SALT LAKE CITY — Should the Utah Constitution say the Legislature can amend or repeal citizen-led initiatives, and foreign (out of country) influence should not be allowed to sway Utahns on voting for or against initiatives?
That is a question Utah voters will have to answer on their ballots.
The Deseret News has spoken with Utah majority leaders about why they believe the amendment should be passed, as well as leaders from Better Boundaries, a group opposing the amendment.
Better Boundaries’ case against the amendment
“We, the people, are the final check on the power of politicians,” said Katie Wright, executive director of Better Boundaries. “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.”
Wright said the Utah Supreme Court’s decision that said legislators can amend initiatives that alter or reform the government by narrowly tailoring the amendment to a compelling government interest was “prudent.”
“It allows the legislative body to make tweaks and changes as long as there is a compelling interest, and that is a proper and prudent balance of powers,” said Wright.
The process leading up to lawmakers putting the amendment on voters’ ballot was “antithetical to a robust, thriving republic,” said Wright, adding there was only a few minutes of public comment in the committee meeting. “There was no debate, no meetings across the state to gauge the public’s interest in this.”
When Wright was asked why there should be a difference in the way lawmakers can amend laws originating from alter and reform initiatives and laws the legislative body passed itself, she said giving the Legislature “the ability to carte blanche change what a majority of Utahns have voted for is giving them unchecked power.”
“I think the politicians have proven their unwillingness to listen to the people, and that’s when we go to court,” said Wright, pointing toward the lawsuit over the redistricting maps. She said after the initiative to create an independent redistricting commission passed, lawmakers “completely overrode the decisions of the independent commission and put in place the worst gerrymander we’ve had in our state’s history.”
‘Acting in bad faith’
Wright said this was a “prime example” of the supermajority Legislature “absolutely at every stage discarding the will of the people and acting in very bad faith.”
In Wright’s eyes, giving the Legislature the ability to amend and repeal initiatives is effectively taking away the right of Utahns to pass initiatives.
“What it affirmatively does is make our ability to pass initiatives totally beside the point,” said Wright.
Lawmakers also passed a bill requiring themselves to keep the general purpose of an initiative intact when making amendments. Wright said she still thinks it gives the power people have now to politicians.
As for the other part of the amendment — stating foreign influences will not be allowed to sway voters on initiatives — Wright said she thinks it was put in the amendment “to entice Utah voters.” She said she does not think there should be out-of-country influence on initiatives, but she also thinks voters will see through the amendment.
‘An appropriate check on power’
If she was speaking to a Utah voter who sees the amendment as necessary for preserving the state’s constitutional republic, Wright said she would point back toward the Utah Supreme Court decision.
“The Utah Supreme Court decision was unanimous and specific that there are guardrails in certain ballot initiatives — what the Legislature can do, and those are an appropriate check on power that allow us to ensure the politicians are working for us,” Wright said.
The campaign against the amendment will be straightforward, Wright said. Utah voters “have the ability to check the power of politicians through this constitutional right, and I don’t think they will give that up.”
Ralph Becker, former Salt Lake City mayor, was one of the co-chairmen of the drive to pass the initiative. Before that, he was minority leader in the Utah House of Representatives during the 2000 redistricting.
“My experience is that most state legislators come in and operate with good intentions and try to do what they think is right for the state,” Becker said. But when it comes to redistricting, he thinks “there is an inherent conflict of interest because legislators are so directly affected by it.”
Becker explained boundaries impact who lawmakers represent, the chances they have to keep their seat, and it becomes personal for them. Democrat or Republican, the issue has a partisan layer on top of it, he said.
“It maybe makes them blind to the effects that their decisions have in a very fundamental way on how our democracy and elections operate,” Becker said.
There are almost always changes to laws, Becker said. But the Utah Supreme Court decision does not prevent the Legislature from amending initiatives, he said. “What they did say is, ‘You can’t impair the basic intent of an initiative when it’s an initiative to reform government.'”
“To me, that’s a very healthy outcome,” said Becker. “So the Legislature can make changes; they just can’t ignore what’s the clear will of the people.”
The changes to the initiative
After the initiative passed, the Legislature started talking about amending it.
“We hired lobbyists. We went up and talked to people, tried to preserve the results of the popular vote and the initiative,” said Becker. He said the Legislature “took to heart to some extent what the initiative said” but still made changes.
The result of the changes? As opposed to the Legislature adopting the maps from the independent redistricting commission, those maps would be considered a recommendation, and the Legislature could implement its own maps.
At the time of the changes, the then-executive director of Better Boundaries said “the compromise wasn’t perfect, but good policy is all about give and take.” The compromise with Better Boundaries came after back-and-forth and the consideration of a repeal of the initiative.
The commission completed its work, and Becker said the Legislature went with its own map as opposed to the commission’s.
Becker said he and others tried to provide as much reasonable, constructive input as possible. “But the outcome was the same as if there had never been a statute passed and never been an independent redistricting commission that did the job that the Legislature asked them to do.”
‘On constitutional grounds’
Utah Senate President Stuart J. Adams in a previous interview said Better Boundaries came to lawmakers to make changes to an initiative.
“They came to us because when they drafted it, they had an unconstitutional provision in it,” said Adams, R-Layton, explaining the provision said if the House speaker and the Senate president did not appoint people to the commission, it would default to the Supreme Court.
Adams said the Legislature made those changes and held a press conference with leaders from Better Boundaries in the Capitol’s Gold Room.
“And they needed it, or they would have lost their initiative on constitutional grounds,” said Adams. He said the Legislature is not taking away the right of the people; it takes the people’s ideas and makes them functional.
Utah Majority leaders make their case for the amendment
The night of the Utah Legislature’s special session, Adams, Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, and Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Draper, held a press conference to discuss the amendment and its accompanying issues.
When asked what the case for the amendment would be to Utah voters, Adams immediately responded, “Don’t become like California and keep Utah, Utah.”
In the days leading up to Utah lawmakers putting the constitutional amendment on the ballot, Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz both spoke to the Deseret News about why they believe the amendment would be good for Utahns.
Adams said Utah is the greatest state in the nation, listing off the state’s rankings on management, the economy and happiness as evidence for his statement.
“We don’t want it to be California with initiatives and out-of-state money and out-of-state influences determining policies that affect the citizens of Utah,” said Adams. “That’s what we’re fighting for.”
Schultz said, “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.”
