Court ruling on Amendment D was correct — it was hurried and improperly described

Utah’s legislative leaders grossly overstepped their authority by wording Amendment D on this November’s ballots in a way that was misleading. Given this, Judge Dianna Gibson had little choice but to rule Thursday that the amendment is void. She also decided that, while Amendment D will be printed on ballots, the votes it receives will not be counted.
We hope the legal wrangling over this amendment ends here. Contrary to what legislative leaders have said, this is not an urgent matter that requires immediate action. It is, rather, a matter that speaks to the fundamental rights of Utah citizens, and it deserves careful, forthright, deliberate and inclusive debate and consideration.
Amendment D would have effectively removed the people’s power to amend the state Constitution in a way that alters or reforms government. If passed, the amendment would have allowed future voters to pass such an initiative, but lawmakers would have had the express power to immediately change or repeal it.
But the ballot measure voters would have encountered this November to describe Amendment D on their ballots was vague and misleading. It likely would have lured many voters into supporting the measure unwittingly.
For reference, here is the heart of what the proposed amendment would have done:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, the people’s exercise of their legislative power as provided in subsection (2) does not limit or preclude the exercise of legislative power, including through amending, enacting, or repealing a law, by the Legislature, or by a lawmaking body of a county, city, or town, on behalf of the people whom they are elected to represent.”
Legislative leaders, in turn, worded the ballot measure, as presented to voters, to say, “Should the Utah Constitution be changed to strengthen the initiative process by … Clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws?”
Strengthen the initiative process? Nothing in the measure would have done that, in any way, at least from the position of a petitioning citizen. Lawmakers, on the other hand, would have been strengthened, and even made immune, from changes brought through the voice of the people.
The rest of the ballot measure’s language referred to allowing citizens more time to gather signatures for statewide referendums and establishing “requirements for the legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative.” It also would have prohibited “foreign individuals and entities” from influencing an initiative or referendum, even indirectly.
A recent unanimous Utah Supreme Court decision noted that the framers of Utah’s Constitution crafted Article I, Section 2 to say, “All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.” That wording has remained unchanged since 1896.
By allowing lawmakers to change or reverse citizen initiatives that reform government, the proposed constitutional amendment would have altered this original intent.
The amendment should have been worded in a way that reflected this change in governance.
Six years ago, Utah voters passed Proposition 4, which compelled the state to set up an independent commission for redrawing state political boundaries after each 10-year census. This has always been done by state lawmakers, but proponents of the initiative accused the state’s Republican majority of partisan gerrymandering — drawing these districts in such a way as to protect Republican officeholders.
Proposition 4 established a set of standards that were to be met while redrawing boundaries, including “preserving traditional neighborhoods and local communities of interest” and making the districts geographically compact. Republican lawmakers have long argued that each of Utah’s four congressional districts should include both rural and urban areas, giving them each an appreciation for the varied interests of Utahns as a whole.
The initiative said lawmakers could override the independent commission’s maps, but they would have to provide an explanation as to why they did so.
Voters passed Proposition 4. But then, lawmakers quickly passed SB200, which amended the initiative and gave the independent commission a reduced, advisory role. Then they ignored that commission’s advice and passed their own maps.
A lawsuit challenging this was filed by the Utah League of Women Voters and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. That led to the Supreme Court’s recent decision, which was narrowly applied only to initiatives that altered or reformed government. That, in turn, led lawmakers to convene a special session to draft Amendment D, which led to another legal challenge, which led to Thursday’s decision.
We acknowledge with gratitude that the overwhelming majority of state lawmakers serve out of a genuine desire to improve the state and safeguard the liberties of its people. We also note that voters elect representatives to do the difficult job of writing, arguing, compromising and enacting laws.
Although far from perfect, the legislative process includes hearings and an open process allowing for bills to be altered and refined. Bills that pass with less than a two-thirds majority face the possibility of a veto by the governor. These checks make for better laws.
Initiatives, on the other hand, are presented to voters for an up-or-down vote, with no chance to amend.
And yet, Utahns have from time to time used the initiative process to impose a popular will that lawmakers have ignored. Proposition 4 was such a measure.
“The people of Utah are entitled to an accurate summary of any proposed constitutional amendment that impacts their fundamental rights and they are entitled to the constitutionally required notice, by publication in a newspaper two months before the election,” Judge Gibson said in her order.
Clearly, Utah’s founders wanted people to have the power to enact legislation on their own as a check on elected leaders. Any ballot measure that would alter this power should be considered carefully, publicized properly and described accurately for voters. Unfortunately, Amendment D fell short.