Court » Ruling says requirements do not infringe on free speech.

Court Ruling says requirements do not infringe on free speech.

A group attempting to get an employee-verification measure on Utahs Nov. 6 ballot lost its lawsuit Friday after a judge ruled that new state requirements for qualifying an initiative doesnt infringe upon free speech rights.

"The laws do not limit the ability of citizens to raise issues and initiate political discussions," 3rd District Court Judge Randall Skanchy wrote in his ruling.

The case centered around former Republican Congressman Merrill Cooks attempt to qualify a ballot measure for November that would require the state to adopt a tough E-Verify law in an attempt to halt the hiring of illegal immigrants for work in Utah.

Utah currently has an E-Verify law on the books, but it has no penalties. Cooks measure is similar to Arizonas E-Verify law, where business licenses could be revoked if employers are caught hiring people not authorized to work in the United States.

Cook argued in court that a law signed by Gov. Gary Herbert in 2011 restricts free speech because it significantly curbed the ability of volunteers to gather enough signatures to qualify initiatives for the ballot.

To get a measure on the ballot under the new law, signatures must be gathered within 316 days and their number must equal at least 10 percent of the votes cast for president. Before, it was 10 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election and the time frame to collect signatures could extend out to as long as three years.

Cook said the new law, SB165, was a "cynical ploy" by the Legislature to quash ballot initiatives especially E-Verify. The Legislature had a tough E-Verify bill introduced in the past session, but it died in committee.

In response to Skanchys ruling, Cook said the judge didnt understand the relationship between the petition process and free speech.

"Hes accepted a very narrow definition of free speech," said Cook, who contends that free speech on an issue means being able to sign a petition and vote on it, not just talk about it.

Read more here:
Court » Ruling says requirements do not infringe on free speech.