SALT LAKE CITY — The state's largest political party is asking the Utah Supreme Court to put Amendment D back on the ballot, letting voters decide it.
In a "friend of the court" brief filed on Monday, the Utah Republican Party and a group of voters argued that a lower court judge's ruling voiding Amendment D needs to be reversed.
"If the injunction were to stand, amici would be deprived of their state constitutional rights to alter or reform the government, to vote, and to express their support for the measure. To be sure, there are voters who feel equally strongly in the opposite direction," Utah GOP attorney John Nielsen wrote. "But it is the voters, not the courts, who ought to settle this."
The Utah Republican Party is among those who pushed the legislature to run a constitutional amendment in response to the Utah Supreme Court's ruling on citizen initiatives in July. The state's top court declared that the legislature overstepped its authority when it overrode a citizen ballot initiative on independent redistricting. The amendment advanced by the legislature in an emergency special session would undo the Court's ruling, prohibit foreign spending on citizen initiatives and expand the amount of time referendum or initiative sponsors could gather signatures.
But while it focused on foreign spending and signature-gathering, the League of Women Voters and Mormon Women for Ethical Government argued the amendment language appearing on the November ballot glossed over the fact that it would override the Utah Supreme Court's original ruling. Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson agreed and voided Amendment D. The amendment would remain on the ballot, but any votes cast on it simply wouldn't be counted.
The legislature appealed. The Utah Supreme Court has scheduled arguments later this month on the question of whether Amendment D ought to appear on the ballot.
The Utah GOP asked to make arguments before the Supreme Court alongside lawyers for the Utah State Legislature. In a one-page order issued Tuesday, Associate Chief Justice John Pearce rejected it.
"The position and arguments of amici curiae are well described in their brief," he wrote. "The request to participate in oral argument is denied."
