On the same day the Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Amendment D, the state’s top court issued a decision — they affirmed the district court’s opinion.
This means Amendment D is still void. It will appear on Utah voters’ ballots, but the votes will not be counted.
The decision from the court is not the full opinion. The Utah Supreme Court’s decision said its full reasoning will be issued at a later date. It was a per curiam decision, which means it came from the court as a whole.
“The district court correctly ruled that neither constitutional prerequisite was met with respect to Amendment D,” said the decision. “The Legislature did not cause the amendment to be published in newspapers throughout the state for two months, and the description that will appear on the ballot does not submit the amendment to voters ‘with such clarity as to enable the voters to express their will.’”
The decision said the public interest requires proposed constitutional amendments go before the people consistent with what is outlined in the Utah Constitution.
Wednesday’s decision was met with cheers from Better Boundaries as well as the plaintiffs and disappointment from Utah Majority leaders.
“We applaud the decision of the Utah Supreme Court today voiding Amendment D. The Court has now issued two unanimous decisions upholding the right of the people to pass initiatives without intrusion or correction by the legislature,” said Ryan Bell, Better Boundaries board member, in a statement to the Deseret News following the ruling.
Calling it “a tremendous victory,” Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, said the decision upholds the people’s right to ethical government. “We’re grateful for the clear message this decision sends: constitutional checks and balances exist for a reason and everyone must follow the constitution.
Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz said the court’s decision was “unprecedented and troubling.”
“The Legislature offered the Court a way to preserve the voting rights of all Utahns, but instead, the Court took the chance to vote on Amendment D out of the voters’ hands. It’s a sad day for Utah and voters, whether for or against the constitutional amendments,” said Adams and Schultz.
League of Women Voters of Utah’s president Katharine Biele said she hopes it’s a new day for Utahns. “I hope the legislature understands they represent us. We look forward to working with them in the future on the issues that affect all Utahns.”
Amendment D would have changed the Utah Constitution to give the Utah Legislature the ability to amend or repeal citizen initiatives in all cases. It would have also prevented out of country influence on the initiative process.
How we got here
The story with Amendment D started after a July decision from the Utah Supreme Court. The state’s highest court issued a decision allowing a redistricting lawsuit to move forward. Mormon Women for Ethical Government and League of Women Voters of Utah had brought forward a lawsuit against the Legislature following the adoption of political boundaries.
In 2018, a group known as Better Boundaries had led efforts on an initiative to establish a redistricting commission. Utah voters approved of the initiative. State lawmakers amended the initiative to give themselves, not the commission, final say over the political maps. When state lawmakers chose their own rather than the commission’s, the lawsuit came.
The Utah Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to move forward in its July decision and also interpreted the Utah Constitution — this interpretation held when Utahns alter or reform the government through the initiative process, then lawmakers can only make changes to those initiatives if the changes are narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest.
Utah Majority leaders signaled their disappointment and disagreement with the court’s ruling following its release.
By Aug. 16, the Utah GOP and Sutherland Institute released separate calls for a constitutional amendment. The letter that Utah GOP chair Rob Axson put forward had signatures from groups and individuals across the state. Talk of a special session soon began. Better Boundaries also led efforts on a letter — but to request lawmakers respect the Utah Supreme Court’s decision.
Three days later on Aug. 19, the Utah Legislature announced it would hold a special session that same week to determine if it would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
The special session was held two days after its announcement. The committee room was overflowing and other attendees were at the Capitol watching from different locations. After a short period of public comment, the committee moved the proposed amendment forward along with accompanying legislation.
The proposed constitutional amendment passed 54-21 in the House, and 20-8 in the Senate, clearing both chambers with more than two-thirds approval as required. The vote fell mostly along party lines, but with a handful of Republicans casting votes against putting the proposed amendment on the ballot.
Better Boundaries launched a campaign against the amendment, encouraging Utahns to vote against the proposed amendment.
The organization’s rally at the Utah Capitol was held on Aug. 26 and hundreds of supporters filled the steps. There members of Better Boundaries and Mormon Women for Ethical Government spoke alongside Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, and Rep. Rosemary Lesser, D-Ogden. Retired Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham also spoke.
Then, by early September, the ballot language was released. This ballot language is different than the text of the amendment. It is intended to be the short summary of the amendment voters see on their ballots where they cast their votes on the amendment.
Better Boundaries board member Bell was critical of the language and called it “hopelessly slanted.”
“It is saddening to see legislative leadership compound their refusal to engage with the people on this issue with ballot language that is likely to mislead the people. Better Boundaries and its many allies will ensure that the people of Utah see through these tactics,” said Bell.
At the time, Schultz and Adams defended the language and called it “clear and straightforward.”
“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 change,” said Adams and Schultz.
The ballot language was certified and slated to appear on Utahns’ November ballots. Mormon Women for Ethical Government and Utah’s League of Women Voters, two plaintiffs in the redistricting case, sued over the ballot language.
The ballot language asked, in part, if the Utah Constitution should “be changed to strengthen the initiative process by ... clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.” The words “strengthen” and “clarifying” were one of the main sources of criticism from groups who said the amendment would limit the ability of Utah citizens to alter or reform the government.
Mark Gaber, Campaign Legal Center attorney, worked on the lawsuit. He said the language used in the ballot summary was “the exact opposite of what would happen if the amendment went into effect.”
In response to the suit, Adams and Schultz said, “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 suit went before the 3rd District Court where both sides made their cases. Judge Dianna Gibson said the Utah Legislature did not meet the constitutional requirement of causing the proposed amendment to be published in newspapers across the state two months before the election. She also sided with the plaintiffs in saying the ballot language was misleading.
This decision was handed down on Sept. 12 and the Utah Legislature immediately appealed.
The appeal brought all involved parties before the Utah Supreme Court on Wednesday (Sept. 25). Taylor Meehan, attorney for the Utah Legislature, and Gaber, attorney for the plaintiffs, made their cases to the state’s top court.
Meehan faced over an hour of questioning from the justices who appeared skeptical of the Utah State Legislature fulfilled its constitutional requirement to cause the proposed amendment be published. Gaber argued there should be no deference given to misleading language.
The hearing stretched on for more than three hours and Chief Justice Matthew Durrant gave no indication when the ruling would come. Then, on Wednesday evening, the court said it would affirm the district court’s decision.
This means Amendment D is void. Though voters will see it on the ballot, no votes will be counted.
As for what’s happening next, there’s one bill Utahns can expect to see introduced.
Utah House Democratic Leader Angela Romero said she and Senate Democratic Leader Luz Escamilla will introduce legislation during the upcoming session to give the task of writing ballot language back to nonpartisan legal counsel.
“The rushed and misleading process led by Republican leadership wasted time and betrayed the trust of Utahns,” said Romero, D-Salt Lake City. “The court’s decision didn’t take away voters’ rights — it protected them from a ballot summary that failed to clearly explain the amendment.”