 |
| A view of Buckley Mountain |
On Friday, the 14th of April, Republican delegates convened to pick the party's candidates for positions in Utah County. I had been following the County Commission Seat A and County Attorney races pretty closely.
The County Attorney race was particularly tricky, and the results from delegate voting reflect this. The delegates could not settle on one over the other, so they will have to face each other in a primary.
Here we have two candidates with very different backgrounds, yet each one brings something positive to the table. Chad Grunander is a veteran of our County Attorney's office. It is clear that he brings experience and familiarity to the table. David Leavitt, on the other hand, was once the County Attorney for Juab County, and the city attorney for both Nephi and Fillmore. He has been working as a defense attorney, and has been active internationally, founding the Leavitt Institute for International Development. So, it would seem that we have a choice between familiarity and expertise, and someone new with an outside perspective. This is how the race is typically framed. Personally, I don't consider those labels to be helpful.
Here's what I care about: To what extent will the candidate use the position to protect our rights?
While the County Attorney is charged with the responsibility of providing legal aid to county officials, he is not, in a sense, an employee of the county or of the County Commission. As an elected official, who has a strong hand in the prosecution of the law, the people's primary interest in the County Attorney should always be his ability and willingness to defend their rights. The two ways that a County Attorney can do this are by his faithful execution of just laws, and by using his discretion to mitigate the effects of unjust laws.
David Leavitt has done more to convince me of his awareness of the dual nature of this responsibility than Chad Grunander has. To be honest, it is hard to judge Chad's past performance. There is some news of indiscretions and prosecutorial overreach connected to the current County Attorney's office. It is hard to know to what extent Chad may have been involved in documented incidents. However, without that clarity, it doesn't help his case. His rhetoric suggests to me that he is someone who isn't comfortable with the idea of taking responsibility for using his discretion to prevent legal injustices.
Chad notes that he swears an oath to enforce the laws of the land but that he has a lot of leeway in how he does that. It's better than if he didn't acknowledge the leeway written into the laws, but it is the sort of simplistic assertion that fails to recognize the layered nature of "the laws of the land", and how those layers can be in conflict. (A more worrisome statement came from our current attorney general, who stated, "we defend the laws, whether we agree with them or not.") It also suggests an obeisance to the law, placing it above those laws which are actually higher. In particular, we have county laws, we have the Constitution of the State of Utah, and we have the Constitution of the United States. There are plenty of times when the county laws may be unconstitutional at the state level, or even be in violation of the contract between the states and the federal government. (eg. HB 187 of 2012)
David Leavitt, on the other hand, has characterized his campaign by the assertions that you've "got to make sure that when you're prosecuting someone you're not making society worse" and also, "you've got to hold people accountable for their role in society." These appear to me to be the two pillars of a good County Attorney's responsibility to defend our rights. It is a recognition that is, far too often, absent from these kinds of positions.
These are the standout considerations for me as I watch this race. I'll be looking to get a clearer picture of their approaches as the race evolves.
Comments
Post a Comment