2024 Ballot Guide
Constitutional Amendment D
“Should the Utah Constitution be changed to strengthen the initiative process by:
– Prohibiting foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums.
– Clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.
“If approved, state law would also be changed to:
– Allow Utah citizens 50% more time to gather signatures for a statewide referendum.
– Establish requirements for the Legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative.”
Summary
Constitutional Amendment D would:
- Narrow the fundamental right that Utahns hold to alter or reform their government by granting the Legislature and local legislative bodies the explicit authority to modify, enact, or repeal any voter-approved initiative, past or future.
- Ban foreign individuals, entities, and governments from directly or indirectly influencing, supporting, or opposing ballot initiatives, as defined and enforced in statute by the Legislature.
If the amendment is approved, the following would take effect in statute:
- Extend the period for collecting signatures for referendums from 40 days to 60 days. Referendums allow citizens to vote on laws enacted by the Legislature before they take effect.
- Require the Legislature to give deference to the general purpose of an initiative, as defined by lawmakers, when amending an initiative during the legislative session following its passage. The law would still allow for wholesale repeal of an initiative and also allow adjustments to address any adverse financial impacts of initiatives.
Background
History of ballot initiatives in Utah:
In 1900, Utahns amended the Utah Constitution to give voters the power to directly propose legislation through the ballot initiative process. While this power has been in the state constitution for over 100 years, only seven have been approved by voters, three of those appearing on the ballot in as recently as 2018.
Proposition 4 controversy:
One of the initiatives that passed in 2018 was Proposition 4, which aimed to create a fair redistricting process by forming an independent redistricting commission and banning partisan gerrymandering, among other things. In 2020, Proposition 4 was repealed and then replaced by the Legislature when it passed S.B. 200, which removed the ban on partisan gerrymandering and eliminated the requirement for transparency in redistricting decisions. The following year, lawmakers then adopted congressional maps that were widely believed to have been drawn to benefit specific political parties.
Legal action against the Utah Legislature:
The League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and seven Utah voters sued the Utah Legislature in 2022, claiming that the congressional maps adopted by lawmakers unconstitutionally gerrymandered the state. The lawsuit made its way up to the Utah Supreme Court, which issued a decision in July of this year.
While the underlying case was focused on partisan gerrymandering, the decision from the Utah Supreme Court focused on the earlier actions of the Legislature to “repeal and replace” Proposition 4. In the Declaration of Rights, the Utah Constitution states that “All political power is inherent in the people […] and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.” The justices unanimously held that this popular right to “alter or reform” government limits the Legislature’s ability to amend or repeal certain ballot initiatives that have been approved by the voters of the state.
The Legislature's response:
The next month, lawmakers called themselves into an emergency special session to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision. The supermajority proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Court’s decision, granting the Legislature and local legislative bodies the power to amend, enact, or repeal any voter-approved ballot initiatives, both past and future. The amendment also bans foreign individuals, entities, and governments from directly or indirectly influencing, supporting, or opposing ballot initiatives, something that has never happened in Utah.
Lawmakers also passed a law that would take effect if the amendment passes on the ballot, extending the time to gather signatures for referendums and requiring the Legislature to honor the general purpose of passed initiatives during the legislative session after they’re approved.
Controversy over Amendment D ballot language:
Earlier this year, the supermajority shifted the responsibility for writing the summaries of proposed constitutional amendments from nonpartisan staff to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. The language of the ballot summary that was released a few weeks later (quoted above) was called “deceptive” and “misleading” for using language like “strengthens” and “clarifies,” even by Republicans who had voted against the proposal.
The League of Women Voters and Mormon Women for Ethical Government returned to court, asking a judge to remove the constitutional amendment from the November ballot, claiming that not only was the language misleading, but that the Legislature had failed to properly give voters notice of the amendment in newspapers for 60 days, as required by the state Constitution. That district court judge agreed, declaring Constitutional Amendment D “void,” meaning that it will still appear on the ballot but votes will not be counted.
The Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the appeal on that decision on September 25. That same day, the justices upheld the decision of the district court. An opinion explaining the Court’s reasoning is expected soon.
Arguments in Favor
PREVENTS FOREIGN INFLUENCE: The amendment addresses concerns that voter propositions could be influenced by foreign individuals, companies, or governments with their own agendas, rather than genuine grassroots movements.
LEGISLATIVE FLEXIBILITY: The recent decision from the Supreme Court created a new class of “super laws” that cannot be adjusted by the Legislature to address unforeseen issues or changes in circumstances. The state constitution gives both the Legislature and the people the legislative power, and both sides should be able to freely amend laws as necessary—voters through the ballot initiative process and lawmakers through the legislative process. Tying the hands of lawmakers from being able to reasonably change laws when necessary has the potential of turning Utah into a state like California, where ballot initiatives have run amok.
PUSHES BACK ON JUDICIAL POWER: The recent Supreme Court decision will result in uncertainty and unnecessary litigation in the courts as more ballot initiatives are proposed by out-of-state groups and then tied up in lawsuits claiming they are protected from the Legislature. This amendment clarifies the power of both the voters and the Legislature, removing it from the courts and strengthening the overall legislative process for both sides.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS: If the amendment is approved, a law will go into effect that extends the period for Utah citizens to gather signatures for statewide referendums by 50% (40 days to 60 days), facilitating a more accessible and efficient process for citizens to challenge laws passed by the Legislature. It also requires the Legislature to give deference to the general purpose of a ballot initiative during the legislative session after it is passed, respecting the will of the people.
Arguments Against
POWER GRAB: This amendment gives the state Legislature and local legislative bodies the explicit power to entirely repeal or modify any initiative passed by voters, both past and future. The amendment effectively eliminates the right that Utahns hold to “alter or reform” their government because it gives the Legislature the final veto over any ballot initiative proposed and approved by voters. It risks nullifying the entire initiative process, removing the check that the people have over the power of the Legislature.
LIES AND DECEPTION: In their recent decision, the justices of the Utah Supreme Court unanimously held that when the voters pass an initiative that alters or reforms government, then the Legislature needs a compelling reason to ignore the intent of that initiative. Lawmakers remain free to amend, tinker, fix, or otherwise amend or repeal initiatives. Lawmakers and other supporters of the amendment are either lying or misunderstanding the Court’s decision when they say the Legislature’s hands are tied with every future ballot initiative.
RUSHED AND VAGUE: Amending the state constitution is more difficult than passing a statute, so any changes should be made thoughtfully and deliberately. The rushed nature of this amendment during an “emergency” session raises concerns about the lack of thoroughness in drafting the language. For example, “foreign” influences should be better defined because some are using it to refer to out-of-country influences, while others are referring to any out-of-state influences.
BALLOT CANDY: Banning foreign influences, extending the time for gathering referendum signatures, and promising to honor the intent of future ballot initiatives are shiny pieces of candy that lawmakers are placing on the ballot to distract voters from their real goal of taking away a fundamental constitutional right. Lawmakers could do any of those things now or in the future without this amendment being approved, so they are attempting to dazzle voters with a couple of changes that are widely supported to distract from the one change that is not.
STATUTE, NOT AMENDMENT: The law that would go into effect upon approval of the proposed amendment is only that—law. Laws can be easily changed at any time by future lawmakers. So while voters are expected to give up a fundamental constitutional right forever, lawmakers are only making at best temporary promises to extend the time to gather referendum signatures and honor the intent of ballot initiatives,
Additional Information
Read the language of the proposed amendment: S.J.R. 401 (2024)
Watch the Committee Hearing
- Business and Labor Interim Committee Hearing (Aug. 21, 2024)
Watch the Floor Debates
- Senate Floor Debate (Aug. 21, 2024)
- Senate 2nd & 3rd Reading Vote (20-8-1)
- House Floor Debate (Aug. 21, 2024)
- House 3rd Reading Vote (54-21-0)
Read Other Resources