September 12, 2024 – Judge Dianna Gibson has struck Amendment D as VOID. It can be printed on the ballots but it is “void and has no effect.” The state has said they will appeal. She writes, “the legislature has a duty and the obligation to accurately communicate the ‘subject matter’ of the proposed amendment to voters and to publish the text of the amendment in a newspaper in each county two months before the election. It has failed to do both.”
Judge Gibson writes that the legislature omitted “the chief feature” of the amendment in their summary — “that the legislature will have the unlimited right to change law passed by citizen initiative. The omission entirely eliminates the voter’s fundamental right.” She also said that while the laws that require they keep the intent of the initiative and expand signature time for referendum are “beneficial,” they can be changed at any time for any reason.
Utah Constitutional Amendment D was placed on the November 2024 Election Ballot by the Utah Legislature through a Special Session. It was written to overturn the decision by the Utah Supreme Court earlier in the summer, which upheld that the Legislature did not have the power to repeal citizen ballot initiatives that sought to reform government itself. Constitutional Amendment D, if passed, will
Despite what those in the Utah Legislature may claim, the ultimate power in government resides with you, the people. You must retain your right to reform government as you see fit when you deem it necessary. The Utah Legislature is trying to take away that right and prevent you from being able to make critical changes to how your state Representatives govern Utah. Do not let them.
The Utah Legislature is doing everything they can to hide the truth of Constitutional Amendment D, especially the hidden consequences. Here are the Myths they’re telling you, and the Facts about what a vote for or against Amendment D means.
If you don’t like the legislature changing the law, your remedy should be to vote them out.
The issue that spawned this entire ruling and debate is over the people’s ability to do exactly that and the legislature’s attempts to preserve their hold on power through gerrymandering their voting districts.
The Amendment is necessary to add days to the referendum process, making it easier for citizens to challenge the legislature’s actions.
This can also be accomplished through legislation, and while it would make the referendum process marginally easier, it would also be moot because the legislature would also have the ability to simply undo the referendum vote at their sole discretion.
The Amendment is necessary to prevent foreign entities from contributing to influence Utah initiatives.
This can be accomplished through legislation, and bundling it with the repeal clause in the same amendment is disingenuous and misleading.
The ruling opens up the initiative process so we will be like California and have dozens of initiatives every election so people will not have the time to properly vet each proposed law.
Neither the ruling, Prop 4, nor the proposed Amendment D changes the requirements for qualifying an initiative for the ballot, which are much more stringent in Utah than in California.
The courts will be inundated with challenges to every citizen initiative because the ruling was too vague and created more questions than answers.
The ruling was quite plain and did not leave room for interpretation. The strict scrutiny standard is clear and long-established, and it only applies if the amendments passed by the legislature do not conform to the intent of the initiative.
The Legislature aims to strengthen the initiative process by passing this amendment to preserve and protect Utah's ability to enact citizen initiatives.
The amendment goes far beyond what they are telling us. It gives the Leg carte blanche ability to amend or repeal any citizen initiative and consolidates power within the Legislature to overturn the will of the people going forward. The Legislature already has, and will maintain, the power to narrowly amend or adjust initiatives even if the status quo remains.
This is impractical and costly to attempt, and similar attempts to block foreign money have been struck down by the courts. Utah already wastes millions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits and this will be one more added to the list.
The Legislature will reclaim the ability to amend any citizen initiatives under Amendment D, including those intended to reform government itself. In reality, this Amendment will essentially prevent citizens from ever reforming government if the Legislature does not want it to happen.
Retrospective Operation is a somewhat vague term, but it could be used by the Legislature to look into the past (ie Proposition 4 regarding district gerrymandering) and amend or repeal initiatives already approved by voters. By passing this Amendment, you're giving the Leg the ability to undo the non-partisan district maps that voters already enacted.
The Legislature is giving themselves a lot of latitude to ignore the intent of the initiative. Only in the subsequent general session will they do so. The Leg can call a Special Session and amend the law any way they like, even the day after an initiative is approved by voters.
The Legislature gets to make the final determination of what your "intent" was for any initiative, and then modify it as they see fit? No thank you. This language will allow the Leg to amend or repeal any initiative by arbitrarily assigning intent to an initiative, even if that assigned intent is not factual.
This used to read "legislative general counsel" until this new language was put into effect May 1, 2024. This allows the partisan Legislators themselves to write the language that will appear on your ballot, giving them more flexibility to use deceitful language as they have done with Constitutional Amendment D.
The Legislature is expanding their power to amend and repeal your ballot initiatives, giving themselves the role of determining "intent" so they can modify initiatives as they please.
While they claim "deference" to intent, the Amendment and previous changes to the law give the Legislature many opportunities to ignore intent. Within Special Sessions, or if they wait until the second General Session, they do not have to respect the intent of the voters.
The Amendment is written to have "retrospective operation", a vague term that could be used to allow the Legislature to go back and amend or repeal the already-passed Proposition 4 which created the non-partisan committee to draw district maps.
The Legislature purposefully wrote deceitful ballot language to convince voters that passing this amendment is in your best interest, when in reality they are trying to overturn the will of the voters and your ability to reform Utah government.
Utah Supreme Court | July 11, 2024
