Special session called to put initiative constitutional amendment on Utah’s ballot

The Utah Legislature announced Monday it will hold a special session to determine if a constitutional amendment on initiatives will be on voters’ November ballot.
Some Utah conservative groups want the amendment to address the aftermath of when ballot initiatives become law. They want to make it clear the Utah Legislature can change or veto ballot initiatives after they become law.
Lawmakers will vote on the proposed constitutional amendment during a special session on Wednesday, according to a press release. The amendment would prevent foreign entities from contributing to ballot initiatives, strengthen the ability of the Legislature to amend and repeal legislation, and add 20 days to the time period to collect signatures for referenda.
If two-thirds of lawmakers approve the amendment, voters will have the final say on whether to change the constitution in November.
“The Utah Supreme Court’s new interpretation created uncertainty and ambiguity,” said Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz. “This amendment provides a path for Utahns to weigh in and make their voices heard. To be clear, the proposed amendment restores the over 100-year-old effect of citizen initiatives. The initiative process will remain unchanged, and Utahns will continue to have the ability to propose and run ballot initiatives. Additionally, it prohibits foreign entities from contributing to ballot propositions, adding safeguards against undue influence.”
Initiatives, proposals for new state laws, can get onto Utahns’ ballots if the sponsors of the initiative collect 134,298 signatures (with certain numbers required in at least 26 of 29 state senate districts). Then, Utah voters can vote up or down on the initiative.
A July ruling from the Utah Supreme Court sparked a conversation on the initiative process. In a redistricting case, the Utah Supreme Court said when citizens pass initiatives, those initiatives are protected from “unfettered legislative amendment, repeal or replacement.”
This ruling said there are limitations on the ability of the Utah Supreme Court to amend initiatives. What started out as a legal battle over who gets to determine Utah’s districts now has spun off into a different conversation — how should the initiative process work?
The conversation started with a ruling on redistricting, but the ruling will have far-reaching effects.
The Utah Supreme Court’s ruling said the Utah Legislature can amend initiatives that turned into laws if they show a compelling government interest. Those who were critical of the ruling said this language creates uncertainty, and could lead to state laws that can’t be amended even if they are causing harm.
The basic answer: To preserve the principles of a constitutional republic and allow the Utah Legislature to amend or veto citizen-driven initiatives in the case they create bad situations.
The explanation: Utah GOP chair Rob Axson is at the forefront of calling for a constitutional amendment to ensure the state legislature has the ability to amend or veto laws passed by citizen initiatives. He told the Deseret News he believes the ruling “establishes an expectation that is so out of line with the principles of a constitutional republic that we need to make the correction.”
Axson said ballot initiatives are often funded by special interest groups and he foresees “massive amounts of money coming into Utah from outside groups and individuals to impact policy.”
Without the ability to amend or veto these laws passed by initiatives, Axson said the deliberative process is removed and the Utah Legislature would not be able to act to change potentially bad policy.
“I think the core issue is that in a republic you are electing folks to represent you and they are most closely accountable to the voters while also being positioned to make necessary judgments and adjustments,” said Axson.
The basic answer: To prevent the Utah Legislature from vetoing laws passed by initiatives.
The explanation: In an earlier interview with the Deseret News, House Minority Leader Angela Romero said she had not yet seen the text of the proposed amendment, but in the case the amendment would give the state legislature the power to veto citizen-driven initiatives, she said she was concerned.
“For truly a citizen legislature, we should be listening to the people of our state,” Romero said. “And I don’t think a majority of people in Utah would want to do anything that jeopardizes their voice.”
Romero said she also had concerns with the way it could impact abortion laws.
“When abortion has been put on the ballot, even in red states, the people have spoken and they don’t want the laws that are currently on the book,” she said, adding she thinks legislators having the ability to override that is “problematic.”
The day the Utah Supreme Court ruling was released, Schultz and Adams said the decision about initiatives “will have profound and lasting ripple consequences that could negative impact the state’s future.”
“It mirrors how states like California are governed — by big money and outside interest groups that run initiatives to alter the government and push their own agendas,” said Schultz and Adams.
California is known as a state where there are a number of initiatives on the ballot. In 2016, there were 17 statewide ballot initiatives — the cost of printing the 224-page voter guide was $15 million, according to the Los Angeles Times.
In 2020, the state saw $763.5 million in contributions to campaigns supporting or opposing ballot measures, per Ballotpedia. As of Sunday, there were 11 statewide initiatives in California that have qualified for the statewide ballot in 2024.
Writing for Vox, Kelsey Piper said she does not think we should give up on ballot initiatives altogether, but as a California resident, she saw issues with the process, including voters having to make decisions on issues they do not have time to research.
Piper said in California, the legislature “can’t do its job, because large sections of state law are untouchable.” She also said if an initiative is not clearly worded, it can cause years of uncertainty.
But others see initiatives as a way for the people of a state to challenge laws they do not want.