A controversial ruling last week by Third District Judge Dianna M. Gibson that nullified the Legislature’s proposed Amendment D, allowing lawmakers to overrule citizen initiatives, was appealed by the Legislature last Friday. The Utah Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Sept. 25.

The Legislature approved the constitutional amendment in a special session Aug. 21 that would allow it to go on the November ballot.

Those against the proposal sued saying the ballot question was “misleading.” Gibson ruled that the ballot question “entirely eliminates the voter’s fundamental constitutional right.”

“We are extremely disappointed by the lower court’s policy making action from the bench,” said Senate President J. Stuart Adams and Speaker Mike Schultz in a statement after the ruling.

“It’s disheartening that the courts – not the 1.9 million Utah voters – will determine the future policies of our state. This underscores our concerns about governance by initiative as an out-of-state interest group from Washington, D.C., with seemingly unlimited funds, blocked Utah voters from voicing their opinions at the ballot box. The people who claim to advocate for greater voter engagement are the same ones who obstructed Utahns from having the opportunity to vote on this important matter. The court’s actions have introduced significant uncertainty into the electoral process, raising concerns about the impartiality and timing of judicial interventions. Such interference during an ongoing election undermines public confidence in the integrity of the process. The court is denying the right of the people to vote and should not be exerting undue influence on this election.”

The court ruling is so general,” said Rep. Melissa Garff Ballard, R-North Salt Lake. “But the legislature has to be very specific. The ruling came without any debate. It’s a huge burden of proof on the legislature even if it’s 10, 50 or 80 years. It also opens up a Pandora’s box we have to abide by.”

The Legislature’s argument for proposing the amendment was that it would clarify the voters’ and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws. “When Utahns voted to legalize medical marijuana in 2018, everyone, including the resolution’s sponsors, recognized that the new law had its issues and needed revision,” the Legislature said. “Through the Legislature’s collaboration with various stakeholders across the political spectrum, we were able to keep the bill’s original intent, ensuring those suffering from chronic pain or illnesses have access while preventing the drug from becoming recreational.”

“We thank the plaintiffs for their commitment to ensuring Utahns’ voices are heard,” Senate Democratic Leader Luz Escamilla and House Democratic Leader Angela Romero said in a statement after the ruling. “By defending voters’ rights in court, they have played a vital role in protecting our democracy. The court found Amendment D invalid due to its deceptive language and the Legislature’s failure to publish the text as required. The Legislature's actions aimed to override voter decisions and increase their own power. By shifting responsibility for drafting the ballot question from nonpartisan staff to the President and Speaker, they allowed themselves to omit key details that would mislead voters.” 

“We will not stop fighting for Utahns,” Adams and Shultz said. “It’s critical we find a path forward that safeguards our state from external influence and keeps Utah’s future in Utah’s hands. We will continue to exhaust all options to prevent foreign entities from altering our state and clarify the over a century-long constitutional practice, including our appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. We urge them to undo this wrong and preserve the voices of Utahns.”