16087

Court Abbreviation: Utah