STATE OF UTAH Gary R. HERBERT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR SPENCER J. Cox Governor ene Sere icra isan Ligurenanr GovERNOR 84114-2220 March 27, 2018 Honorable Wayne L. Niedethauser President of the Senate and Honorable Gregory H. Hughes Speaker of the House Dear President Niedethauser and Speaker Hughes, Thave vetoed SB 171, Intervention Amendments because it intrudes on a function that is inherently and exclusively in the domain of the Executive Branch, When plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a state statute they have judicial standing because they can demonstrate a real or potential harm caused by the execution of the law. In defending these suits, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is not only defending the statute itself but current or future execution of the statute, That is why the defendant is the Governor or another Executive officer. Defending these legal challenges is inherently part of the Executive’s role of executing the law. Intervention by the Legislature would only disrupt judicial proceedings. Presumably, the Legislature would intervene because it disagrees with the approach taken by the OAG. Differing lature and the OAG would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and interfere with the ability of the OAG to pursue legal strategies and to present the state’s case. Some have suggested that an additional review of a case by the Legislature cannot hurt anything and serves only to strengthen the state’s position, This is contrary to fundamental notions of separation of powers. The Utah Constitution’s explicit separation of powers clause ‘means that even if one branch believes that “two eyes are better than one” that branch still cannot exercise the functions belonging to another branch. Additionally, the Legislature may not exercise Executive authority even when the Legislature believes the Executive is not performing its role properly.Others have suggested that intervention by the Legislature will not hurt the Executive because the Legislature would present its case in a way that does not detract from the Executive's case. They have argued that SB 171 simply provides an additional track for a state actor to present arguments to the court. This argument is akin to the Governor filing his own bills, under his own name during a legislative session. It would not impede the ability of the Legislature to file bills; it would simply provide another track. Additionally, SB 171 is worded so broadly that the Legislature would be able to intervene in thousands of cases. Many legislators have provided assurances that this bill would rarely be used, However, the Legislature appropriated $700,000 to implement SB 171, suggesting that the Legislature sees enough work for three attorneys, a paralegal, and a legal secretary. look forward to further dialogue about how the Executive Branch may properly se input from the Legislature in defending the type of challenges at issue in SB 171. Sincerely,