Straightforward or slanted? Supporters and critics of Utah constitutional amendment talk about ballot language

State Republican leadership said it provided “straightforward language” to explain a constitutional amendment regarding initiatives. A Better Boundaries board member said it was “hopelessly slanted.”
Utahns will see the following language on their ballots come November:
It will be listed as Constitutional Amendment D on the ballot.
“The ballot language issued by legislative leadership is hopelessly slanted. It is not true that this amendment will strengthen the initiative process; it will weaken that process. It is not true that the amendment will establish requirements for the legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative; it will free them to override initiatives passed by the will of the people,” said Better Boundaries board member Ryan Bell.
“It is saddening to see legislative leadership compound their refusal to engage with the people on this issue with ballot language that is likely to mislead the people. Better Boundaries and its many allies will ensure that the people of Utah see through these tactics,” continued Bell.
“Using clear and straightforward language is common practice and crucial for ensuring voters fully understand the measures they are deciding on. We recognize there will always be criticism, but our objective remains consistent — to provide a straightforward and concise description to allow voters to easily understand the core of the proposed changes,” said Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz.
“Additionally, voters always have access to comprehensive analysis and arguments both for and against the amendments. Modeling previous ballot titles was our guide as we drafted this constitutional amendment. Those who label these efforts as deceptive are often the ones attempting to mislead voters,” continued Adams, R-Layton, and Schultz, R-Hooper.
The proposed constitutional amendment does not change the way initiatives are passed by voters in the state. It would change the Utah Constitution to say the Legislature has the ability to amend or repeal laws that originated as initiatives.
It would also prohibit foreign — Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, specified in the special session, the intent was foreign meant out of country — influence on ballot initiatives and referenda. This means foreign entities would not be allowed to sway Utah votes through media campaigns and other methods.
When the Legislature made the decision to put the amendment on Utah voters’ ballots, lawmakers also passed legislation that would go into effect if voters approve the amendment. It would require state lawmakers to keep the general intent of an initiative intact when making changes the first general session after it is passed by voters. Lawmakers also raised the threshold for the numbers of days people have to gather signatures if they want to repeal a Utah law.
Utah voters who vote yes on the amendment would be voting for the Utah Constitution to be amended. In that case, they would say the Legislature should have the ability to change laws that originated as citizen initiatives, and they want it in the state constitution that foreign entities cannot influence the initiative process.
Voting no on the initiatives means Utah voters do not want to change the Utah Constitution. In that case, a recent state Supreme Court ruling that allows the Legislature to change citizen initiatives that reform the government only if they narrowly tailor the changes for a compelling government interest.
The proposal of the constitutional amendment came after the Utah Supreme Court issued a decision allowing a gerrymandering lawsuit against the Legislature to move forward.
Utah voters in 2018 passed a citizen initiative to have an independent redistricting committee draw boundaries in the state. Better Boundaries led the effort on the initiative. After the initiative was passed, the Legislature amended the law — there would still be an independent redistricting committee that could propose maps, but the Legislature would have a say on what maps ultimately were implemented.
The Legislature went with its own maps instead of those of the independent redistricting committee. Mormon Women for Ethical Government and League of Women Voters of Utah along with some Utah voters then sued the Legislature.
The Utah Supreme Court decision issued earlier this summer allowed that lawsuit to move forward. In the decision, the state’s highest court said if lawmakers make changes to initiatives that alter or reform the government, they need to meet a legal test: strict scrutiny.
In other words, lawmakers would need to show a compelling government interest and narrowly tailor their changes to the initiative to meet that interest.
Utah Republican Party chair Rob Axson led an effort on an open letter to lawmakers encouraging them to put an amendment on the ballot. Sutherland Institute also issued a letter with the same encouragement.
The Legislature then held a special session to consider putting the amendment on the ballot. The proposed amendment was considered in an afternoon committee meeting. The chair of the committee said he would hear from five people on the proposed amendment. There was limited additional comment during the discussion on the other two bills.
After the committee meeting, the Legislature discussed the proposed amendment in both the House and the Senate that same evening. It needed two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers to make it onto the ballot and it received the necessary votes.
Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton: “I wonder if those that complain about the language on the ballot know they are making the legislature’s case? Initiatives mostly pass/fail because very busy voters only read what is on the ballot and DO NOT READ the actual language.”
Sen. Nate Blouin, D-Salt Lake City: “Isn’t this an argument for unbiased, nonpartisan ballot language like we had in every past year? If we want voters to decide on the merits (I do) and they’re only going to read the ballot language, shouldn’t it be honest?”
Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross: “Each bullet point(s) is accurate.”
Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights: “Yes, the language is deceptive and yes I saw it coming … and no they did not adopt my amendment.”
Rep. Marsha Judkins, R-Provo: “You have got to be kidding. What misleading language!”
(Supports) Senate President Stuart Adams: “We’re not trying to take away any of their rights or any of their abilities. The initiative process has not changed at all. We just want to make sure that we keep Utah, Utah.”
(Opposes) Better Boundaries executive director Katie Wright: “We, the people, are the final check on the power of politicians. And that is why it’s so important that when we’re trying to form or reform the very government that is for us and by us, that we have the final say.”
(Supports) House Speaker Mike Schultz: “We just want to keep things the way it’s been for the last 130 years in the state of Utah and to show that we’re sincere in that we opened up the back end of that for referenda, making it easier for citizens of the state to hold the legislature accountable.”
(Opposes) Rep. Joel Briscoe, D-Salt Lake City: “All political power is inherent in the people. 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.”