Utah voters will now decide: Should the Utah Constitution say the Legislature can amend or appeal citizen-led initiatives? The Utah House and Senate voted Wednesday to advance a constitutional amendment that would allow the Legislature to amend or repeal initiatives. Lawmakers were responding to a state Supreme Court ruling over redistricting that said they did not have that power in some cases, leading to concerns over what would happen if an initiative passed that had unintended consequences. Those opposed to the amendment said it would take power away from the state’s voters.
The constitutional amendment passed 54-21 in the House, and 20-8 in the Senate, clearing both chambers with more than two-thirds approval as required. Now the proposed constitutional amendment will appear on Utahns’ November ballots. In addition to stating lawmakers have the ability to amend or repeal laws originating from citizen initiatives, the amendment would also prevent foreign entities from using resources to sway or dissuade Utahns from voting for or against initiatives.
Utah lawmakers approved other changes to the ballot initiative process, including an extension of the signature gathering period as well as additional language requiring the Legislature to give deference to initiatives when making amendments (they would have to keep the general intent of the initiative). After the vote, Senate President Stuart J. Adams, Rep.
Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan and Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Draper held a press conference where they emphasized the amendment would not change the process for citizen-led initiatives. When asked how they will make their case to the voters, Adams, R-Layton, said the message will be very clear: “Don’t become California and keep Utah, Utah.
” Historically, Utah initiatives have been passed by Utah citizens, said Cullimore. The amendment would ensure this remains the case. Teuscher said he foresaw “a mound of litigation” on every initiative ever passed in Utah without the amendment.
Adams added without legislation, questions about definitions and limitations would have to be resolved in the courts. ”That is just not the way we set statute in Utah,” said Adams. The discussion in the Utah Senate The reason for the constitutional amendment was bigger than the recent Utah Supreme Court ruling, Cullimore told the Utah Senate.
The decision handed down by the state’s highest court said initiatives are protected from unfettered changes. Cullimore said he acknowledged the ruling would still allow the Legislature to make amendments to some laws originating from initiatives. But he said there was ambiguity about when specifically the Legislature could make those changes.
“This cuts both ways,” said Cullimore, adding he believes it is not a partisan issue because both conservative and liberal initiatives could pass in the state. He said the Legislature needs to have the ability to amend these laws in some cases, including to fulfill the constitutional mandate to balance the budget. Senate Minority Whip Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, said she opposed the bill because she thinks legislators called themselves into a special session when they should not have done so.
At one point during the discussion, Adams had to ask the public sitting in the gallery to maintain decorum. He said he would clear the gallery if disruptions continued. Sen.
Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, said the resolution gives people the choice whether to amend the constitution and he strongly supports the effort. He referenced a prior initiative that required amendments from the Legislature to make it constitutional and raised questions about whether or not the ruling created an unequal balance of powers. A floor amendment to the resolution was raised by Sen.
Nate Blouin, D-Salt Lake City, to strike out the word “retrospective,” which would prevent the amendment from applying to prior initiatives. Cullimore said he was not in favor of the floor amendment, which failed to gain approval. Democratic lawmakers including Blouin and Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla expressed concern about the short notice the Utah Legislature had to address this issue.
Wednesday is the last interim day before the deadline lawmakers would need to meet in order for the amendment to appear on November ballots. “The unelected judges cannot be the final arbiter,” said Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R-South Jordan.
He gave a long speech on the floor, which he said was prompted by a reading of the Federalist Papers. He called the separation of powers a genius system. “There’s been a false narrative put out since Friday that we’re making it harder to put initiatives on the ballot,” said Sen.
Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, who supported the amendment. He said he thinks this measure asks the people to weigh in on the question and makes it easier to get initiatives on the ballot. When Weiler took office, he said most likely the majority of his constituents did not support medical marijuana or same-sex marriage.
He said that has now changed. He asked his fellow lawmakers what would have happen if an initiative had passed earlier on one of those issues and now the Legislature was unable to change it. The discussion in the Utah House “We do not want Utah to become another California,” said Teuscher.
He explained there are two states where lawmakers are restricted from making changes to initiatives: Arizona and California. Arizona has 11 initiatives on the ballot this year and California has 14, said Teuscher. “This has created a target for our state for outside money to pour in and change Utah,” said Teuscher, pointing toward Maine and California which he said saw millions of dollars from foreign entities come in related to initiatives.
