SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Utah Supreme Court is poised to decide whether a proposed constitutional amendment asking voters to hand over power over ballot measures to lawmakers is clearly worded and should be counted on the November ballot.
Attorneys for the Legislature and a coalition of voting rights groups argued outside the state Supreme Court on Wednesday after a lower court ruled earlier this month that voters should not have to decide the key voting issue this year.
Republican legislative leaders are asking the five-judge panel to overturn District Judge Dianna Gibson’s ruling and reintroduce Amendment D to the public. But opponents of the measure warn it is written in a way that could trick voters into giving up their power to pass meaningful legislation.
If the amendment is revived and approved by a majority of Utah voters this fall, it would give lawmakers constitutional authority to rewrite voter-approved ballot measures or repeal them entirely. Lawmakers could also apply their new authority to initiatives from previous election cycles.
The summary voters will see on their ballot asks only whether the state constitution should be amended to “strengthen the initiative process” and clarify the roles of legislators and voters.
Gibson ruled in early September that the ballot question language, written by Republican legislative leaders, was “counterfactual” and did not give voters the unbridled power it would give state lawmakers. She also said the Legislature had failed to publish the ballot question in newspapers across the state within the required time frame.
Taylor Meehan, an attorney for the legislature, defended the proposed amendment before the Utah Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing that a reasonably intelligent voter could understand the intent of the ballot question.
Judge Paige Petersen said the amendment would eliminate constitutional protections for Utah’s current initiative process. She asked Meehan to indicate where in the ballot question voters are informed they are giving up those protections.
Meehan said the summary that will appear on the ballot does not have to inform voters about the amendment’s effects. The summary is only meant to help voters identify the amendment and point them to the full text, she said, agreeing with Justice John Pearce that the wording cannot be counterfactual.
Mark Gaber, an attorney for the League of Women Voters, argued that voters would not assume the ballot summary is inaccurate and should not be expected to seek out accurate information. He argued that the language omits important details and is counterfactual because it purports to strengthen the initiative process while in reality eliminating voters’ ability to pass laws without legislative interference.
The judges did not give a timetable for when they would rule on the feasibility of the vote.
Because of the ballot printing deadline, the proposed amendment will appear on Utah ballots in November regardless of the Supreme Court ruling. However, votes may not be counted.
The amendment seeks to circumvent another Utah Supreme Court ruling from July that said lawmakers have very limited authority to change laws passed through citizen initiatives.
Frustrated by that decision, legislative leaders in August used their broadly worded emergency powers to call a special session in which both chambers quickly approved putting an amendment on the November ballot. Democrats denounced the decision as a “power grab,” while many Republicans argued that it would be dangerous to have certain laws on the books that could not be substantially changed.
Republican Gov. Spencer Cox said last week during his monthly televised news conference on KUED-TV that he found the lower court ruling “compelling.” He declined to say whether he thought the ballot question was misleading and said he would let the Supreme Court decide.
“It’s important that the language is clear and communicates what the actual changes are going to do,” Cox told reporters. “I hope that the people of Utah will ultimately have the opportunity to have their say and decide one way or another how this is going to go. I think that’s really important, but it’s important that we get it right.”
