Q: What is the major issue facing Utah today and how would you deal with it?

A: I see the role of Attorney General differently than does the incumbent. While he talks about extending State power in an effort to make Utah "safer", I want to review the uses of State power, in an effort to make Utahns more free. I will work to make all branches of state government more understanding and responsive toward individual rights, and I hope that state government's interaction with citizens is truly "kinder and gentler". We need, for instance, to turn drug enforcement efforts toward those who make others dependent on drugs, and thus regular customers. Our jails and prisons are now full of people arrested for simple possession or use. These people are not criminals, but victims. I hope to end prosecution of victims, and work toward their rehabilitation in an environment free from fear.

Q: How will you handle having to defend legislation you personally disagree with?

A: All attorneys represent people who's viewpoint is different than their own, and we nevertheless do our jobs. The Attorney General, however, has more power to make his influence felt than the typical trial lawyer. He can work with the Legislature to explain constitutional problems with pending legislation, and hopefully avoid the necessity of defending legislation which is likely indefensible. My concerns would not be so much that I personally disagree with legislation, as it would be that Court decisions make the legislation unwise. I believe it is within the power of the Attorney General to concede in Court, that the Legislature may have made a mistake, and should consider amending or repealing the legislation. The present Attorney General worked hard in the Legislature to overturn much of what the people passed in Initiative B four years ago. This Initiative prohibited police agencies from profiting from confiscating private property. I would certainly not have taken the position that the present Attorney General is seeking to once again allow police agencies to seize property and keep the proceeds.

Q: Does the Utah attorney general need to use outside counsel? Under what circumstances? How would you control costs?

A: There are situations from time to time where a conflict of interest will require outside counsel. There also are occasional situations where outside expertise may be needed. In my administration, the use if outside counsel would be kept to a minimum, and I would actively look for attorneys who could provide the service at a reduced fee. In many cases, outside experts would be used to supervise or assist staff attorneys, and therefore to keep fees to a minimum.

Q: In the past, AG incumbents/candidates have been criticized for accepting campaign donations from law firms that currently have, or recently had, outside contracts with the Attorney General's Office. Have you accepted donations from firms or law firm principals with outside contracts? If so, why?

A: Libertarians do not get large contributions from anybody. I certainly have not received donations from large law firms who hope to gain favor or influence. If I am elected, I will owe nobody any favors.

Q: What is the one personal trait/characteristic that you want voters to know about you, and why is that important in this race?

A: I am in this race because I really want to work for a change in government, and change its attitude toward citizens. I am passionate about defending freedom, and I see my candidacy as revolutionary. If you share my vision, help spread the word.

Q: How have you funded your campaign, and what, if anything, does it show voters about your candidacy?

A: My campaign in being run on a grassroots, shoe-string budget. There have been no large corporate contributions. Those who have contributed want a more free society. What may be more important is what contributions say about my opponents. Mr. Shurtleff says that it is necessary and appropriate to obtain large contributions from "corporate citizens". It seems that Mr. Shurtleff considers them an important part of his constituency. Those who support my campaign have little money to give, but their interests are most important to me.

Q: In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled sodomy laws, such as the one on Utah's books, as unconstitutional. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to strike the Utah law in the Courts. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, should Utah's sodomy law be taken off the books?

A: Certainly the Supreme Court has made it clear that the government has no place in personal intimate conduct. There have been no attempts that I am aware of to enforce sodomy laws in Utah. Nevertheless, the Legislature should get to work to repeal those laws, and other attempts to regulate "public morals". Certainly as Attorney General I would be urging Utah legislators to do just that.

Q: The Utah Supreme Court is considering a dispute between the University of Utah and the state over the university's policy prohibiting faculty, staff and students from bringing guns on campus. The State contends only the Legislature has authority to enact gun laws in the state, while the university contends it should not be subject to the Legislature's authority.

   (A): What is your personal view about guns on college campuses?

A: The Utah Legislature has made a clear decision that no local government entity is free to modify or disregard the law on concealed firearms.

   (B): Should state colleges and universities be autonomous from the Legislature's authority? Why?

A: Nothing contained in any grant of autonomy seems to be strong enough to counter the Utah Legislature's general policy decision. The concealed carry law is designed to make Utahns safer, not less safe. If people are allowed to properly defend themselves and others, incidents of violence should decrease, not increase. There seems to be little reason to require permit holders, who are allowed to bring their firearms through most of the State, to refrain from carrying them at state university campuses. Current law does, however, exempt private property holders from the requirement. Brigham Young University and Westminster College, as private property owners, are properly exempt.

   (C): Should the state have appealed the lower court ruling that found that the university's gun ban was legal? Why?

A: Yes. To the extent that the State of Utah believed that the ruling was inconsistent with the Utah Legislature's intent, the appeal was justified.

Q: As you know, public attorneys often say they have dual roles. They represent their state and officeholders, but that are elected by the public and represent it, also. As AG, how would you divide those roles? Would you put your responsibility to the public ahead of your legal responsibility to a particular officeholder, department or other state client?

A: If I am elected, there will be very serious efforts to change the attitude of the Attorney General's Office to take the individual rights of Utahns into account. If State officers injure people, they should not be blindly defended, but reasonable settlements should be made, and efforts increased to educate State employees to avoid such injuries. Police officers, for instance, should be taught that constitutional protections from those suspected of criminal activity are not "technicalities", but are serious protections from unreasonable State enforcement. State employees need to be carefully taught that they serve the people, they do not rule or control them. If this attitude change can be encouraged, there should be no conflict between the roles.

Q: The above questions are aimed at finding out where you stand and why voters should pick you. Can you give us one (or more) reasons why voters should not pick your general election opponents (include major party candidates if you wish)? For example, does he lack experience, education, vision, does he bring conflicts of interest or is he too closely associated with minority political views, ect.?

A: My two opponents campaign on increasing State power in the name of insuring safety. I agree with Ben Franklin who said that those who give up some of their liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. My opponents are both good attorneys, but they do not share my vision of a more open and free society. The government always has reasons, like the war on drugs or the war on terror, to increase its power, and restrict individual rights. The difference between my two opponents and me is that I consider resisting this impulse to increase State power as the most important thing that I can do. I bring a choice to this race of a very different attitude and vision. It should not be difficult to decide which of these visions a voter favors. If I am "too closely associated with minority political views" it is because the public needs to be converted to these views, so I am no longer in the minority.

Q: If elected, what will be your role in fighting pornography?

A: Unlike the current Attorney General (see “Article” section of this site), I believe the First Amendment means what it says, and that is that “no law” shall be passed abridging freedom of speech or of the press. Under the guise of protecting children, some people are determined to use government power to prohibit adults from reading or viewing material or performances which they deem objectionable. After much thought, I have decided that there is no elected or appointed governmental official who I trust to make that decision for me (and certainly not either Mr. Shurtleff or Mr. Ashcroft). There certainly are reasonable measures the government can take to assist parents in limiting access to adult materials by children. But the line is crossed when that material is also made unavailable to adults.

   The current Attorney General was recently quoted as saying that the U.S. Supreme Court was “out of touch” and had “lost direction” when they again refused to approve the latest congressional attempt to censor the internet. I suggest that the Court sees the danger that is inherent in regulating expression in a way that limits adults to content suitable for children. Freedom of speech and of the press would not be true freedom without the right to offend others. There are many services designed to keep objectionable material away from the young and the sensitive. With the exception of actions narrowly limited to protecting children, I would not consider it my job to fight pornography, but to uphold the right of the citizens to read and view what they wish.

Q: What about the issue of electability?

A: The first published poll puts the current Attorney General far in the lead. At this point it is pretty early to make predictions; but these numbers suggest that both challengers have a lot of work to do. To say at this point that the Democratic candidate has a better chance than I have to be elected is not supported by the evidence. My candidacy is calculated to get those involved who otherwise woud find no reason to vote; and it is dedicated to raising issues in the debate that would not otherwise be raised. Whatever happens to the numbers as the race gets closer to November, the campaign will be enriched by my participation. If you like what you see here, get involved, and help me bring real change to the Utah justice system. Vote your conscience, and you will be glad you did.

Q: What is your stand on the current 'War on Drugs'?

A: "The following is a letter I recently sent to the Utah State Bar regarding a former judge (and friend), which sets out my view on this subject."

May 11, 2004

Office of Attorney Discipline
Utah State Bar
645 South 200 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Ladies and Gentlemen:

    I just read in the newspaper that the Bar is seeking disbarment, or a
lengthy suspension, of Former Judge Ray Harding Jr. Perhaps it is to late to
affect the Bar's position. Nevertheless, I thought I should give it a try.

    When Judge Harding was arrested, I wrote a letter to the Provo Herald
newspaper suggesting that it was time to treat drug addiction as an illness
rather than a crime. The newspaper refused to print it. Nevertheless, the
case of Judge Harding is a good reminder that the present approach to drug
use is both stupid and a failure. If we must treat the pusher as someone who
victimizes others, it makes no sense to punish the victims. Neither does it
make sense to punish a sick person for his illness.

    Certainly an argument can be made for removing a sitting Judge from the
bench when he is found to be a drug user, especially when he is required to
be in the front lines of the "war on drugs". The danger, of course, is that
he may realize how stupid public policy has become, and refuse to
participate in its enforcement. That same argument cannot be made, however,
in support of stripping an attorney of his Bar membership, especially when
the evidence is strong that the drug habit has been overcome. It seems to me
that Mr. Harding has suffered enough from this misguided "war". If you have
to do something, suspend him for 90 days. Then require him to do some extra
Pro Bono work in behalf of fellow victims. Certainly society and the Court
will benefit from his new-found wisdom on the subject.

    Thank you for your consideration.

        Sincerely yours,
        W. Andrew McCullough

WAM: cj
CC: Greg Skordas, Esq.

Q: Where do you stand on the issue of Civil Forfeiture?

