This from the Salt Lake Trib:

to block lawsuits passes
By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune





Then-Gov. Mike Leavitt's veto letter on a similar bill in 2002. (.PDF file, Courtesy of Utah Historical Research Center)


Learn more at the Utah Legislature's Web page.






On to the Senate: The House ignores its own attorneys in an effort to stop environmental delays on public projects
The House on Tuesday approved, 53-18, a bill that takes aim at environmental lawsuits.
Sponsoring Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, said the latest version of his HB100 "allows the state to take back some control" over environmental lawsuits that have stalled projects like the Legacy Highway.
He assured fellow lawmakers the measure does not, as critics say, violate the state and federal constitutions. The bill, if enacted, would require
Recent Coverage
Bill targeting frivolous suits by greens moves on, (2-01-06)






nonprofit groups that want the courts to temporarily halt a new project during appeals to post a bond that covers any costs of delay, including wages, taxes and higher construction expenses or lose their state-granted right to do business in Utah.
"No one," said Tilton, "will be barred access to the courts."
Tuesday's vote seemed to ignore an outcry about the bill from sportsman's groups, such as Trout Unlimited, environmental groups, like the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, and civic groups like the League of Women Voters. In addition, lawmakers seemed to dismiss an in-depth analysis by their own attorneys, made public on Tuesday, that noted a number of "obvious constitutional issues" with the bill.
"Those are just opinions," said Tilton.
The bill will be sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo. It is supported by the Utah Manufacturers Association and the Utah Mining Association.
Salt Lake City Democrat Rep. Ralph Becker, an attorney and urban planner, described the bill as a sure target of litigation - a cost not accurately reflected in a fiscal note indicating the cost of implementing the bill


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



would be paid for by the fees it requires.
He said the bill "goes against the grain of the whole fabric of our society," undermining the fundamental principal that everyone should have access to the courts.
"It is one of the most basic rights of our citizens," he said.
Becker's words echoed those of the veto message issued by former Gov. Mike Leavitt, a Republican, on a 2002 bill.
That year's SB183 would have forced losing plaintiffs to pay court costs and damages for construction delays - costs that might potentially run into the millions. Saying he appreciated the motivation behind the bill, Leavitt killed it for being "too broad in its potential application."
"Public projects are usually by nature expensive," Leavitt wrote. "The risk of exposure to the private citizen who disagrees with the project may be so overwhelming under this law that there is no adequate check on government, and the citizen is effectively restrained from having access to the courts.
"It is fundamental to our democracy that citizens be able to take complaints to court," he added. "The government is not always right."
fahys@sltrib.com

Good material for viable argument here! On the positive, the whining snivling morons of the world will be detered from wasting the state's time, and the taxpayers money. On the down side, private citizens with genuine concerns may be at risk. And sadly, may give large corporations more power over local government and residents.