Last Wednesday we were in attendance at the state Capitol to voice our opposition to the Legislature’s proposal to place a constitutional amendment on this fall’s ballot that would grant the Legislature unlimited power to overturn laws passed by citizen initiatives. We were deeply concerned by the numerous misleading arguments presented by legislators who portrayed this amendment as essential to the state’s well-being.
As we observed the floor debate from the gallery, we were surrounded by expressions of disbelief from fellow attendees, with individuals reacting to the legislators’ statements with scoffs, gasps and whispers of, “That’s not true,” as many of the arguments failed to align with the facts. We would like to address and refute some of the most commonly cited arguments.
First, as this amendment does not alter the existing initiative process — it would not make it any harder or easier for an initiative to pass. Utah already imposes a rigorous standard for placing an initiative on the ballot, requiring signatures from 8% of active voters — more than three times the amount required in California — and a signature threshold in 26 out of 29 senate districts. Since 1954, only seven initiatives have passed in Utah, representing a mere 25% success rate. This high bar will remain unchanged.
However, if the amendment is approved, the Legislature would effectively enshrine in the Constitution its authority to nullify all citizen initiatives. This means even if citizens overcome the considerable challenges to get an initiative on the ballot and it passes — a rare feat in Utah — the Legislature would still have the power to fully repeal it.
This unlimited power is the power the Legislature believed it held before the Utah Supreme Court’s decision this summer, and it is the authority they now seek to “restore.” Conversely, the Supreme Court’s ruling states that in some cases the Legislature does not have unchecked authority to amend initiatives, because citizens have a right, clearly stated in Article 1 Section 2, to “reform the government.” This ruling is rooted in the text of the Constitution and the history of the state, and it holds that in the very limited circumstance of a “government-reform initiative” the Legislature does not have free rein to override said initiative.
The Legislature’s claim that this ruling completely restricts its ability to act is simply false. Because the Court’s ruling specifically addresses initiatives that alter or reform the government, this ruling does not impact the Legislature’s ability to amend initiatives outside of this category, such as those concerning abortion, gun control and recreational drug use, if they were to come up. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision does allow for significant alterations of initiatives or referendums, provided there is a “compelling governmental interest.”
The argument that the Supreme Court ruling is vague is also unconvincing. If the Legislature were genuinely concerned about ambiguity, it could propose a constitutional amendment to further clarify what it means to “reform the government” or to define what constitutes a “compelling governmental interest.” Instead, they have chosen to grant themselves unrestricted power to modify initiatives, directly contradicting the Supreme Court’s decision. This move clearly constitutes a power grab by the state Legislature.
Two additional elements in the proposed amendment actually obfuscate the issue at hand. Yes, foreign money should not be part of Utah’s elections. Yes, more time to gather signatures would be nice. However, these issues should not be placed in this amendment, where they may mislead voters into voting for the change. After all, the proposal to change the number of days allowed to gather signatures for a referendum does not necessitate a constitutional amendment. This could simply be enacted through a bill, which legislators could pass at any time, independent of the constitutional amendment.
Regarding the issue of foreign money, there is no need to tie it to expanding legislative power either. If the Legislature were truly concerned about foreign influence, it could have proposed a separate amendment focused solely on that issue. Due to the rushed nature of their process, they failed to gather sufficient input on what citizens might support, missing the opportunity to address the foreign money issue independently. It is not even clear that this would need to be a constitutional amendment.
Just as those in the gallery recognized the duplicity in the legislators’ statements, we trust that our fellow Utah citizens will similarly recognize this clear display of legislative overreach and reject the proposed constitutional amendment when they vote in November.
(Melarie Wheat) Melarie Wheat is a resident of Draper and is currently serving as the Utah chapter co-coordinator for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.
Melarie Wheat is a resident of Draper and is currently serving as the Utah chapter co-coordinator for Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG), where she oversees MWEG’s efforts to empower women in Utah to become ambassadors of peace who transcend partisanship and courageously advocate for ethical government.
(Leslie Zabriskie) Leslie Zabriskie is a retired educator and a member of Mormon Women for Ethical Government.
Leslie Zabriskie, Centerville, is a retired educator, a member of Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG), and a volunteer on the MWEG Utah chapter advocacy committee.
The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.
