The Utah Supreme Court, in their full ruling on Amendment D, said ballot language written by Republican legislative leaders would have misled voters and lawmakers had not followed the Constitution while trying to bring the amendment allowing them to repeal or amend any citizen-led ballot initiative to those voters.
The critique, released Thursday, fully explains the ruling justices made last month to void Amendment D from Utahns’ already-printed ballots.
It also reiterates the court’s July ruling, wherein the justices held that the Legislature cannot undo ballot initiatives that government reform ballot initiatives passed by voters without a compelling reason, was narrow in scope. While lawmakers could pass laws to help implement the will of voters, justices ruled then, the Legislature must respect the intent of voter initiatives
“The Legislature cannot unduly impair those reforms without infringing the people’s fundamental right to alter and reform their government,” Justice Diana Hagen wrote in the unanimous opinion from the five justices, all Republican appointees.
The Legislature responded to the July ruling by convening an emergency special session to propose amending the Utah Constitution to explicitly state that lawmakers can repeal or amend any initiative. That change, Amendment D, was put on the ballot for voters to approve or reject in the Nov. 5 election.
Opponents of the amendment challenged the ballot language presented to voters, which said the amendment would “strengthen” the initiative process, arguing Amendment D would do the opposite and the language was intended to trick voters. They also argued that the Legislature failed to comply with a constitutional requirement that all proposed amendments be published in newspapers 60 days before the election.
Lawyers for the Legislature argued that publishing the text of the amendment on state websites met the requirement, but the justices disagreed.
“Not only does the ballot title omit a central feature of Amendment D, but the included language would lead a reasonable voter to believe that the amendment does something entirely different,” Hagen wrote.
Further, she wrote, the court cannot simply ignore the use of the word “newspaper” in the constitution.
Based on both arguments, the court disqualified the amendment from consideration.
“It is this court’s duty to ensure that the constitution is followed,” she wrote. “Because it was not followed here, the public’s interest is best served by delaying the vote on Amendment D until the proposed amendment is presented to voters in the manner authorized by the constitution.”
Subsequently, the Legislature also conceded that another proposed Amendment A, which would remove a constitutional provision requiring income tax revenues to be spent only on education and services for children and Utahns with disabilities, also failed to meet the publication requirement and should be stricken.
Because ballots had already been printed before the decision, both amendments appear on voters’ ballots, but votes for or against the amendments will not be counted. Two other amendments — Amendment B, which increases the amount that can be spent from a school trust fund, and Amendment C, which says county sheriffs must be elected (as they currently are) — have not been challenged and will count.
Below is the court’s full opinion in the Amendment D case:
