SALT LAKE CITY, Utah — A significant legal ruling on Thursday invalidated Utah’s Amendment D, which aimed to grant the state legislature the authority to repeal citizen-passed ballot initiatives. Judge Dianna Gibson struck down the amendment citing a failure to meet transparent and statutory requirements.
Gibson’s 16-page opinion emphasized the importance of a fully informed electorate in effective democratic participation, noting that misleading and incomplete disclosures about the amendment compromised the essence of voters’ rights. She declared, “Amendment D is void and shall be given no effect.”
Despite the ruling, the ballots for the upcoming election will still include the contentious Amendment D. However, votes cast for this amendment will not be tallied. This decision allows the state time to potentially challenge the ruling before voters head to the polls in November.
This legal conflict has roots in a 2018 initiative where Utah voters approved measures to form an independent redistricting commission and curb partisan gerrymandering. However, in a controversial move in 2020, the Republican-led legislature overturned these provisions with SB200, and later, redrew the congressional districts in a way that diluted votes in Democratic-majority areas.
The legal challenge was brought forth by The League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and several affected voters. They argued that these actions not only ignored the popular vote but virtually nullified their representation in Congress.
Support for the plaintiffs’ stance came from a unanimous decision by the Utah Supreme Jury in July, noting that arbitrarily altering voter-initiated laws undermines direct democracy. The justices concurred that legislatures could modify such laws, albeit narrowly and only if it aligns closely with public interest.
Amidst this backdrop, Republican leaders convened an emergency legislative session last month, hastily passing a proposal for a constitutional amendment that would override the Supreme Court’s decision. It would allow the legislature uncontested power to amend, reject, or uphold any past or future citizen initiative.
Further complicating matters, the drafting of the ballot language for Amendment D, traditionally a nonpartisan task, was influenced heavily this time by Republican House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams. Critics argue this wording misleads voters by suggesting the amendment would enhance, rather than diminish, the initiative process.
At a Wednesday hearing, Mark Gaber, representing the plaintiffs, criticized not only the misleading language of the amendment but also accompanying bills ostensibly crafted to respect voter initiatives. According to Gaber, these measures fall short, offering only superficial deference and expiring quickly.
While the state scrambled to meet federal deadlines for overseas ballots, Judge Gibson underscored the legislature’s failure to fulfill the requirement to publish the full text of the amendment in newspapers across the state ahead of the election, a mandate stipulated by the Utah Constitution.
Despite the contention, Gibson’s decision represents a critical affirmation of transparency and voter rights, pending potential appeals by the state. Meanwhile, the controversial Amendment D will remain a significant topic as voters prepare for the November elections, reflecting a broader national dialogue about the balance of power between legislatures and the citizens they serve.