Utah Election 2024: Ask the AG

BY CHRISTOPHER KATIS

One of the most important races this election year is for Utah Attorney General. In this two-part series, I asked the major candidates their positions on issues impacting our community. Here is the first set of responses from Michelle Quist (Utah United), Rudy Bautista (Democrat), and Andrew McCullough (Libertarian). The GOP candidate did not respond. Disclosure: Ms. Quist and I were neighbors in L.A. and occasionally socialized.

If SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, which legalized same-gender marriage nationwide, and Utah’s Amendment 3, defining marriage between one man and one woman, becomes law again, would you defend it?

QUIST: Any reversal of Obergefell won’t necessarily result in the restoration of Amendment 3, which was struck down in 2013; Obergefell was decided in 2015. The former didn’t rely on the latter. Regardless, there is little appetite for Amendment 3 in Utah anymore, and I would advocate against it.

BAUTISTA : I would not defend any law that attempts to limit a person’s ability for “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” I would support challenges to any illegal law passed by asking the courts to enter a default judgment striking down such laws.

MCCULLOUGH : The tendency by the current Supreme Court to walk back on the long series of court decisions enforcing Federal constitutional rights against State incursions is alarming. The current Court wants to cut back on the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizens; and I would hope to see Utah in the forefront of opposition to that movement.

HB 257 requires people to use restrooms in government operated buildings that correspond to their gender assigned at birth (on their birth certificate.) It will likely face legal challenges. As AG, what do you do?

QUIST: As AG, I would be obligated to represent the state in any litigation related to HB 257. However, if the legal challenges suggest it infringes upon constitutional rights, I would seek a resolution that upholds the law without compromising the civil liberties of Utahns.

BAUTISTA : In regards to HB257, it is designed to only perpetuate hate! We already have laws that protect a person’s privacy. This law is designed only to shame and hurt people. As AG, I would support any legal challenge designed to strike down the law.

MCCULLOUGH : Both sides in this dispute claim this is a matter of personal safety. Birth certificates can be changed by court order. I am not sure if that is an adequate remedy, but I’m open to discussion. It is not as simple as saying that people can determine which sex they are simply by declaring it.

Anti-LGBTQ+ proposed laws are often couched as “religious freedom” bills. How will you protect the rights of the community against this type of legislated discrimination?

QUIST: While religious freedom is a protected right, it cannot be used to justify discrimination. I am committed to rigorously reviewing any proposed laws that could infringe on the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals before they pass, challenging those that violate constitutional protections.

BAUTISTA : The First Amendment has been recognized as protecting a person’s right of freedom of religion and has been interpreted to stand for the principle of separation of church and state. As AG, I will not defend any law which is designed to restrict a person’s right to the pursuit of happiness.

MCCULLOUGH : Businesses generally should not discriminate but I am not without sympathy toward an artist who is approached to individually design wedding items, for instance. As an attorney, I can turn down a case I do not want to pursue. I tend to think others who are in individual service professions should have the same right.

See more responses in next month’s issue.