Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    SCOUT Amendment D Opinion

    Uploaded by

    Robert Gehrke
    The Utah Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that voided Amendment D — which gives the Legislature the right to repeal or amend any ballot initiative — from the November ballot. The four paragraph opinion, issued hours after the Republican-appointed justices heard three hours of arguments — is a major setback for the Utah Legislature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SCOUT Amendment D Opinion

    Uploaded by

    Robert Gehrke
    2K views2 pages
    The Utah Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that voided Amendment D — which gives the Legislature the right to repeal or amend any ballot initiative — from the November ballot. The four paragraph opinion, issued hours after the Republican-appointed justices heard three hours of arguments — is a major setback for the Utah Legislature.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Utah Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that voided Amendment D — which gives the Legislature the right to repeal or amend any ballot initiative — from the November ballot. The four paragraph opinion, issued hours after the Republican-appointed justices heard three hours of arguments — is a major setback for the Utah Legislature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    2K views2 pages

    SCOUT Amendment D Opinion

    Uploaded by

    Robert Gehrke
    The Utah Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that voided Amendment D — which gives the Legislature the right to repeal or amend any ballot initiative — from the November ballot. The four paragraph opinion, issued hours after the Republican-appointed justices heard three hours of arguments — is a major setback for the Utah Legislature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    This opinion is subject to revision before final

    publication in the Pacific Reporter

    IN THE

    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF UTAH, MORMON WOMEN FOR


    ETHICAL GOVERNMENT, STEFANIE CONDIE, MALCOM REID, VICTORIA
    REID, WENDY MARTIN, ELEANOR SUNDWALL, JACK MARKMAN, AND
    DALE COX,
    Appellees,
    v.
    UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE, UTAH LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING
    COMMITTEE, SENATOR SCOTT SANDALL, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE
    SCHULTZ, and SENATOR J. STUART ADAMS,
    Appellants.

    No. 20240965
    Heard September 25, 2024
    Filed September 25, 2024

    On Appeal of Interlocutory Order

    Third District, Salt Lake City


    The Honorable Dianna M. Gibson
    No. 220901712

    Attorneys:
    Troy L. Booher, J. Frederic Voros, Jr., Caroline A. Olsen,
    David C. Reymann, Kade N. Olsen, Tammy Frisby, Salt Lake City,
    Mark P. Gaber, Aseem Mulji, Benjamin Phillips, Washington,
    D.C., Annabelle Harless, Chicago, IL, for appellees
    Victoria Ashby, Robert H. Rees, Eric N. Weeks, Michael Curtis,
    Tyler R. Green, Salt Lake City, Taylor A.R. Meehan, Frank H
    Chang, Arlington, VA, for appellants Utah State Legislature, Utah
    Legislative Redistricting Committee, Sen. Scott Sandall, Rep Mike
    Schultz, and Sen. J. Stuart Adams
    LWVU v. UTAH LEGISLATURE
    Per Curiam

    PER CURIAM:

    ¶1 This matter is before the court on interlocutory appeal from


    the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction. The
    district court determined that because the constitutional
    requirements for placing Amendment D on the ballot were not met,
    “Amendment D is void and shall be given no effect.” The parties
    have requested expedited review of this matter. In light of that
    request, we issue the following per curiam order affirming the
    district court’s decision. A published opinion detailing the court’s
    reasoning will follow at a later date.
    ¶2 Under the express terms of the Utah Constitution, before a
    proposed amendment can be put to a popular vote, the Legislature
    “shall cause the [proposed amendment] to be published in at least
    one newspaper in every county of the state, where a newspaper is
    published, for two months immediately preceding the next general
    election.” UTAH CONST. art. XXIII, § 1. After the publication
    requirement is met, the amendment “shall be submitted” to the
    voters. Id. We have previously held that a question must be
    submitted to voters by placing it “on the ballot in such words and
    in such form that the voters are not confused thereby.” Nowers v.
    Oakden, 169 P.2d 108, 116 (Utah 1946).
    ¶3 The district court correctly ruled that neither constitutional
    prerequisite was met with respect to Amendment D. The
    Legislature did not cause the amendment to be published in
    newspapers throughout the state for two months, and the
    description that will appear on the ballot does not submit the
    amendment to voters “with such clarity as to enable the voters to
    express their will.” See id.
    ¶4 The district court also acted within its discretion in finding
    that the equities favored a preliminary injunction declaring
    Amendment D void and ordering that any votes cast will not be
    counted. Although the voters should have the opportunity to
    decide whether Amendment D strikes the correct balance between
    the people’s direct legislative power and that of their elected
    representatives, the public interest requires that constitutional
    amendments be submitted to voters in the way mandated by the
    supreme law of the state embodied in the Utah Constitution.

    You might also like