Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Utah court ruling sparks controversy over ballot initiative process

September 17, 2024 | Midway, Wasatch County, Utah


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Utah court ruling sparks controversy over ballot initiative process
A recent court ruling has thrown the future of a proposed constitutional amendment in Utah into uncertainty. Judge Diana Gibson of the 3rd District Court declared Amendment D void, stating it would not be counted in the upcoming 2024 election due to procedural issues. However, the amendment will still appear on ballots because of timing constraints related to ballot printing.

Amendment D aims to modify the Utah Constitution to strengthen the initiative process by prohibiting foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums. It also seeks to clarify the roles of voters and the legislature in amending laws. If passed, it would grant Utah citizens an additional 50% more time to gather signatures for statewide referendums, although it has faced criticism for potentially misleading language regarding its implications for initiatives.

The controversy surrounding Amendment D stems from a 2018 voter-approved initiative that established an independent redistricting commission to combat partisan gerrymandering. In 2020, the Utah legislature passed a bill that effectively rewrote this initiative, prompting legal challenges from groups including the League of Women Voters. The Utah Supreme Court ruled in July that legislative changes to initiatives must be narrowly tailored and serve a compelling state interest, reinforcing the integrity of the initiative process.

In response to this ruling, legislative leaders convened an emergency session to propose Amendment D, which critics argue undermines the court's decision by allowing lawmakers to rewrite citizen initiatives. Judge Gibson's ruling highlighted that the legislature failed to publish the proposed amendment as required by state law, leading to the current legal battle.

As the situation develops, the legislature is appealing the decision, and the outcome remains uncertain. The amendment's future could hinge on the appeal, which may affect whether the votes cast on the amendment will ultimately count. The ongoing discussions reflect broader tensions between legislative authority and voter initiatives in Utah's political landscape.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Utah articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI