SALT LAKE CITY — The same day the Utah Supreme Court voided Amendment D on the November ballot, opponents of Amendment A went to court and asked a judge to kick that proposed constitutional amendment off the ballot.
Lawyers for the Utah Education Association, Utah State School Board member Carol Lear and other plaintiffs are making the same legal arguments against Amendment A that opponents of Amendment D made.
"The Legislature has failed to comply with multiple provisions of the Utah Constitution by: (1) propounding certified ballot language that obscures the intent and effect of Amendment A, which would eliminate the constitutional protection for public education funding; and (2) failing to publish the actual text of the proposed constitutional amendment as required by the constitution, thus making it even more difficult for voters to understand the true effect of the amendment," plaintiff's attorney Kass Harstad wrote in a motion for a preliminary injunction filed on Wednesday night.
The filing came hours after legal arguments were made before the Utah Supreme Court on Amendment D. The Utah State Legislature appealed a lower court judge's ruling that sided with the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. They had argued that the legislature rushed the amendment through in violation of Utah's constitutional requirements regarding newspaper publication. Also, they argued the ballot language — written by the House Speaker and Senate President — was "misleading" to voters. They alleged that the ballot language glossed over the impact of Amendment D, which allowed the legislature more power to override citizen ballot initiatives and referendums.
Lawmakers have countered that Amendment D was necessary to prevent a flood of citizen initiatives fueled by out-of-state money and that the Court's ruling tied their hands to fix problems with any that do pass.
"The Court’s action is unprecedented and troubling. The Legislature offered the Court a way to preserve the voting rights of all Utahns, but instead, the Court took the chance to vote on Amendment D out of the voters' hands. It’s a sad day for Utah and voters, whether for or against the constitutional amendments," House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President J. Stuart Adams said in a statement late Wednesday.
Amendment A is a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to dip into the income tax earmarked for public education to help solve other budget needs. In exchange for voters approving it, the legislature would remove the state portion of the sales tax on food. But Amendment A is opposed by the state's largest teachers union and some child welfare advocacy groups.
"The Utah Education Association is pleased with the ruling to uphold Judge Gibson’s injunction against Amendment D. We remain committed to continuing our challenges against Constitutional Amendment A, both legally and by joining the Utahns for Student Success coalition," the union said in a statement Thursday.
"For reasons similar to those that led to the injunction against Amendment D, we believe Amendment A also violates the Utah Constitution and risks misleading voters into supporting it."
The judge overseeing the Amendment A litigation has scheduled a hearing on Oct. 15, the same day ballots begin arriving in mailboxes. But 3rd District Court Judge Laura Scott acknowledged during a Wednesday hearing that whatever the Utah Supreme Court decided could apply to Amendment A. (While it is already on the printed ballots, if the UEA and others prevail in voiding Amendment A, any votes cast on it simply won't be counted. That's the same as the court's ruling on Amendment D.)
"Given the ruling and then some of the comments that were made, I think it's gong to go in favor of UEA," said Moe Hickey, the executive director of Voices for Utah Children which is part of a coalition opposing Amendment A. "I think the same criteria was not met. You know, it's almost identical cases."
But Bill Duncan with the Sutherland Institute, which supported Amendment D, said the full impact of the Utah Supreme Court's rulings on citizen initiatives and the constitutional amendments has yet to be realized.
"It’s raising some significant questions, kind of puts a pause on the specific issue of Amendment D," he told FOX 13 News on Thursday. "The bigger question we should be asking, I think, is what’s the role of court in our system and what’s the role of representative government?"
Republican lawmakers on Utah's Capitol Hill are expected to scrutinize the judiciary in light of these rulings. Speaker Schultz previously told FOX 13 News he was exploring bills to elect judges instead of appoint them, as well as re-examine their term limits.
Hickey said he anticipated education groups being targeted if Amendment A is thrown off the ballot by a judge.
"I do worry about vindictiveness in some form," he said.
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Angela Romero and Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla announced plans to introduce a bill in the upcoming legislative session that would revert back to having constitutional amendment ballot language written by nonpartisan legislative legal staffers. A recent law change gave the ballot language power to the House Speaker and Senate President.
"As you saw, the language for Amendment D, it was very biased, it was very misleading and it didn’t really address the issue at hand," Rep. Romero said.
She also warned voters about the consequences of re-electing the same people who advanced the amendments that they say they oppose.
"If you don’t like Amendment D, if you don’t like Amendment A, look at where your current elected official stood on those issues," Rep. Romero said. "And if you don’t agree with them? Vote them out."
