Utah voters will see a new constitutional amendment on the ballot in November, and not all Republicans are happy about it. Nine voted with all Democrats against giving the legislature the power to revise or repeal citizen-initiated ballot initiatives.
The vote in the Senate was 20-8and the House of Representatives passed the resolution 54-21The majority of Republicans who voted no live in contested districts in Salt Lake County – Utah’s most conservative region.
“I feel like this is taking away a power from the people that is pretty clearly defined in the Utah Constitution,” the Republican congressman said. Marsha Judkinsone of the no votes, who is not running for re-election, told KUER.
“This is moving too quickly and we need more time to really investigate the matter if it is to be a problem at all.”
The Republican supermajority wants to have the ability to freely repeal or change citizen initiatives passed by voters. They called the special session after a vote in July. Utah Supreme Court ruling It says lawmakers exceeded their authority when they changed a redistricting initiative passed by voters.
Parliament’s leadership spoke of “one of the worst results” the court had ever seen.
Despite the reaction to the ruling, House sponsor Rep. Jordan Teuscher stressed in his closing remarks before the vote that this “has nothing to do with the reorganization of the electoral districts.”
“We are not introducing this constitutional amendment because the legislature is pissed that we may have to redraw the maps.”
Content of the resolution
The legislature published the proposed resolution language about 24 hours before their meeting.
The resolution, if adopted in November, would give parliament the power to amend or repeal popular initiatives approved by voters. It would also prohibit “foreign individuals, organizations or governments” from influencing, supporting or opposing an initiative or referendum “directly or indirectly.” Another aspect would allow parliament to act “retroactively,” meaning it would have the power to amend or repeal initiatives already approved.
Republican Senator. Lincoln Fillmore said this ability is necessary, especially with previous initiatives like medical marijuana, which is being reclassified at the federal level. In addition, Fillmore said “unelected judges cannot be the final authority on what’s going on in Utah,” even though all of the justices appointed to the Utah Supreme Court were appointed by a Republican governor and confirmed by a two-thirds Republican majority.
“We have different interpretations of the provisions of the Constitution and we ask the people to decide for themselves what their right is,” he said. “Our Constitution gives them the right to decide. So let’s give Utah that choice.”
The ability to act “retroactively” would allow lawmakers to overturn the state Supreme Court’s July 11 decision. The case centered on lawmakers’ actions to amend Proposition 4, the 2018 citizen-passed initiative for an independent redistricting commission to conduct the state’s once-a-decade redistricting. Lawmakers voted to give the commission a purely advisory role and approved their own maps in 2021.
The court did not comment on the constitutionality of the maps, but reiterated that “the right of the people to change or reform the government through an initiative is protected by the Constitution from government interference, including amending the law, repealing or replacing the initiative in a way that affects the reform decided upon by the people.”
The underlying case was remanded to a lower court for further deliberation.
Why the overwhelming majority thinks this is necessary
Republicans interpret the ruling as creating so-called “super laws” that cannot be changed by the legislature. In fact, the court’s decision states that the legislature is perfectly entitled to change a citizen’s initiative as long as it “does not interfere with the reform passed by the people.”
Rather than banning any measures, the court set a stricter standard that must be met. Justice Paige Petersen wrote that lawmakers could still amend an initiative and survive a court challenge “if the legislature shows that they were narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.”
In a committee hearing before the vote on the resolution, the senator said: Kirk CullimoreA lawyer by profession, contradicted this reasoning.
“I would argue, however, that there is no definition in the law or in case law of what it means to change or reform government,” he said. “If I’m someone pushing an initiative and you have a good lawyer worth his salt, any good lawyer will make a pretty compelling argument that his particular initiative changes and reforms government.”
Cullimore interprets Utah’s constitution to mean that the legislature and the people are co-equal, and therefore legislators should have the power to amend initiatives. It’s a similar argument the state made during oral arguments before the Supreme Court. In his view, the special session resolution will “let the people decide and let the people interpret what’s in their constitution.”
Sen. Daniel Thatcherone of two GOP senators who voted against the resolution, doesn’t believe the legislature’s power to amend initiatives is in danger. Rather, the public’s respect for the legislature is at risk.
“I don’t think the public will accept it. And I think it probably won’t pass in November, but it will probably give us the biggest blemish we’ve ever had as a Parliament.”
Democratic Senator. Kathleen Riebe believed that the special session was called under “false pretexts,” further undermining the trust of Utah’s citizens.
“We are currently experiencing an unprecedented level of distrust in politics and I don’t think that helps.”
Their perception of Utahns’ reactions to the actions of election officials is consistent with a Current survey from the Utah Foundation. The nonpartisan organization found that the second biggest problem Utahns face is “politicians listening to voters” and the fourth biggest problem is “government overreach.”
Public comments at the previous hearing were strongly against the proposal. Jeff Baker was a member of the independent redistricting commission and questioned the speed with which this constitutional amendment was drafted.
“How often does a quality bill and amendment language come together in just a matter of weeks or days?” he asked. “I’ll answer that for you: It doesn’t come together in a healthy, appropriate, good way. Nor is the proposed amendment based on the voice of the people. I encourage each of you to reject the proposed amendment.”
