As Utah voters cast their ballots in the days leading up to the Nov. 5 election, they will be confronted with a question about citizens' ability to shape the law through popular initiatives.
The question presented in Amendment D is technically moot because the Utah Supreme Court held the Legislature did not follow proper procedures. So while voters can weigh in, the votes will not actually be counted. The story of how and why this came to be is worth re-examining because the issue is likely to persist.
The story began in 2018, when voters approved Proposition 4, championed by Better Boundaries, “to create a seven-member independent redistricting commission” to draft map proposals for state legislative districts. The purpose was to prevent gerrymandering driven by political interests to ensure their preferred candidates had favorable voting districts.
Opponents of gerrymandering sued the Legislature when it adopted Senate Bill 200 on March 18, 2020. That law repealed and replaced Proposition 4 and thus reinstated the Legislature's ability to control district maps. This change re-opened the door to gerrymandering.
In July 2024 the Utah Supreme Court ruled in favor of the League of Women Voters and other opponents of Senate Bill 200.
“We hold that the people’s right to alter or reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement of the initiative in a manner that impairs the reform enacted by the people,” the Court stated.
President J. Stuart Adams of the state Senate and Speaker Mike Schultz of the state House of Representatives released a response to the Court's July ruling, stating that the decision would have profound and negative consequences for the future of Utah.
"The Utah Supreme Court has gone a step further by creating ‘supreme laws’ that could be tied up in lengthy disputes for years,'" Adams and Schultz said. "This decision strips away the ability of state, county, and municipal authorities to enact policies and expose them to prolonged legal battles. As the ligation continues in the lower court, we believe the Utah Constitution’s text shows that the Legislature should ultimately prevail."
On Aug. 19, Adams and Schultz sent a release, invoking a special session for Aug. 21 to draft Amendment D to address the Utah Supreme Court’s new interpretation. Their purpose in holding the special session was to restore the intent of Senate Bill 200.
Amendment D, according to its language in the SJR 401 Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution, was a joint resolution to amend the Utah Constitution by:
- providing the scope of the people’s powers to alter or reform government;
- prohibiting foreign individuals, entities and governments from influencing, supporting or opposing an initiative or a referendum;
- authorizing the Legislature to provide for enforcement of the prohibition; and
- providing the circumstance for amendment, enactment or repeal of a law passed, adopted or rejected by the voters.
Mormon Women for Ethical Government and the League of Women Voters then challenged in court the Legislature’s Amendment D due to concerns with how it was placed on the ballot and its language, according to Melanie Wheat, liaison for Mormon Women for Ethical Government Utah.
“We brought this case forward because it was just so rushed getting it onto the ballot; we didn’t feel Utah citizens had enough time to figure out what the amendment would do,” Wheat said. “We didn’t feel like citizens had accurate information because of the rush process, but especially after the ballot summary language came out.”
The Amendment D ballot summary, as seen on the Nov. 5 2024 sample ballot reads as follows:
"Shall the Utah Constitution be changed to strengthen the initiatives process by:
- "Prohibiting foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums.
- "Clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend new laws.
"If approved, state law would also be changed to:
- "Allow Utah citizens 50% more time to gather signatures for a statewide referendum.
- "Establish requirements for the legislature to follow the intent of ballot initiative."
Opponents of Amendment D claimed that it confused voters.
“It said the complete opposite of what it would have done; rather than weakening the power of the citizens' initiatives, the ballot language said that it would strengthen the power of citizens’ initiatives,” Wheat said.
After 3rd District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled against the Legislature on Sept. 12, Adams and Schultz issued a statement.
“The court is denying the right of the people to vote and should not be exerting undue influence on this election,” they said. “We will continue to exhaust all options to prevent foreign entities from altering our state and clarify the over a century-long constitutional practice, including our appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. We urge them to undo this wrong and preserve the voices of Utahns.”
After the District Court’s ruling, the lawsuit went to the Utah Supreme Court where attorney Mark Gaber, for the plaintiffs who opposed Amendment D, and attorney Taylor Meehan, for the Legislature defendant, presented their oral arguments.
The Utah Supreme Court determined that “constitutional requirements” were not met to place Amendment D on the Nov. 5, 2024 ballot, stating that “the Legislature ‘shall cause the (proposed amendment) to be published in at least one newspaper in every county … for two months preceding the next general election,’” and that it “must be submitted to voters by placing it ‘on the ballot in such words and in such form that the voters are not confused thereby.'"
Amendment D is void and will have no effect. The court’s current opinion can be found here.