This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Proposals on this year's ballot to define marriage in the Utah Constitution and spend money for wildlife and open space preservation have been nearly as prominent on Utah's political landscape as some of the major races.

But another proposal to change the constitution - Amendment 1 - has remained under the radar, with no apparent organized opposition to what seemingly is a good idea and logical evolution toward 21st century governance. Amendment 1 should get some scrutiny, however, because of the inherent weakness of humans, especially members of the Utah Legislature.

The text of Amendment 1 is innocuous enough. It would explicitly grant the Utah House of Representatives the authority to call itself into special session for the purpose of impeaching a state official or a judge.

Some say the Legislature already has that power, because the House or the Senate can call itself together to conduct its own internal business and the Constitution already allows for impeachment by the House on the grounds of high crimes, misdemeanors or malfeasance in office.

But the explicit language in the Utah Constitution requires the governor to call the Legislature into a special session, and supporters of the amendment want that ambiguity cleared up. They say that if a governor or an elected official favored by the governor commits a sin when the Legislature is not in session, lawmakers must rely on the governor to call them into session to rid the state of the rascal, or wait until the next scheduled general legislative session, possibly several months away.

The problem is that the gravity of a public official's dirty deed often is in the eye of the beholder and sometimes, unfortunately, depends on whether the offender is of a different political persuasion than the accuser.

Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, sponsored the resolution to put the amendment on this November's ballot. It was put together after two years of discussion and compromise in the Constitutional Revision Commission and passed the Legislature with hardly any dissent.

Valentine notes that the amendment requires two-thirds of the House to affirm a special session for impeachment, compared to a simple majority currently required for the House to convene to do its own business. He also notes that most states have similar allowances for impeachment sessions in their constitutions.

But there is a sizable faction in this Utah Legislature that has a hard time with political diversity. These are the lawmakers who wanted to cut former University of Utah President Bernie Machen's salary for refusing to allow guns on his campus. These are the legislators who wanted to cut funding to Utah Valley State College for having the audacity to invite Michael Moore to speak on campus.

There is little chance that two-thirds of the House would agree to impeach someone simply over a political disagreement. But just the threat of initiating an impeachment petition then publicizing that effort could serve as an intimidation tactic. An explicit clause in the constitution giving lawmakers the power to do that might be too tempting for some.

When former Democratic Attorney General Jan Graham refused to spend more taxpayer money defending a Utah abortion law after the U.S. Supreme Court's Casey decision rendered the case hopeless, several legislators called for her head. The lynch mob became more agitated after she refused to attach her office's name to a brief written by two Brigham Young University professors defending Vermont's law against gay marriage. Graham thought the brief was nothing more than an evangelical diatribe and not professional. The law eventually was struck down by the Vermont Supreme Court.

When Graham criticized lawmakers for balking at spending the revenues the state received from the tobacco company settlement on smoking cessation and prevention education programs, the Legislature took away the attorney general's authority over civil cases. It repealed that law the next year after feeling the wrath of an indignant public. But what if the Constitution had told them explicitly at the time that they could impeach her?

Legislators also have threatened to cut funding to the office of Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff for his support of a hate crimes bill, his opposition to Amendment 3, and his reluctance to continue spending taxpayer money defending the Payroll Protection Act, which in reality is designed to limit political contributions to Democratic Party-leaning PACs.

While getting two-thirds of the House to agree to impeachment on such grounds is unlikely, you never know. Remember the randomly selected federal grand jury in Utah that indicted the Federal Reserve Board in the 1980s for violating the gold standard, then attempted to hold U.S. Attorney Brent Ward in contempt for refusing to act on the indictment?