State v. Betensen, 9838
| Decision Date | 15 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 9838,9838 |
| Citation | 378 P.2d 669,14 Utah 2d 121 |
| Parties | d 121 STATE of Utah, Plaintiff, v. Glen BETENSEN, Defendant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
A. Pratt Kesler, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Gordon A. Madsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Olsen & Chamberlain, Richfield, for defendant.
This is an original proceeding in the nature of quo warranto challenging the right of the defendant, Glen Betensen, to hold the office of county attorney for Piute County, to which he was duly elected at the general election November 5, 1962.
The contention is that because the defendant is not a licensed member of the Bar he is disqualified to hold the office by Ch. 34, S.L.U.1957 (Sec. 17-18-4, U.C.A.) which provides that:
'No person shall be elected to the office of, or serve as county attorney, without being duly licensed to practice law in the state of Utah.'
Defendant urges that the above statute is invalid because it would have the effect of destroying rights conferred by Sec. 10 of Article VIII of the Utah Constitution which provides:
* * *' (Emphasis added.)
Inasmuch as this section of the constitution provides that the 'powers and duties' of county attorneys shall be prescribed by law, but fails to say anything about qualifications, there is uncertainty as to whether by the latter omission it was intended: merely to leave the matter open for possible legislative enactment; or, was an affirmative indication that no such qualification be required. 1
In view of such uncertainty it is proper to look not only to the document itself, but to the background out of which it arose and its practical application in order to determine the intent. 2
It is the position of the State that the provision that, 'A county attorney shall be elected by the qualified voters of each county * * *' and the omission to say anything about qualifications leaves the matter open, and that under the admitted plenary powers of the legislature to regulate the functions of government except as limited by the constitution, 3 it was proper to prescribe reasonable qualifications for the office, and that the statute in question thus supplements but does not contravene the provisions of the constitution. This position is not without plausibility, but as will presently appear, there are reasons which persuade us to a contrary conclusion.
Looking within the constitution itself we find in the same Article VIII, dealing with the judicial department, that the framers considered and specifically required legal qualifications for other officers concerned with administering the law: Justices of the Supreme Court to be 'an active member of the bar in good standing' (Sec. 2, Article VIII); judges of the district court to meet the same standard, (Sec. 5, Article VIII); and likewise as to the attorney general (Sec. 3, Article VII). From the fact that these qualifications were required of the other legal officials it is obvious that the matter must have been considered as to county attorneys and that the omission of such requirement was deliberate. This was undoubtedly done because of the fact that at the time of statehood very few, perhaps no more than half a dozen, of our 29 counties had attorneys resident therein. Yet it was necessary for someone to perform the numerous duties of a county attorney. 4 Our statutes prohibiting the practice of law other than by licensed attorneys have recognized an exception to one 'duly elected to the office of county attorney.' 15 This provision, incidentally, was not expressly repealed by the statute here in question. Although if the latter were a valid enactment, it would undoubtedly supersede the former as being in conflict and later in time.
While the scarcity of attorneys in most of our counties no longer exists, the fact cannot be ignored that there are still three counties in Utah which have only one licensed attorney and six in which no licensed attorney resides, including Piute County. It is not to be disputed that Sec. 10 of Article VIII of our constitution, hereinabove set out, gives the people of these counties the right to elect a county attorney. The question then arises how they could exercise that right under the present statutes. It has been suggested that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young, In re
...court looks to the circumstances[ ] which brought them into being and the purposes sought to be accomplished."); State v. Betensen, 14 Utah 2d 121, 378 P.2d 669, 669-70 (1963) (upon finding constitutional provision uncertain, looking to history to interpret article VIII, section 10 of Utah ......
-
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead
...Fed. Credit Union v. Bass, 759 P.2d 1144, 1146 (Utah 1988); Rampton, 23 Utah 2d at 385-86, 464 P.2d at 379; State v. Betensen, 14 Utah 2d 121, 123, 378 P.2d 669, 669 (1963); Gammon v. Federated Milk Producers Ass'n, 12 Utah 2d 189, 190, 364 P.2d 417, 418 (1961); General Electric, 5 Utah 2d ......
-
American Bush v. City of South Salt Lake
...J., concurring). We thus inform our textual interpretation with historical evidence of the framers' intent. State v. Betensen, 14 Utah 2d 121, 378 P.2d 669, 669-70 (1963) ("[I]t is proper to look not only to the [constitution] itself, but to the background out of which it arose and its prac......
-
State v. Lopez
...laws, Dean v. Rampton, 556 P.2d 205, 206-07 (Utah 1976) (citing Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803); State v. Betensen, 14 Utah 2d 121, 378 P.2d 669 (1963)), it is not within the province of the executive branch or judicial branch to say whether those laws are reasonable. Su......
-
Reflections on the Constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Act
...13 Utah 2d 359, 363, 374 P.2d 516 (1962). [3] Dean v. Hampton, 556 P.2d 205, 206-07 (Utah 1976); State v. Bentensen, 14 Utah.2d 121, 124 378 P.2d 669 (1963); see also Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). [4] Utah Code Annotated § 41-6-181, et seq. (1986). The author asserts tha......