The Utah Supreme Court has officially voided Amendment D, a controversial proposal that would have granted the Utah Legislature the power to repeal voter-approved initiatives. In a ruling issued this week, the court upheld a lower court’s decision to block the measure from being placed on the ballot, citing significant procedural failures by the Legislature in meeting constitutional publication requirements.
The court’s ruling comes after intense debate over the clarity of the amendment’s ballot language and the process by which it was submitted to voters. At the heart of the case was whether the amendment was presented transparently and whether the public was given proper notice, as required by the Utah Constitution.
PROCEDURAL FAILURES: NO PROPER PUBLICATION
The court’s unanimous decision affirmed that the Utah Legislature did not meet the required two-month publication period for the proposed amendment. According to the Utah Constitution, amendments must be published in at least one newspaper in every county where a newspaper is published, and this must occur for two months leading up to a general election. The court found that this critical prerequisite was not met.
“Amendment D is void and shall be given no effect,” the ruling stated, echoing the district court’s earlier decision. The ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to the state’s constitutional process for submitting amendments to the public.
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, who expressed skepticism during oral arguments about the Legislature’s ability to rectify the issue with last-minute publication efforts, underscored the significance of giving voters proper notice. “The Constitution requires two months of publication for a reason,” Durrant stated in the hearing, which the ruling reaffirmed as a key point.
BALLOT LANGUAGE LACKED CLARITY
In addition to procedural shortcomings, the court ruled that the ballot description of Amendment D did not provide sufficient clarity for voters to understand the amendment’s full impact. At the center of this dispute was the omission of language explaining that the amendment would allow the Legislature to repeal voter-approved initiatives—a critical power that was not clearly communicated.
The court cited precedent from Nowers v. Oakden (1946), which requires ballot language to be clear enough to prevent voter confusion. The ruling stated that the Legislature failed to submit the amendment “with such clarity as to enable the voters to express their will.”
Mark Gaber, the attorney representing the League of Women Voters of Utah, had previously argued that this omission amounted to a deceptive presentation of the amendment. “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,” Gaber said during the hearing.
The court’s ruling upheld these concerns, marking a victory for advocates of voter clarity and transparency.
EQUITY AND PUBLIC INTEREST FAVOR THE INJUNCTION
In its ruling, the court also noted that the district court had acted within its discretion in declaring Amendment D void. While some argued that voters should be allowed to decide on the measure themselves, the court pointed out that the public interest requires constitutional amendments to be submitted in the manner prescribed by law.
This decision reinforces the notion that procedural safeguards must be followed to protect the integrity of the state’s democratic process. “The public interest requires that constitutional amendments be submitted to voters in the way mandated by the supreme law of the state embodied in the Utah Constitution,” the ruling stated.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATURE
This ruling serves as a major setback for the Utah Legislature, which had backed Amendment D as a way to gain more authority over voter initiatives. Critics of the amendment have long argued that it would give lawmakers too much power to undo the will of the people, citing previous examples like the significant revisions made to Proposition 2, the 2018 medical cannabis initiative.
While Proposition 2 was not directly referenced in this case, the underlying tensions are clear: the Legislature’s attempts to curtail voter-led reforms face ongoing resistance. Many see this ruling as a broader message from the courts that Utah’s constitutional protections for direct democracy cannot be so easily bypassed.
WHAT COMES NEXT?
With Amendment D officially void, the Legislature would need to restart the process from scratch if they hope to put a similar measure on the ballot. This would involve revising the ballot language, ensuring proper clarity for voters, and adhering to the strict constitutional requirement of two months’ publication.
For now, the ruling is a significant victory for the League of Women Voters and other advocates of voter rights. It signals that any future attempts to change the initiative process will need to be handled with greater transparency and in strict accordance with constitutional guidelines.
A WARNING FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS
This ruling may set a new precedent for how strictly the courts will enforce constitutional requirements in Utah. It sends a clear warning to lawmakers: the public’s right to transparency and clarity cannot be compromised for expediency. With the 2024 election cycle approaching, it remains to be seen how the Legislature will respond to this ruling and whether voters will face similar battles over direct democracy in the near future.
For now, Utah voters can rest assured that their right to a clear, constitutionally compliant voting process has been upheld by the state’s highest court.
