It’s official, the Utah Legislature will be calling itself into a special session on Wednesday to tackle a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling that Republican legislative leaders said “struck a blow at the very fabric of our Republic.”

Utah’s Republican-supermajority Legislature is scheduled to consider placing a constitutional amendment on this year’s Nov. 5 ballot to make clear in the Utah Constitution that lawmakers can repeal and replace voter initiatives that seek to reform government — at odds with the Utah Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion issued last month, which affirmed that while the Legislature can alter the implementation of ballot initiatives, it can’t fundamentally undermine them.

If passed by the Legislature, the constitutional amendment on the November ballot and other legislation expected to be considered during the special session, in the words of a news release issued by House and Senate staff Monday evening, would:

• Prohibit foreign entities from contributing to ballot initiatives or referenda.
• Restore and strengthen the long-standing practice that voters, the Legislature, and local bodies may amend or repeal legislation.
• Add 20 days to collect signatures for the referendum process, extending it from 40 to 60 days.

Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz surveyed both the Senate and House, and determined at least two-thirds of lawmakers “are in favor of convening the Legislature into a special session” as an emergency in the affairs of the state, according to a legislative special session proclamation issued Monday.

Previously, the Utah Legislature wasn’t able to call itself into special session — but voters approved a 2018 constitutional amendment to allow it in cases of “emergencies in the affairs of the state.”

Wednesday’s special session is scheduled for 4:45 p.m.

“The Utah Supreme Court’s new interpretation created uncertainty and ambiguity,” Adams and Schultz said in a joint statement Monday. “This amendment provides a path for Utahns to weigh in and make their voices heard. To be clear, the proposed amendment restores the over 100-year-old effect of citizen initiatives. The initiative process will remain unchanged, and Utahns will continue to have the ability to propose and run ballot initiatives. Additionally, it prohibits foreign entities from contributing to ballot propositions, adding safeguards against undue influence.”

While Adams and Schultz argued the proposed amendment wouldn’t change the current initiative process, it would sidestep the Utah Supreme Court’s interpretation in a recent unanimous decision that remanded a lawsuit over Utah’s redistricting process back to district court. All five of Utah’s justices ruled that a district court “erred” when it dismissed a claim that the Utah Legislature violated the Utah Constitution in 2021 when it repealed and replaced a voter-approved initiative that would have enacted an independent commission to draw Utah’s new political districts in its redistricting process.

Katie Wright, executive director of Better Boundaries — the group that successfully sought that voter initiative that passed in 2018 to create an independent redistricting commission, only to be repealed and replaced later by the Utah Legislature — told Utah News Dispatch on Monday her group is “very concerned” by the special session, which she called a hasty, “blatant power grab.”

“The Utah Supreme Court was unanimous in the decision of saying that the Constitution is clear: we have the right to reform our government, and we have the right to reform it through the ballot initiative,” Wright said. “For a supermajority Legislature to potentially call itself into session to really override that decision, it just feels very antithetical to how the founding fathers established our form of government, that we are meant to have checks and balances.”

Wright said lawmakers’ response to the Utah Supreme Court ruling “seems like a huge overreaction, but not a surprising one.” She said it “tracks” with a pattern in recent years, as the Legislature incrementally moves to “really take power, whether it’s from the governor’s office or the executive office or the judicial office.”

One of the biggest examples of that power shift occurred when voters approved a constitutional amendment that allows the Legislature to call itself into session in times of “emergency,” as interpreted by two-thirds of lawmakers. That amendment enabled this week’s special session — which could open the door for the Legislature to ask voters for even more power.

“The Constitution has the Legislature and the people as being co-equals under the law. And it concerns me when politicians are fearful of the people’s voice,” Wright said, adding that lawmakers have already set “extreme barriers” to successfully putting ballot initiatives on the ballot. “So I don’t think the people’s voice is terrifying. I actually think it’s the basis of our government.”

As news of a potential special session spread, Better Boundaries issued a call to its supporters to contact lawmakers and tell them “you oppose limiting government reform rights.” Wright said she hopes lawmakers will listen and slow down and “have a more deliberative process.” She also disagreed that the matter should be considered an emergency — noting Better Boundaries’ efforts have drawn out seven years.

If the Utah Legislature does rush to place the constitutional amendment on this year’s ballot, though, Wright said she doesn’t think it will pass — but rather backfire.

“I’ve received so many emails from people today that are really, really frustrated by this latest maneuver,” Wright said. “I absolutely think that legislators are hearing from constituents, and this could turn around. Because this really is an overreach. People know it.”

The special session is also expected to include another agenda item — to “amend provisions related to justice court jurisdiction to address an error” in SB180, a bill passed this year that clarifies the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and the justice court.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s spokesperson issued a statement Monday noting that even though the governor does not need to sign a constitutional amendment for it to be placed on the ballot, he’s supportive of the special session.

“While the governor does not play an official role in signing or vetoing constitutional amendments, he is supportive of giving the people an opportunity to resolve this important constitutional issue,” