I love Utah politics

[Jeff Lebowski]

And that is the only reason they are right. USC's strained reading of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution to create a statutory hierarchy is ridiculous. The irony is that the only way that the Constitution can be amended is if by Legislative initiation, while any rando out there can get 50% + 1 vote for the most outlandish statute, which then has the protection of strict scrutiny against any attempt by the legislature to fix it. Like Bo says, rife for the tyranny of the majority to take over. All they have to do is make it sound good to the low information voters out there and get some good slogans and maybe a couple of social media influencers messaging their Utah sheep to really cause some havoc.

But I do agree that Judge Gibson followed the precedent, so I do not fault her for the quagmire in which we will soon find ourselves.

Please give us one example of a citizen initiative in Utah that fits this description (rando, outlandish, yada yada).

One of the most high profile citizen initiatives in Utah was the one that created an alternate path the the primary that avoided the stupid Utah caucus system (speaking of outlandish). That initiative had overwhelming public support, but was fiercely opposed by legislators who had cynically manipulated the caucus system to get office. Mike Lee being the most extreme example (Bob Bennet would have destroyed him in a primary election). The Republican party tried for years to ignore/overturn that initiative but thank God, the courts did not let them.

As a result of this, the utah legislature make the citizen initiative process very complex and expensive to dissuade people from doing it. So your caricature is not likely to ever happen.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It really doesn't. I like the result, but I think it's a terrible opinion. It sets up "the People" in opposition to the representatives of The People. If The People enact a statute (whether by initiative or through their representatives) that violates the constitution, an aggrieved party can ask for an order preventing the government from implementing the statute. But this opinion creates superstatutes that the duly elected representatives of The People can't change.

If it violates the constitution:

a) it likely would never muster enough support or clearance for the initiative process in the first place (which is a complex, costly, and lengthy process)

b) would likely be overturned by the courts

[LVAllen]

Thank you for that. That ruling makes great sense.

It really doesn't. I like the result, but I think it's a terrible opinion. It sets up "the People" in opposition to the representatives of The People. If The People enact a statute (whether by initiative or through their representatives) that violates the constitution, an aggrieved party can ask for an order preventing the government from implementing the statute. But this opinion creates superstatutes that the duly elected representatives of The People can't change.

[Copelius]

That said, the USC is the final authority on the interpretation of the Utah Constitution. They aren't final because they are right, they are right because they are final. So if they want to confer quasi-constitutional status on citizen initiative-enacted statutes, and they have, then the district court got this one right.

And that is the only reason they are right. USC's strained reading of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution to create a statutory hierarchy is ridiculous. The irony is that the only way that the Constitution can be amended is if by Legislative initiation, while any rando out there can get 50% + 1 vote for the most outlandish statute, which then has the protection of strict scrutiny against any attempt by the legislature to fix it. Like Bo says, rife for the tyranny of the majority to take over. All they have to do is make it sound good to the low information voters out there and get some good slogans and maybe a couple of social media influencers messaging their Utah sheep to really cause some havoc.

But I do agree that Judge Gibson followed the precedent, so I do not fault her for the quagmire in which we will soon find ourselves.

[beefytee]

While I appreciate the ability of the people to make their voices heard and have effect at this time when I am unhappy with the state legislature, I am wary of our laws being crafted by the masses. We could easily see tyranny by the majority.

The Utah and US constitution should protect against any tyranny. There are limits to what citizen initiatives can do as well.

But for the record, I'm not a big fan of citizen initiatives and I do think they should be very limited.

[Jeff Lebowski]

From the USC opinion (https://legacy.utcourts.gov/opinions...20240711.pdf):



Basically, any legislature-created change to the citizen initiative-created statute has to survive strict scruitiny. It creates a level of statute below the constitution (because the initiative process can't amend the constitution), but above statutes passed by the legislature.

Thank you for that. That ruling makes great sense.

[Bo Diddley]

While I appreciate the ability of the people to make their voices heard and have effect at this time when I am unhappy with the state legislature, I am wary of our laws being crafted by the masses. We could easily see tyranny by the majority.

[LVAllen]

To what extent do Utah’s "constitutional provisions limit the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal an initiative that reforms the government" (as Justice Petersen wrote in the opinion)?

From the USC opinion (https://legacy.utcourts.gov/opinions...20240711.pdf):

The people’s constitutional right to alter or reform their government is protected from government infringement. We could not hold otherwise, as the Declaration of Rights of the Utah Constitution states explicitly that:
All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.
UTAH CONST. art. I, § 2 (emphasis added).

Like all constitutional provisions, the Alter or Reform Clause must be read in harmony with the rest of the constitution and exercised within the bounds of the constitution itself. Thus, it does not establish a right to reform the government in disregard of the constitution, nor in a manner that violates other provisions of the constitution.

One way for Utahns to exercise their reform right within the bounds of the constitution is through a citizen initiative, as established in the Initiative Provision of article VI of the Utah Constitution. The initiative power gives Utahns a mechanism to pass legislation that contains their desired government-reform measures. Thus, the Initiative Provision empowers Utahns to directly exercise their right to reform their government by enacting statutory government reforms.

Therefore, we hold that when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through a citizen initiative, their exercise of these rights is protected from government infringement. This means that government-reform initiatives are constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement. Although the Legislature has authority to amend or repeal statutes, it is well settled that legislative action cannot unduly infringe or restrain the exercise of constitutional rights. Consequently, when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through an initiative, this limits the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal the initiative. This does not mean that the Legislature cannot amend a government-reform initiative at all. Rather, legislative changes that facilitate or support the reform, or at least do not impair the reform enacted by the people, would not implicate the people’s rights under the Alter or Reform Clause. Legislative changes that do impair the reforms enacted by the people could also survive a constitutional challenge, if the Legislature shows that they were narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.

Basically, any legislature-created change to the citizen initiative-created statute has to survive strict scruitiny. It creates a level of statute below the constitution (because the initiative process can't amend the constitution), but above statutes passed by the legislature.

[Pelado]

From the article:

To what extent do Utah’s "constitutional provisions limit the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal an initiative that reforms the government" (as Justice Petersen wrote in the opinion)?

[LVAllen]

Was this the USC? All the headlines I saw said "a judge" and looking it up I as that it was third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson.

Did something come from the USC as well?

If not, I'm guessing it gets overturned.

From the article:

The decision is years in the making: Plaintiffs first sued the Legislature in 2022, alleging that lawmakers violated Utahn’s rights to participate in free elections by ignoring voting maps recommended by an independent redistricting commission. That commission was created through the voter-approved Proposition 4 in 2018, but the Legislature watered down the commission’s role to an advisory one two years later and adopted its own set of maps in 2021.

The state Supreme Court ruled last summer that lawmakers overreached by changing the initiative, with Justice Paige Petersen writing that “constitutional provisions limit the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal an initiative that reforms the government.”

She later added that the Alter or Reform Clause of the Utah Constitution “demonstrates that the people’s exercise of their right to reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment or repeal that impairs the intended reform.”

The high court didn’t rule on the merits of the case, however, instead sending it back down to the 3rd District for litigation. Monday’s ruling is likely to be appealed and could end up in front of the Supreme Court before all is said and done.

[beefytee]

Was this the USC? All the headlines I saw said "a judge" and looking it up I as that it was third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson.

Did something come from the USC as well?

If not, I'm guessing it gets overturned.

[LVAllen]

Yep. It's a compelling argument. And to JL's point there's not a huge point to having initiatives, particularly when they run contrary to the will of the legislature.

That said, the USC is the final authority on the interpretation of the Utah Constitution. They aren't final because they are right, they are right because they are final. So if they want to confer quasi-constitutional status on citizen initiative-enacted statutes, and they have, then the district court got this one right.

[Copelius]

Wow, I disagree with almost all of this.

I lived in Texas for several years where they elect judges. It was a complete joke. Hell no.

If the legislature can just disregard any citizen's initiative they want, what is the point of a citizen's initiative?

I didn't say that elected judges are the only way, just that if you don't want to elect them, don't pretend that what we currently have is merit based.

[Bo Diddley]

The question isn't whether the legislature can disregard something, but whether they can repeal statutes. If the citizen's initiative process creates a statute, and the legislative process can amend or repeal statutes in general, why shouldn't the legislature in connection with the executive be able to change that newly-created statute? Is it encased in stone, never to be touched. except by another initiative? The USC esentially said that the provision in the constitiution that says the prople have the right to amend their government overrides the people amending their government (via the elected legislature). It would be different if it was a constitutional amendment.

I hate what the Utah legislature did here, but I'm kind of in agreement with Cope. If a legislator's actions no longer reflect the will of the people, it's up to the people to remove them.

Yep. It's a compelling argument. And to JL's point there's not a huge point to having initiatives, particularly when they run contrary to the will of the legislature.

[LVAllen]

Wow, I disagree with almost all of this.

I lived in Texas for several years where they elect judges. It was a complete joke. Hell no.

If the legislature can just disregard any citizen's initiative they want, what is the point of a citizen's initiative?

The question isn't whether the legislature can disregard something, but whether they can repeal statutes. If the citizen's initiative process creates a statute, and the legislative process can amend or repeal statutes in general, why shouldn't the legislature in connection with the executive be able to change that newly-created statute? Is it encased in stone, never to be touched. except by another initiative? The USC esentially said that the provision in the constitiution that says the prople have the right to amend their government overrides the people amending their government (via the elected legislature). It would be different if it was a constitutional amendment.

I hate what the Utah legislature did here, but I'm kind of in agreement with Cope. If a legislator's actions no longer reflect the will of the people, it's up to the people to remove them.