Eleanor Finch
Utah's Constitutional Amendment D, which would have given the state legislature the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative, was ruled void by the state Supreme Court on September 25, 2024. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Utah, which alleged that the ballot language was misleading and deceptive, and that the amendment would have eliminated voters' fundamental constitutional right to reform their government through ballot initiatives. The court upheld the lower court's ruling that the amendment did not meet the constitutional requirements for publication and that the ballot summary did not accurately describe the proposed changes. This decision highlights the ongoing struggle between voters and politicians in Utah over the power to shape the state's political landscape.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Status | Voided |
| Reason for voiding | Deceptive and misleading language, did not accurately describe the proposed constitutional amendment |
| Constitutional amendment | Would provide the state legislature with the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative |
| Ban on foreign contributions | Included |
| Legislative alteration | Included |
| Ballot initiative | Would eliminate voters' fundamental constitutional right to reform their government through ballot initiatives |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The amendment's misleading ballot summary
The Utah Supreme Court ruled that Amendment D is void due to the language of the ballot summary being misleading and inaccurate in describing the proposed amendment. The ballot summary was written by Speaker Mike Schultz and President Stuart Adams, and it failed to comply with the constitutional requirement to publish the amendment text in newspapers for two months before the election. The amendment sought to eliminate voters' constitutional right to reform the government through ballot initiatives and give the legislature the power to amend or repeal these initiatives. This included the ability to amend voter-approved initiatives in any manner deemed necessary to mitigate adverse fiscal impacts, which alarmed ethical government advocates.
The League of Women Voters of Utah filed a lawsuit to invalidate Amendment D, alleging that the ballot language was certified after the deadline and was false and misleading. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed that citizens have the right to reform their government and that the ballot language falsely informed voters that the amendment would strengthen the initiative process. The Campaign Legal Center also sued to remove the amendment from the ballot due to its misleading language, stating that it deceived voters about the amendment's true effect. The amendment was introduced as a response to the Utah Supreme Court's ruling in League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature, where the court ruled that the legislature could not repeal or undo initiatives meant to reform the government.
The Utah Legislature's push for Amendment D is part of a broader movement across the country against partisan gerrymandering, which involves drawing political boundaries to maximize partisan advantage. The amendment would have allowed the legislature to sidetrack efforts for fair maps in the state and take power away from voters, as seen in the repeal of Proposition 4, which created the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) in 2020. The legislature's actions, including rushing the amendment onto the ballot and restricting public comment, demonstrate a disregard for voters' wishes and an attempt to maintain control.
The voiding of Amendment D by the courts ensures that any votes cast for it will not be counted. This decision upholds the constitutional safeguards designed to ensure that voters have the necessary information and time to make informed decisions on constitutional amendments. The ruling also highlights the importance of accurate and transparent ballot summaries, allowing voters to understand the implications of their choices fully.
Fundamental Duties: Amendment Act Explained
You may want to see also
The amendment's invalidation by the Utah Supreme Court
On September 25, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision upholding a lower court's ruling that Amendment D is void. The justices of the Supreme Court held that the language of Amendment D, summarised by Speaker Mike Schultz and President Stuart Adams, did not accurately describe the proposed constitutional amendment. The Legislature also did not comply with the constitutional requirements to publish the text of the amendment in newspapers for two months before the election.
The Supreme Court's statement said that, according to the Utah Constitution, before a proposed amendment can be put to a popular vote, the Legislature must provide a way for the proposed amendment to be published in at least one newspaper in every county of the state for two months before the next general election. The description of the amendment, as it would appear to voters, doesn’t include “clarity as to enable voters to express their will”.
The amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 401 on August 20, 2024, and passed the Senate the following day in a vote of 20-8. The House passed the bill on the same day in a vote of 54-21. The amendment would have provided in the constitution that the state legislature has the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative.
The League of Women Voters of Utah filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Amendment D and have it removed from the ballot, or, if it did appear on the ballot, prohibit votes cast on the measure from being counted. They alleged that the ballot language was false and misleading. The lawsuit claimed that the language violated the inherent accuracy requirement of Section 1 of Article XXIII because it failed to submit the amendment to the voters for a popular vote.
Utah House Democratic Leader Angela Romero released a statement saying that the Utah Supreme Court “confirmed” that constitutional requirements weren’t met by the Utah Legislature. She said that the rushed and misleading process led by Republican leadership wasted time and betrayed the trust of Utahns.
Amending the Constitution: The Most Common Way
You may want to see also
The amendment's aim to give the legislature power over ballot initiatives
Utah's Amendment D, or Constitutional Amendment D, was a proposed constitutional amendment that aimed to give the state legislature the power to amend or repeal citizen-initiated ballot initiatives. The amendment was introduced in 2024 and was the subject of significant controversy due to concerns over the accuracy and misleading nature of its ballot summary language.
The amendment would have provided the legislature with the authority to alter or repeal voter-approved initiatives, with the stated purpose of mitigating any adverse fiscal impact of the initiative. This power would have applied retroactively to existing initiatives. The legislative alteration referred to in the amendment is the process by which lawmakers can amend or repeal citizen initiatives after they have been approved by voters.
The proposal was rushed through by the Utah Legislature, causing alarm among ethical government advocates. They were concerned about both the process and the potential ramifications of the amendment's content. The ballot summary, written by Senate President Stuart Adams and Speaker of the House Mike Schulz, was deemed deceptive and misleading by critics. The ballot summary indicated that the amendment would strengthen the initiative process and require legislative adherence to voter-approved initiatives. However, in reality, the amendment aimed to give the legislature the power to repeal voter initiatives with minimal constraints.
The League of Women Voters of Utah filed a lawsuit against Amendment D, seeking to invalidate it and prevent votes on the measure from being counted. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling, declaring Amendment D void. The court found that the ballot language did not accurately describe the proposed amendment and that the legislature had failed to comply with constitutional requirements by not publishing the amendment's text in newspapers for the mandated period before the election. The court affirmed the protected right of citizens to reform their government through initiatives, stating that this right is safeguarded from government infringement.
The Amendment That Extended Rights to Black Males
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Gun Permit 2nd Amendment 1791 USA Constitution Patch [3D-PVC Rubber - Hook Fastener -MG15]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61u4SY8BJZL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The amendment's attempt to ban foreign contributions
Utah's Amendment D, or Constitutional Amendment D, was a proposed constitutional amendment that appeared on ballots in 2024. The amendment would have provided the state legislature with the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative. The amendment was ruled void by the Utah Supreme Court on September 25, 2024, as the ballot summary was written in a way that was deceptive and misleading, and did not accurately describe the proposed amendment.
The amendment included a provision to ban foreign contributions. This provision was likely included to address concerns about the influence of foreign money in politics and to ensure that political decisions were made in the best interests of the state and its citizens, rather than being influenced by external factors or actors.
The specific details of the ban on foreign contributions are not readily available, but it is reasonable to assume that it would have prohibited political campaigns, parties, or candidates from accepting donations or contributions from foreign individuals, organizations, or governments. Such bans are often implemented to prevent foreign interference in a country's political processes and to maintain the integrity of elections and policymaking.
The inclusion of this provision in Amendment D suggests that the drafters recognized the potential risks associated with foreign contributions and sought to address them. By banning foreign contributions, the amendment would have helped to ensure that political decisions were made independently and without external influence, thereby protecting the state's democratic processes and the interests of its citizens.
While the amendment was ultimately voided due to issues with the ballot summary, the inclusion of the ban on foreign contributions highlights the importance that Utah places on maintaining the integrity of its political system and safeguarding against external influences.
California's Constitution: Amendments and Their Timeline
You may want to see also
The amendment's impact on gerrymandering
Utah's Amendment D, which was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 401 on August 20, 2024, aimed to address the issue of gerrymandering in the state. Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing political boundaries to maximize partisan advantage, and it has been a growing concern in Utah, particularly in Salt Lake City. The amendment would have provided the state legislature with the power to amend or repeal citizen initiatives, potentially impacting the fairness of electoral district boundaries.
The amendment was a response to the Utah Supreme Court's ruling in League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature, where the court affirmed the citizens' right to reform their government through initiatives. The court ruled that the legislature could not repeal or undo an initiative meant to reform the government. However, Amendment D sought to give the legislature the power to amend voter-approved initiatives, raising concerns about the potential for gerrymandering.
The language used to summarize Amendment D on the ballot was deemed deceptive and misleading by critics. They argued that the summary falsely informed voters that passing the amendment would strengthen the initiative process and require legislative action to amend voter-approved initiatives. In reality, the amendment would have given the legislature significant power to redraw electoral districts without proper accountability, potentially leading to gerrymandering.
The impact of Amendment D on gerrymandering was a significant concern for ethical government advocates across Utah. They worried that the amendment's passage would have allowed the legislature to create strategically drawn election districts that would dilute citizens' voting power and hinder fair representation. This goes against the principle of democratic representation and the ideal of citizens choosing their politicians, rather than politicians choosing their voters.
On September 25, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Amendment D was void. The court held that the language of the amendment did not accurately describe the proposed changes and that the legislature had not complied with the constitutional requirements for publishing the amendment's text before the election. As a result, any votes cast for Amendment D will not be counted, and the issue of gerrymandering in Utah remains unresolved.
Amending the Constitution: Adapting to a Changing Nation
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Utah's Amendment D was a proposed constitutional amendment that would have given the state legislature the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative.
On September 25, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that Amendment D was void due to deceptive and misleading language and failure to comply with pre-election publication requirements. Any votes cast for it will not be counted.
The purpose of Amendment D was to give the Utah Legislature the power to amend or repeal voter-approved initiatives, particularly those related to redistricting and fair maps in the state.
Amendment D was controversial because it was seen as an attempt by the Utah Legislature to seize power from voters and grant it to self-interested politicians. The amendment's language was also deemed deceptive and misleading, violating the Utah Constitution.
Amendment D was opposed by ethical government advocates, the Campaign Legal Center, and a bipartisan group of voters who filed lawsuits to remove it from the ballot or prohibit votes on it from being counted.