A: I was a member of the steering committee for Initiative B four years ago. The object of the Initiative Campaign was to reduce the use of civil forfeiture of property which the police claim is linked to crime, and to especially protect innocent people who may have an interest in that property. Most importantly, the Initiative provided that police agencies could no longer directly profit from seizing property, and could neither keep the property themselves nor sell it and keep the profits. Obviously, such a scheme encourages abuse by law enforcement agencies who have an incentive to violate the rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is an important right guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

   Mr. Shurtleff opposed Initiative B four years ago, and has worked to dismantle it since. Recently he was successful in his effort to restore the right of police agencies to directly profit from their seizures. I testified against the bill before a committee of the Utah House. Mr. Skordas has said that he did not support Initiative B, but neither did he support dismantling it. I am the only candidate for Utah Attorney General who strongly opposes law enforcement profiting from seizures.

Q: Where do you stand on the issue of Fully Informed Juries?

A: This year, the incumbent Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, succeeded in his attempt to delete language from the Utah Republican Party’s platform, which supported a juror’s right to be informed of her and his right to acquit a defendant when the law is unjust or has been unjustly applied.

   As supporters of fully-informed juries, the Andrew McCullough for Attorney General campaign asks all Utahns who value the ability of juries to protect their neighbors from the unjust application of laws to remember which candidate is on their side this coming November.

   For more information about fully-informed juries, visit the Fully Informed Jury Association’s web site at: http://www.fija.org.

Q: What about racial profiling and hate crimes?

A: Here is my reply on those subjects, recently sent for the Utah NAACP newsletter:

   This is my reply to your questions concerning my position on racial profiling and hate crimes legislation.

    I am on the board of directors of the ACLU of Utah, and have done a number of lawsuits for the organization. The ACLU is very concerned about racial profiling, and has engaged in some legal actions to help change procedures. In behalf of the ACLU, I have filed at least three legal actions regarding unreasonable stops and seizures of people on the highway, based on their appearance. One case in particular was clearly a case of racial profiling. A young gentleman, a Sikh from India, was “stalked” from the moment he drove in from Arizona, until he was stopped for a minor traffic violation some miles away. He was detained for a lengthy period of time while the policemen sought to search his vehicle. We received a settlement in this matter, and hopefully a change in attitude. If I am elected Attorney General, police officers will be regularly trained in avoiding inappropriate stops, based on the appearance of the driver. Unfortunately, police are now given the impression that it is fair and reasonable to use such things as racial characteristics to detain people while looking for drugs. This needs to change.

   My law practice also involves issues concerning freedom of speech and expression. I think we all agree that crime perpetrated against racial minorities, or others who are out of favor, must not be tolerated. Nevertheless, a person should not be punished for his attitudes, his beliefs, or his statements. While I will keep an open mind on the subject, my present feeling is that current law is sufficient to punish those who hurt others, for whatever reason. An enhancement for the act of "being a bigot” or for making a racial slur is probably not good policy. A person should be punished for his deeds, not his thoughts, though the “intent to harm” is always relevant in criminal actions. I agree with the ACLU that evidence of beliefs or membership in an organization should not be the basis for prosecution or enhancement.

Q: What about gun rights?

A: There have been some questions lately about my stand on gun rights, as I have not posted a position here. The Libertarian Party is in the forefront of the campaign to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA). I fully support the Party position; and I state clearly that if I am elected, I will do my best to support both Second Amendment rights and our State Constitutional Protections, which are a bit broader (See Article I Section 6 which sells out the individual righ to bear for protection of self, family and property). I believe in the ENTIRE Bill of Rights; and Utahns will be safer from government interference with ANY of them, with me as Attorney General.

Q: What is your position on Amendment Three and on marriage in general?

A: I talked recently to some polygamists who were anxious to disciuss my views on their religious rights and thier lifestyle. I told them that while they were probably very uncomfortable with the thought (and they were), they needed to view the gay and lesbian community as natural allies on the question of the recognition of non-traditional marriages. The practice of polygamy had a big hand in the founding of this State, and those who are now strongly opposed to it must realize this. The early settlers of this State were lieterally forced from thier homes, in part because of this practice. The Federal government threatened to destroy thier religion if they did not renounce it; and they did. Traditionally, the practice has quietly continued in parts of this State without much interference from the State. My law firm recently filed a "friend of the Court" brief in support of Tom Green; and those who practice this religious principle will have no problem from me. That is NOT to say, however, that I will tolerate abuse of women or children. Neither will I allow abuse of the welfare system by those who have more children than they can support. Simply put, the practice of polygamy by itself is portected by the First Amendment, and that will remain my position if elected.

   All three candidates for Attorney General have opposed the passage of Amendment Three, though for different reasons. Those who want to form a partnership and own property together, may do so if they are legally capable of entering into a contract. I can see no harm to society if that contract includes mutual personal commitment. Marriage contains a religious element and has traditionally been a religious rite. If a particular religious body is willing to bless this contractual union and call it a marriage, I think this is also protected under the First Amendment. And if the courts are later involved in deciding disputes ("divorce?") again, I see no harm to society from this.

   Please, whether you agree with me on this issue or not, make yourself aware of the mean-spirited nature of the second part of the Amendment Three, and vote "NO". This amendment is more than is necessary to support "traditional marriage", and will be very hurtful to many people.