Utah judge voids controversial Amendment D; it will still appear on ballots
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios
A Utah judge voided a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have enabled lawmakers to repeal all voter-led initiatives, ruling the ballot language chosen by the legislature contained "glaring" omissions.
Why it matters: The amendment, if passed, would have allowed Utah's GOP-controlled legislature to ignore anti-gerrymandering reforms voters passed in 2018 and all future voter initiatives.
Driving the news: Judge Dianne Gibson allowed ballots to be printed with Amendment D on them, but declared the measure was "void and shall be given no effect."
What they're saying: "While the legislature has every right to request the amendment," Judge Dianne Gibson wrote, "it has the duty and 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."
Catch up quick: The state supreme court ruled in July that ballot initiatives that reform the government are constitutionally protected from "unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement."
Context: The July ruling sided with the League of Women Voters of Utah and other groups who filed a lawsuit last year seeking to restore a successful ballot initiative that created an independent redistricting commission to draw new congressional boundaries and avoid gerrymandering.
- The legislature in 2020 revised the voter-approved law to make the commission merely advisory.
- Lawmakers in 2021 rejected the commission's maps and drew new ones that split blue-leaning Salt Lake County into four congressional districts. That diluted Democratic votes in the state's most populous county, the lawsuit argued.
State of play: Republican lawmakers, who claimed the July ruling would unleash a slew of hard-to-reverse voter initiatives, convened in a special session in August to approve a constitutional amendment that would override the court's decision if passed by voters.
Friction point: The ballot language, which was released last week, described lawmakers' proposed new power by telling voters that Amendment D will "strengthen the initiative process by … clarifying the voters and legislative bodies' ability to amend laws."
- It didn't state that lawmakers may repeal voter-led measures, or that the amendment would reverse the July supreme court ruling.
The word "strengthen" is "the definition of Orwellian doublespeak," the League of Women Voters argued in its lawsuit.
- The amendment's "express purpose was to weaken the initiative process," attorney Mark Gaber told Gibson at Wednesday's hearing.
Gibson agreed, ruling that the ballot wording "does not disclose the [amendment's] chief feature, which is also the most critical constitutional change — that the Legislature will have the unlimited right to change laws passed by citizen initiative."
- That change "entirely eliminates" voters' "fundamental constitutional right" to reform their government, Gibson wrote.
The lawsuit also argued that the legislature was required by Utah's constitution to publish the full text of any proposed amendment in the state's newspapers for two months before the election; that didn't happen, and Nov. 5 is now less than two months away.
The other side: Attorneys defending the amendment said the legislature and lieutenant governor posted the amendment on their websites, while media outlets covered it on their own, thus satisfying the requirement that lawmakers "cause" the amendment to be published.
- They also argued that no precedent existed to throw out a proposed amendment over ballot wording, and the amendment's opponents were effectively demanding a "line-level-edit" of the ballot summary.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with new information throughout.