Mormon Women for Ethical Government and Utah’s League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit to remove a proposed constitutional amendment from the ballot.
The reason behind the request? The plaintiffs say the language “fails to accurately submit the Amendment to the voters.”
The suit filed in Salt Lake County’s 3rd Judicial District Court requests expedited consideration of the matter at hand. The constitutional amendment would add language to the Utah Constitution to say the Utah Legislature has the ability to amend or repeal initiatives. It would also prohibit foreign (intended to mean out-of-country) influences on the initiative process.
Accompanying the proposed amendment, Utah lawmakers passed legislation that would require them to keep the general intent of a citizen-led initiative when amending it in the first general session following its passage.
If this latest lawsuit were to succeed, Utah voters would not be able to vote on the proposed amendment. Utah Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz were both named in the suit.
“It’s ironic that the very people who claim to advocate for greater voter engagement are the same ones trying to obstruct Utahns from having the opportunity to vote on this important matter. The plaintiffs are clearly concerned about leaving it to voters to decide. Before initiatives overwhelm and significantly alter our state, Utahns should have the opportunity to voice their opinions,” said Adams, R-Layton, and Schultz, R-Hooper, in a statement to the Deseret News on Friday.
Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, also named in the suit, said in a statement, “We don’t usually comment on pending litigation, but I will say this: ballots are being sent to the printer early next week, so we hope all parties understand how urgently this issue must be resolved. Even asking for an extension on the federal mailing deadlines will invite sanctions from the U.S. Department of Justice, and that is something we definitely want to avoid.”
The two Republican majority leaders had issued a statement to the Deseret News earlier this week contesting the claim the language in the amendment was misleading, saying “those who label these efforts as deceptive are often the ones attempting to mislead voters.”
“Using clear and straightforward language is common practice and crucial for ensuring voters fully understand the measures they are deciding on. We recognize there will always be criticism, but our objective remains consistent — to provide a straightforward and concise description to allow voters to easily understand the core of the proposed changes,” said Adams and Schultz in the statement.
The suit alleged Schultz and Adams “devised an ballot summary that not only will fail to inform voters that the proposed Amendment eliminates their fundamental constitutional right, but brazenly asserts that the amendment would ‘strengthen’ the initiative process and ‘require() ... the legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative.”
This was called “Orwellian doublespeak” in the suit.
Mark Gaber, Campaign Legal Center attorney who worked on the suit, said, “The language that they use is the exact opposite of what would happen if the amendment went into effect. In fact, it was designed to weaken the initiative process so that the legislature could, with unfettered power, repeal any initiative of the voters for any or no reason at all.”
The specific constitutional right Gaber said the amendment would eliminate is being free “from the legislature repealing government reform initiatives that the voters pass without a compelling justification.” He said the initiative process would become “superfluous.”
“We filed this suit because the ballot language of Constitutional Amendment D is deceptive and misleading,” said Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government. “It does not accurately represent the impact of the amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.”
When asked Mormon Women for Ethical Government does not think Utah voters should have a say in deciding what the state constitution says on this matter, Addams said, “The Supreme Court decision did not create direct democracy. Instead, it preserved the right of the people to reform their government. It retained the balance of power, ensuring that neither the legislature, nor the courts, nor the people could act unilaterally. Amendment D seeks to remove that balance.”
Katharine Biele, president of League of Women Voters of Utah, said Amendment D should have never been on the ballot. “This is a huge misunderstanding of the part of the Legislature,” she said, adding the ruling would not impact every initiative.
By removing the amendment from the ballot, Utah voters would not get to decide what the Utah Constitution says in this case. Biele said that’s not what they are doing and added voters have already voted when they approved of Proposition 4.
“They are saying that there are foreign entities that we’re trying to keep away. That is not true. There is no such evidence. And they’re saying that we’re going to be like California with lots of initiatives coming. That, too, is not true. The Supreme Court ruling was very narrow. It does not open the door to millions of other initiatives,” said Biele. “So, it’s wrong. I mean, do you want to be voting on something that is basically a lie? No. That’s why we want it taken off the ballot.”
Better Boundaries did not file the suit. The organization did come out in support of the effort. Katie Wright, executive director of Better Boundaries, said the ballot language was “deceptive.”
When asked why the group thinks this choice about the Utah Constitution should be removed from Utah voters, Wright said, “This is the first time Utah voters have ever had a ballot question not written by nonpartisan legislative attorneys but by the Senate President and Speaker of the House. The President and Speaker are raising money in support of Amendment D and clearly have a rooting interest in the outcome. Of course we support direct democracy but this is like the fox guarding the hen house.”
Wright said the line between direct democracy and legislative power should be where it was resolved by the Utah Supreme Court — for initiatives that alter or reform the government, the Legislature would need to pass a strict scrutiny standard (narrowly tailoring changes to meet a compelling government interest).