League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature
2024 UT 21 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the people of Utah exercise their constitutional right to alter or reform the government by passing a citizen initiative, that initiative is constitutionally protected from legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement that impairs the reform, unless the government can prove the legislative action is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.
Facts:
- For several redistricting cycles, Utah's majority party in the Legislature was accused of partisan gerrymandering, including 'cracking' Salt Lake County to dilute the voting strength of minority-party voters.
- In response, citizens sponsored an initiative known as 'Proposition 4' or 'Better Boundaries' to reform the redistricting process.
- In the 2018 election, Utah voters passed Proposition 4, enacting the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act.
- Proposition 4 created an Independent Redistricting Commission (Independent Commission), established mandatory neutral redistricting standards, explicitly prohibited partisan gerrymandering, and created a private right of action to enforce its provisions.
- In 2020, before the post-census redistricting cycle began, the Utah Legislature passed Senate Bill 200 (S.B. 200), which repealed Proposition 4 in its entirety.
- S.B. 200 replaced Proposition 4 with a new law that made the Independent Commission's role purely advisory, removed the mandatory neutral standards and the ban on partisan gerrymandering for maps created by the Legislature, and eliminated the enforcement mechanism.
- Following the 2020 census, the Independent Commission proposed three congressional maps drawn according to neutral, non-partisan criteria.
- The Legislature's Legislative Redistricting Committee (LRC) ignored the Independent Commission's proposals and instead adopted its own map, which divided Salt Lake County into four separate congressional districts, each combined with large, rural areas of the state.
Procedural Posture:
- League of Women Voters of Utah and other plaintiffs sued the Utah State Legislature and other defendants in the Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County (a state trial court).
- The complaint alleged in Count V that the legislative repeal of Proposition 4 was unconstitutional and in Counts I-IV that the Legislature's new congressional map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss Count V, holding that the Legislature has unlimited authority to amend or repeal any statute, including a citizen initiative.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss Counts I-IV, finding the claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable and stated a valid claim for relief.
- Defendants (as Appellants) petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of their motion to dismiss Counts I-IV.
- Plaintiffs (as Cross-Appellants) petitioned for an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal of Count V.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted both petitions for interlocutory appeal.
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 Utah Legislature's repeal and replacement of a government-reform initiative passed by the people (Proposition 4) violate the people's rights under the Utah Constitution's Initiative Provision and Alter or Reform Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Petersen
Yes, the Legislature's repeal of a government-reform initiative can violate the people's constitutional rights. When Utahns exercise their right to alter or reform their government through a citizen initiative, the resulting law is constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative repeal or amendment. A historical analysis of the original public meaning of the Alter or Reform Clause (Art. I, § 2) and the Initiative Provision (Art. VI, § 1) reveals that these provisions, when used in tandem, create a fundamental, judicially enforceable right. The Initiative Provision was understood as a direct legislative means for the people to exercise their pre-existing right to reform their government. To allow the Legislature to simply nullify such an initiative would render these constitutional rights 'illusory.' Therefore, legislative action that impairs the reform contained in such an initiative is unconstitutional unless it can survive strict scrutiny, meaning it must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant new precedent in Utah constitutional law by creating a special, protected status for citizen initiatives that reform government. It curtails the Legislature's otherwise plenary power to amend or repeal statutes, creating a high barrier (strict scrutiny) for any legislative changes that impair such reforms. The ruling substantially strengthens the power of direct democracy in Utah, ensuring that when voters act to reform governmental processes like redistricting, their will cannot be easily undone by the very legislative body being reformed. This case will likely influence how legislative bodies in other states with similar initiative and reform clauses interact with voter-approved laws.
