The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the legality of Amendment D, a controversial ballot measure that could dramatically alter the state’s initiative process, potentially giving the Utah Legislature sweeping powers to repeal voter-approved initiatives. At the heart of the case is whether the ballot language for Amendment D sufficiently informs voters of the amendment’s true impact, and whether the Utah Legislature followed constitutional requirements in placing the amendment on the ballot.

During oral arguments, lawyers for the League of Women Voters of Utah, who are challenging the amendment, argued that the language on the ballot is misleading and incomplete, omitting a crucial detail—that Amendment D would allow the Legislature to repeal initiatives passed by voters. The hearing raised key questions about transparency, voter rights, and the integrity of the electoral process in Utah.
BALLOT LANGUAGE CALLED INTO QUESTION
The League’s attorney, Mark Gaber, emphasized that the omission of the Legislature’s power to repeal initiatives is a glaring oversight in the ballot language, suggesting it could mislead voters into believing that Amendment D strengthens their rights when, in fact, it could significantly weaken them. Gaber argued that voters would not understand that a “yes” vote on the amendment would hand the Legislature unprecedented authority to undo the will of the people.
“The omission of the word ‘repeal’ from the ballot is not just an oversight—it’s a deliberate act of deception,” Gaber said during the hearing. “The central feature of Amendment D is the Legislature’s ability to throw out voter-approved initiatives, and voters are being kept in the dark about this critical change.”
Justice John A. Pearce and Justice Paige Petersen appeared to share concerns, with both questioning how the average voter would interpret the ballot description without clear reference to the Legislature's expanded powers.
“The voters need to know exactly what they’re voting for or against,” said Justice Pearce, challenging the idea that voters could simply be expected to read between the lines.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS UNDER SCRUTINY
The hearing also focused on whether the Utah Legislature followed constitutional requirements for publicizing the amendment before the vote. According to the state’s Constitution, amendments must be published for two months prior to the election. Gaber argued that this publication requirement was not properly met, particularly since voter information pamphlets are no longer mailed to every household but are posted online, a shift that critics argue disproportionately affects voters without regular internet access.
The Legislature’s attorney, Taylor Meehan, countered that substantial compliance with the notice requirements had been achieved, pointing to online publications and media coverage. Meehan suggested that if there were any deficiencies in the process, they could be remedied by a court order requiring additional notices before the election.
However, Chief Justice Matthew Durrant seemed skeptical of this approach. “The Constitution requires two months of publication for a reason,” Durrant said. “If voters are not properly informed, we can’t just fix that with a last-minute push.”
POTENTIAL JUDICIAL RULINGS: A BALANCING ACT
Based on the justices’ questions and their history, it appears that the court is leaning toward a ruling that places a premium on voter clarity and constitutional compliance. Justice Pearce's and Justice Petersen’s lines of questioning suggest a focus on whether the average voter would be misled by the ballot language. Their concerns reflect a broader judicial philosophy that values transparency in elections—particularly when the stakes involve shifting power between voters and the Legislature.
Chief Justice Durrant expressed significant doubts about whether the constitutional notice requirements had been adequately fulfilled. His emphasis on the importance of two months’ publication signals a potential willingness to void the amendment on procedural grounds. The court’s historical approach to election-related cases suggests a cautious stance toward altering constitutional rights, which may lead the justices to favor strict compliance with the notice requirements.
While the justices appeared open to exploring whether remedies such as additional publication could be implemented before the election, they seemed unconvinced that enough time remains to satisfy constitutional requirements. Historically, Utah’s Supreme Court has sided with voter protections over procedural expediency, and the justices may be hesitant to allow Amendment D to proceed without full constitutional adherence.
Given the questioning, it is likely the court will either require the amendment’s language to be corrected before it can be put to a vote or rule that the Legislature has failed to meet its constitutional obligations, thereby preventing Amendment D from appearing on the ballot this year. The court’s history shows that it values voter rights and clarity, and its questions suggest a decision that could delay or block Amendment D in its current form.
ECHOES OF PAST INITIATIVE BATTLES
Although not directly mentioned in the case, past initiatives like Utah’s Proposition 2—the 2018 voter-approved medical cannabis initiative—loom over the debate on Amendment D. After Prop 2 passed, it was significantly altered by the Utah Legislature, sparking widespread frustration and concerns about the erosion of voters' power. Medicaid Expansion was another voter passed initiative that amended beyond the intent and will of the voters. Those concerns are again at the forefront, as Amendment D could allow lawmakers to more easily dismantle or repeal voter-led reforms.
THE STAKES FOR UTAH VOTERS
The hearing highlighted a fundamental question: Do Utah voters trust their Legislature to act in good faith when given the power to repeal their decisions? And should the Legislature be able to rewrite the rules governing how voter initiatives work?
For the League of Women Voters, the answer is clear. “This isn’t about whether you support a particular initiative; it’s about whether voters should have the final say,” Gaber said. “If Amendment D passes, we’re giving the Legislature the keys to overturn any initiative they don’t like, and that’s a slippery slope.”
As the justices weigh their decision, the case has broad implications not just for Amendment D but for the future of voter-led initiatives in Utah. If the court sides with the League of Women Voters, the amendment could be delayed or removed from the ballot, forcing the Legislature to start the process over with clearer language and proper notice.
In a state where recent history has shown a deep divide between the Legislature and the will of the people, the stakes could not be higher.
WHAT COMES NEXT?
The Utah Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case before ballots are sent to voters, making this one of the most consequential decisions of the election cycle. Regardless of the outcome, the hearing underscores the importance of transparency, voter education, and constitutional compliance in the state’s initiative process.
For now, Utah voters will watch closely, hoping the court will safeguard their right to have a meaningful and informed say in shaping the future of their state.