Judge rules Amendment D be voided from Utah’s November ballot
Sep 11, 2024, 6:16 PM | Updated: Sep 12, 2024, 3:02 pm
UPDATE: Judge Dianna M. Gibson ruled Thursday morning in Utah’s 3rd District Court that Amendment D would be voided from Utah’s ballot. The ruling said the amendment on the ballot “shall be given no effect.”
#BREAKINGNEWS: A judge as struck Amendment D as VOID. If it gets printed on the ballots it is “void and has no effect.” The state has said they will appeal. @KSL5TV #utpol pic.twitter.com/8i5g6BcgvK
— Lindsay Aerts (@LindsayOnAir) September 12, 2024
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah judge is weighing whether to grant a preliminary injunction to keep proposed constitutional Amendment D off of the Utah ballot this fall.
Judge Dianna M. Gibson heard arguments in a lawsuit in Utah’s 3rd District Court on Wednesday afternoon, after several groups asked for emergency injunctive relief to stop the printing of a ballot question they say misrepresents the actual meaning of the proposed constitutional amendment — which was crafted in response to a state Supreme Court ruling on redistricting.
The decision in the case is expected to be delivered to the parties late Wednesday, as county clerks in the state are waiting on the decision before they begin printing ballots Thursday morning.
Plaintiffs in the case have alleged that the language of the ballot question being put before voters is “a flagrantly misleading” representation of the actual amendment and have asked the courts for a preliminary injunction to strike the question from this year’s ballot. The language of the ballot question — which was written by top legislative leaders — prompted backlash when it was released, as many advocates say it runs counter to what the amendment would change.
The ballot question reads:
Should the Utah Constitution be changed to strengthen the initiative process by:
- Prohibiting foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums.Clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.
If approved, state law would also be changed to:
- Allow Utah citizens 50% more time to gather signatures for a statewide referendum.
- Establish requirements for the Legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative.’
SJR401, the resolution proposing the amendment, would amend Article VI, Section 1, of the Utah Constitution to include text that reads: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people’s exercise of their Legislative power as provided in Subsection (2) does not limit or preclude the exercise of Legislative power, including through amending, enacting, or repealing a law, by the Legislature, or by a law making body of a county, city, or town, on behalf of the people whom they are elected to represent.”
Opponents say the language of Utah’s Constitutional Amendment D is ‘deceptive’
The same amended section would also state that “foreign individuals, entities, or governments may not, directly or indirectly, influence, support, or oppose an initiative or a referendum.”
Plaintiffs also alleged that the Legislature failed to follow constitutional requirements that mandate the government publish the proposed amendment in newspapers across the state at least two months in advance of the election.
Attorneys for the state have asked the judge to reject the request for an injunction, according to court filings obtained by KSL, which argue that removing the question from the ballot would cause serious disruption to the election. The state also argued that the plaintiffs were wrong to sue the lieutenant governor because she cannot order the 29 individual county clerks — who actually print and count the ballots — to remove the question from the ballots.
As for not posting notices in the press, the state said it “(made) the amendment text widely accessible on its own website and (directed) the lieutenant governor to submit the proposed amendment to the voters ‘in the manner provided by law.'”
“Plaintiffs cannot seriously maintain that a proposed amendment is ‘void’ unless the Legislature insists that it be reprinted for two continuous months in hard-copy newspapers that no longer exist,” the state’s filing states. “Nor can plaintiffs seriously maintain that the proposed amendment is a state secret when it has been widely published in newspapers and online since the August special session.”
HAPPENING NOW: Court is starting for a judge to decide whether Amendment D can be placed on the ballot. I’ll try to tweet as much as I can.
First up is David Reymann arguing on behalf of the groups trying to remove it.
First, he argues the amendment is false and misleading.
— Lindsay Aerts (@LindsayOnAir) September 11, 2024
When it comes to the merits of the lawsuit, the state argues that the ballot summary is not counterfactual and says it “identifies Amendment D’s ‘chief features.'” Their filing states that they are not required to say the amendment would “eliminate any right” for voters and say the change would indeed strengthen initiatives “by prohibiting ‘foreign individuals, entities, or governments’ from ‘influenc(ing), support(ing), or oppos(ing) an initiative or a referendum.”
