HOUSE SETS IMPEACHMENT IN MOTION AGAINST HARDING

In a historic first for Utah, lawmakers began impeachment proceedings Monday
against a 4th District judge accused of drug possession.

Judge Ray Harding Jr. is charged with two third-degree felonies for
possession of heroin and cocaine and is scheduled for a March 18 trial. But
legislators who say Harding should resign -- or at least stop drawing his
$103,000 annual salary while on leave -- could boot the judge before his
trial begins or the Utah Supreme Court takes possible disciplinary action.

The Judicial Conduct Commission, which investigates complaints against
judges and recommends sanctions to the Supreme Court, made its decision on
Harding after a closed Feb. 1 hearing with the judge. But the commission's
recommendation has not yet gone to the high court and is not yet public,
said commission Executive Director Colin Winchester.

"We are simply going through the paperwork process now," he said.

Sponsored by Rep. Neal Hendrickson, D-West Valley City, the resolution
passed Monday seeks impeachment of Harding for "high crimes, misdemeanors
and malfeasance," saying the judge tested positive for traces of cocaine and
heroin, spent time in a California drug treatment program, and remains on
the state payroll pending the outcome of his trial.

The stern resolution comes after a string of confrontations between
lawmakers and the judiciary over a failed attempt to legislate gun lockers
in courthouses, an initial snub of a legislative audit of the conduct
commission, and a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law
justices said elevated rural voters over urban residents in placing
initiatives on the ballot.

Now some lawmakers are frustrated by what they see as a delay in getting
Harding off the bench -- and the embarrassing allegations against him out of
the news.

Harding, 49, was arrested after his wife called police to their Highland
home July 13, 2002, to say he had been up all night using drugs and acting
out of control. Third District Judge Timothy Hanson has refused to suppress
evidence in the case, which includes drug paraphernalia bearing cocaine and
heroin residue, and a small amount of cocaine powder. Heroin and cocaine
were also present in hair samples taken from Harding.

A lengthy debate on the House floor Monday centered on whether lawmakers
should wait for the Supreme Court to act or proceed on their own, and how
much an impeachment could cost taxpayers in a special session.

Legislative General Counsel Gay Taylor told lawmakers they could embark on a
first in the state's history by impeaching Harding. She said the cost to
taxpayers would rest on how fast work went in a special session where the
House Judiciary Committee would hear evidence from an outside counsel hired
to investigate.

Articles of impeachment could then be presented to the full House, where a
two-thirds majority vote would be required for passage on to the Senate. The
case against Harding would then be presented and prosecuted in the Senate.

Senators would also need a two-thirds majority to remove Harding from the
bench, and could also disqualify him from holding any state office. Harding
would defend himself by using his own attorney and would have no means of
appeal, Taylor told representatives.

Rep. Stephen Clark, R-Provo, spoke against the resolution, saying Harding
will most assuredly already lose his law license and his spot on the bench.

"I know Judge Harding quite well," Clark said. "He's a very fine man. . . .
He made a lot of mistakes. But I'm telling you to continue on and rub this
into the wounds that are already inflicted should not take place."

But on a 66-9 vote, most representatives rose in support of starting
impeachment.

"This is a unique situation where an individual appointed by our governor
breached the public trust," said Rep. Wayne Harper, R-West Jordan. "I do
feel sorry for the personal losses for the judge and his family, but there
were others who were victims of this inside of his court and outside of his
court."

Rep. Dana Love, R-Syracuse, said cost should not be a consideration.

"If you determine this issue on how much it is going to cost the state of
Utah," she said, "then you go back to the critic's argument that you can buy
your way out of anything, including trouble."

Former Judicial Conduct Commission member Rep. David Ure, R-Kamas, angrily
criticized Harding.

"If the good judge is so sincere in trying to change his ways, why has he
not resigned?" Ure said. "I realize it will take time and a lot of money,
but I think this would be a very important precedent for this body to take.
. . . It's important in keeping the balance in the three branches of
government."

A companion bill introduced by Rep. Katherine Bryson, R-Orem, would allow
the Supreme Court to suspend a judge without pay or remove a judge from
office on its own motion instead of waiting for the conduct commission
recommendations.

The bill also aims to open up a portion of the commission's secretive work
to the public, making complaints public once a judge reaches the hearing
stage. The bill would put Utah in the realm of 37 other states with judicial
discipline processes that are much more open than Utah's.

Shying away from pointing to Harding as the incentive for her bill, Bryson
said the Judicial Conduct Commission process should be opened to promote
public faith and trust in the judiciary.

"I felt we were not disclosing as much as other states were," she said, "and
we owed that to the public."