SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court has issued its highly-anticipated opinion in the Amendment D case, ripping the legislature for misleading ballot language that would have gone before voters.
We already know the results of the Amendment D case. The state's top court voided it, ruling that the legislature failed to comply with laws dating back to 1895 that require publication of a notice in a newspaper. But Thursday's formal opinion — unanimous by the justices — offers more insight into their ruling that upended Utah's 2024 election cycle.
Amendment D was proposed in response to another Utah Supreme Court ruling in July that sided with the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. They were suing the legislature over its decision to override Proposition 4, which created an independent redistricting commission. The Court found the legislative overstepped its power when it overrode the citizen ballot initiative that was Prop. 4.
In response to that ruling, lawmakers called themselves into an emergency special session and put Amendment D on the ballot. Republican legislative leaders argued that the result of the Court's decision would lead to a flood of citizen initiatives turning "Utah into California" fueled by out-of-state money. The League took them back to court, arguing that the ballot language going before voters was misleading.
Amendment D would "give the legislature unfettered constitutional authority to amend or repeal any initiative, including those that reform the government," Justice Hagen wrote in the unanimous opinion. "But the ballot language does not disclose this fundamental change."
The ballot language, authored by the House Speaker and Senate President, does not accurately describe what the amendment actually does, the Court wrote.
"Not only does the ballot title omit a central feature of Amendment D, but the included language would lead a reasonable voter to believe that the amendment does something entirely different," Justice Hagen wrote.
The Court particularly called out promises that state law would be changed under Amendment D to "establish requirements for the legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative" as "illusory."
On the newspaper publication issue, the Utah Supreme Court found that the legislature failed to publish notice in a newspaper in every county in the state for at least two months as required by the Utah Constitution. Instead, it posted it online on the Lt. Governor's website. Lawyers for the legislature argued that in the 21st century, the definition of a "newspaper" has changed dramatically and there were volumes of news coverage.
But the Court took a strict interpretation of the law.
"We are seldom faced with interpreting a constitutional provision so specific," Justice Hagen wrote. "But, when the constitutional language directs a particular action, we are not at liberty to generalize that requirement to an abstract principle. Nor can we substitute an alternative means of accomplishing the constitutional provision's apparent objective. We simply cannot read the word 'newspaper' out of the Publication Clause."
On the changing definition of a "newspaper" in 2024, the Court said that if they adopted the legislature's definition: "By that logic, the legislature reasons, the First Amendment would not protect an online media outlet because it does not use a printing press, and the Second Amendment would protect only muskets and firelocks because no other 'arms' existed in 1791. Instead, the legislature contends, constitutional language applies to the 'modern forms' of the nouns used."
While agreeing with the legislature that the meaning of language "is not frozen in amber" and a newspaper may be different now than it was in 1895, the legislature simply failed to publish the text of the amendment in any newspaper — online or otherwise.
"We echo our previous sentiments – we are troubled and disappointed by the Court’s actions," Senate President J. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, said in a statement to FOX 13 News. "Unfortunately, the Court took an important decision out of the hands of voters and paved the way for governance by initiative. We are committed to finding a path forward because we firmly believe our Founding Fathers created a republic, and that Utah’s future should remain in Utah’s hands."
Katie Wright, the executive director of Better Boundaries, which ran the campaign for Prop. 4, agreed with the Court's opinion.
"The Court said very clearly that our own representatives cannot deceive us on the ballot," she told FOX 13 News on Thursday, adding: "This was a violation of our constitutional rights and they checked that."
With no amendment to campaign against, Wright said Amendment D opponents are now shifting to "get out the vote" efforts. They are planning phone banking activities with Stewardship Utah on Thursday and next week.
"Our state works best when everyone is participating so we are working hard to get out the vote and encourage everyone who is eligible to vote to participate," she said. "And for us all to think very hard about who we elect into office and if they are going to protect our constitutional rights or brush those aside."
House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, told FOX 13 News in August that lawmakers were contemplating some legislation dealing with judges — including term limits.
In the Court's opinion, Justice Hagen appeared to address the issues between the judicial and legislative branches lately.
"We are doing our level best to interpret the Utah Constitution according to its original public meaning. If the people of Utah believe that our interpretation is contrary to the public interest, they can and should amend the constitution. That is an essential part of our constitutional framework that allows the people to alter or reform their government as the public welfare requires," she wrote.
"Under that same framework, the Legislature must propose a constitutional amendment before the people can express their will at the ballot box. That process does not offend the constitution; it respects it. But because amending the constitution is weighty business, the people of Utah dictated specific procedures that must be followed to ensure voters understand what they are being asked to do."
"In the case of Amendment D, those constitutionally mandated procedures were not followed. That is a legal determination, not a policy choice. We respect the Legislature’s constitutional role in proposing amendments and express no opinion on the wisdom of Amendment D. That is a matter for the voters to decide. But the Utah Constitution allows that to happen only when the question is properly placed before them."
Read the entire ruling here:
