Mike Thompson, executive director of the gay-rights advocacy group Equality Utah, praised the governor's veto, saying the bill "rubber stamped" who could be parents.

"There are a diverse group of families that reside in the state of Utah," Thompson said. "It is truly best for the courts to determine the best interest of a child."

The sponsor of HB100, Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, said he thinks he can retain the support for the bill — it passed the House with 53 votes in the House and 20 votes in the Senate, both two-thirds or more — to override the veto. To help his cause, he has also requested support from Utah's congressional delegation.

Huntsman's primary concerns with the bill were constitutional, because it could potentially restrict access to the courts, and a conflict with federal laws. However, Tilton said Tuesday night that because it only applies to corporations, and not individuals, it does not put up any barriers to people wanting to file an environmental lawsuit.

"It would not impede access to the courts for individuals," Tilton said. "The governor's understanding of the bill did not allow him to fully comprehend it."

Huntsman said in his veto letter that HB100 "conflicts with federal law inasmuch as it seeks to impose additional requirements" on corporations. Because of those conflicts, and constitutional principles that federal law preempts state law, he could not let it take effect.

The least controversial veto may be HB151, which would have allowed schools to charge students taking concurrent enrollment classes to cover the rising costs of the program. However, because of a $2.3 million appropriation to cover those same costs from the Legislature, Huntsman said, "This year's budget is sufficient to cover concurrent enrollment funding, so this bill is unnecessary." In the future, he recommended that different solutions be considered, especially one which would do a better job of allowing low-income students to take the classes.

The sponsor of HB151, Rep. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

Huntsman will also need to call a special session to deal with the $70 million "flatter" income tax proposal, which failed to pass the House on the final night of the general session. Whether that will be called at the same as the veto override session or left until May is still a matter of discussion, although some House members are reluctant to tackle the tax proposal only days before county conventions in Utah and Salt Lake counties because it may hamper campaign efforts.

"Many of us think it would be better to have a late-May special session — the (convention) campaigning is out of the way and we can concentrate" on Huntsman's personal income tax reform, Curtis said.

---

E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com; dbulkeley@desnews.com; jloftin@desnews.com