Quoting from George Washington, Teuscher said, “Foreign influence is one of the most painful foes of republican government.” The amendment would prevent foreign influence on initiatives, he said, and also allow the Utah Legislature to meet the state’s needs. “Power comes from the people.
The Utah Constitution says it plainly, that people can reform their government. That’s not a radical idea. It’s a beautiful idea,” said Rep.
Doug Owens, D-Millcreek. He asked what the motivations were behind the amendment. “What’s the worst that could happen? The worst that could happen is that maybe, once in a while, we send a Democrat to Washington,” said Owens.
“I’d suggest, if that happens, that could be good for Utah.” Rep. Judy Weeks Rohner, R-West Valley City, said she believes the amendment would give people in the state a voice.
“I strongly encourage this body to pass this bill, not only for people in this area, but the entire state of Utah,” said Rohner. “Listen to the people. They want a voice.
This allows them to have that voice.” “All political power is inherent in the people,” said Rep. Joel Briscoe, D-Salt Lake City.
“They have the right to alter or to fund their government as the public welfare may require. I don’t see anything in here the says they have to ask permission from 104 people up here.” As an example, Briscoe said the Utah Legislature did not listen to the people on medical marijuana, which is why he thinks Utahns resorted to passing an initiative.
“I’ve been here since 2010, I’ve never seen a perfect bill,” Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan said. He explained most of what the Utah Legislature spends their time on is amending and refining legislation.
“But what the opponents of this bill are asking us to do is to suppose that the initiative that doesn’t go through that process is in one pass perfect,” said Ivory, adding there was no accountability. “Who do the people hold accountable in the initiative process?” Like in the Senate, the vote in the House fell largely along party lines, with a few Republicans joining their Democratic colleagues to oppose the measure. Why was the amendment brought forward? Discussion around an amendment picked up steam when Utah GOP chair Rob Axson and others signed a letter encouraging the Legislature to consider pushing back against the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Sutherland Institute also put forward a letter on Friday calling for an amendment. On Wednesday, before the chambers approved the bill, it was discussed and passed out of the Business and Labor Interim Committee. The public who attended the hearing were told that whether or not the amendment was passed by the Legislature, litigation over the drawing of the state’s congressional districts would move forward, according to Cullimore.
“The Utah Supreme Court determined citizen initiatives were a path by the people to alter and reform their government,” said Cullimore. He added there is no definition in case law of what “alter or reform government” means and that could be interpreted broadly by groups making a case their initiative alters or reforms governments. He said this was one of the reasons why lawmakers proposed the amendment.
“This essentially created a new class of laws, super laws if you will,” said Cullimore. He said the law is “living and breathing” and statutes are amended for a variety of reasons. Cullimore said he was aware of groups in the state that have already been contacted by outside groups motivated to pour money into initiatives.
This concerned him. Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, asked Cullimore to explain why Utah voters should feel good about what the Legislature was doing with the amendment.
“We haven’t had a lot of time to look at it,” said King about the amendment and legislation before the committee, noting the text of the amendment came out less than 24 hours in advance. He read messages from constituents saying the Utah Legislature was “rigging the game” and not listening to the people. Sen.
Karen Kwan, D-West Valley City, said she had “total disdain for” the resolution, and focused on the language regarding foreign entities. Kwan asked the committee to clarify what this language means before moving forward with the amendment. Cullimore said he thinks the definition would apply to people outside the U.
S., not outside Utah. Axson testified in support of the amendment at the committee meeting.
He said the amendment started with a groundswell of support from groups and individuals across the state. Another member of the public, Jeff Baker, said he was a former member of the independent redistricting committee. He said he opposed the amendment because he thinks the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling was correct and urged the Legislature to follow it.
Baker’s remarks were met with applause from some people of the room followed by a reminder to maintain decorum. As the discussion about the proposed amendment and its accompanying bills continued, one member of the audience was removed for yelling out a question to the committee about them wanting less democracy. What does the amendment say? The amendment would take effect on Jan.
1, 2025, if voters approve it. “(3) (a) Foreign individuals, entities, or governments may not, directly or indirectly, influence support, or oppose an initiative or a referendum.” (b) The Legislature may provide, by statute, definitions, scope, and enforcement of the prohibition under Subsection (3) (a).
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution, the people’s exercise of their Legislative power as provided in Subsection (2) does not limit or preclude the exercise of Legislative power, including through amending, enacting, or repealing a law, by the Legislature, or by a law making body of a county, city, or town, on behalf of the people whom they are elected to represent..
