The battle over Utah’s constitution

Two proposed amendments to the Utah Constitution Amendments A and D were recently voided by Utah’s Third District Court in Salt Lake City. They will still appear on ballots in November, but votes will not be counted. 

Judge Dianna Gibson voided Amendment D on Sept. 12 based in part on the failure of the state legislature to publish the legislation in newspapers for two months prior to the election, a requirement outlined in the state’s constitution. The Utah Supreme Court upheld this ruling on Sept. 25.  

Amendment A was struck down by Judge Laura Scott on Oct. 9, citing the supreme court’s earlier ruling as precedent. The proposed amendment would have removed the provision in the constitution requiring a portion of income tax revenue be used to fund public education. 

Will Wright, director of USU’s Government Relations Council and senior studying political science, agreed with the court’s decision on Amendment A.  

“I think it’s a bad amendment that hurts education in Utah. I’m glad the supreme court was consistent in applying the logic it did with Amendment D to Amendment A,” Wright said. 

Spending per student in Utah is consistently one of the lowest in the country. According to GRC director of lobbying and coordination Myla Millet, junior studying economics and finance, Amendment A “would have opened the door for funding meant for education to be used for overly politicized and less important issues.” 

Amendment D, if passed, would have given the Utah State Legislature the power to repeal or alter the language of voter-approved ballot measures. It would have also given citizens 50% more time to gather signatures for referendums and prohibit “foreign influence” on the initiative process.

The summary of the amendment printed on ballots does not describe the legislature’s new powers. This change is represented in the summary as “clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.” 

This description was misleading and deceptive, according to the district court’s ruling. 

The recent court decision is the culmination of years of action by the Utah State Legislature, local activists and the state’s courts.  

In 2018, Utah Proposition 4 passed a statewide vote, creating an independent redistricting committee in charge of creating Utah’s congressional districts. In 2021, the legislature altered the bill, allowing lawmakers to choose whether to use the committee’s redistricting maps. They did not use any suggested. 

In previous years, it would have been too close to the election for the legislature to add a proposed amendment to voter’s ballots. But S.B. 4002, which was signed into law this summer during a special legislative session on Aug. 21, extended this deadline. Amendment D was enrolled the same day. 

“It used to be that a nonpartisan attorney in the state legislature would write the language for the ballot initiatives, so they were presented in a neutral, purely informational way,” Wright said. 

Revisions outlined in S.B. 37, passed during the 2024 Utah Legislative Session, changed this, allowing legislative leadership to write the summaries that appeared on the ballot.  

“That led to some skewed wording that I didn’t feel was completely accurate or offering enough information for voters to make an informed decision,” Wright said. 

Wright thinks Utah students should be upset, calling Amendment D a “brazen attempt to take away from the voices of voters in the state of Utah.” 

Millet supports the court’s decision on Amendment D.  

“I’m actually pleasantly surprised,” she said. 

Millet and Wright agree most students haven’t heard of Amendment D. Most who have, according to Millet, are disappointed by the state legislature. 

“It’s been a pretty unified voice. Most people I’ve talked to who are educated on it would agree with where I’m leaning,” Millet said. 

Wright also approved of the court’s decision on Amendment D.  

“If the state legislature had the authority to override any ballot initiative that was passed by voters, what’s the point of having a ballot initiative?” he asked. 

“I’d like to hope that it doesn’t come up again,” Millet said. “If anything, I feel like the threshold for ballot initiatives in Utah is actually quite high compared to other states.” 

Given the Utah courts’ decisions that have upset the legislature over the last few weeks and months, according to Wright, he says he wouldn’t be surprised “if there were some sort of judicial reform or retaliation in the upcoming legislative session.” 

If the supreme court hadn’t voided the amendment, Millet believes it would have passed.  

“I think that people would have voted for it because they’d been misled by the way it was advertised,” she said.  

Wright and Millet said their opinions were reflective of their own beliefs and not that of the GRC.