League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature
2024 UT 40 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A proposed constitutional amendment is void and cannot be placed before voters if it fails to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Article XXIII, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution, specifically if its ballot title would mislead a reasonable voter as to its substance (Submission Clause) or if the legislature fails to cause its full text to be published in newspapers as prescribed (Publication Clause).
Facts:
- In a prior case, League of Women Voters I, the Utah Supreme Court recognized that citizen-led initiatives enacting government reforms are constitutionally protected from unfettered amendment or repeal by the Utah State Legislature.
- In an August 2024 special session, the Legislature proposed Constitutional Amendment D, which would grant it unlimited constitutional authority to amend or repeal any law passed by a citizen initiative.
- The Legislature's presiding officers drafted a ballot title for Amendment D that stated it would 'strengthen the initiative process by... [c]larifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.'
- The Legislature did not cause the full text of Amendment D to be published in newspapers for two months prior to the general election, as required by the constitution.
- Instead of newspaper publication, the full text of Amendment D was posted on the state's public notice website.
- After the League of Women Voters of Utah filed a lawsuit challenging the lack of publication, the Legislature purchased advertising space to run the full text of Amendment D in thirty-five newspapers for one week during mid-September 2024.
Procedural Posture:
- The League of Women Voters of Utah (Plaintiffs) filed supplemental complaints and motions for a preliminary injunction in the Third Judicial District Court (trial court) to challenge the validity of Amendment D.
- The district court granted the preliminary injunction, finding Plaintiffs were substantially likely to succeed on their claims that the process violated the Utah Constitution's Submission and Publication clauses.
- The district court's order declared Amendment D void and directed that any votes cast for or against it not be counted.
- The Utah State Legislature (Appellants) petitioned the Utah Supreme Court (highest court) for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the district court's injunction order, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the process used to place Constitutional Amendment D on the 2024 general election ballot violate Article XXIII, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution where the ballot title allegedly mischaracterizes the amendment's effect and the amendment's full text was not published in newspapers for two months prior to the election?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hagen
Yes, the process used to place Amendment D on the ballot violates the Utah Constitution because the amendment was not properly submitted or published. The Submission Clause requires that ballot language must not mislead a reasonable voter as to what they are voting for or against. The ballot title for Amendment D is misleading because it omits the amendment's central purpose—to eliminate constitutional restraints on the Legislature's power to override initiatives—and inaccurately characterizes this fundamental change as merely 'clarifying' legislative authority and 'strengthening' the initiative process. Furthermore, the Legislature failed to comply with the Publication Clause's mandatory requirement to 'cause the [amendment] to be published in at least one newspaper in every county... for two months immediately preceding the next general election.' Posting the amendment on a government website does not satisfy the plain language requirement of publication in a 'newspaper,' and a single week of newspaper ads does not satisfy the two-month duration requirement. Because these constitutional mandates were not followed, Amendment D is void.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the judiciary's role as the ultimate interpreter of the state constitution, strictly enforcing its procedural requirements against the legislative branch, especially in the context of amending the foundational document. It establishes a clear standard in Utah for reviewing the accuracy and candor of ballot language, holding that summaries cannot obscure or misrepresent the core effects of a proposed amendment, particularly when it involves diminishing a constitutional right. The ruling's strict interpretation of the 'newspaper' and 'two months' requirements in the Publication Clause signals that modern technological alternatives cannot substitute for specific, textually-mandated procedures without a formal constitutional amendment, thereby upholding the original public meaning of these safeguards.
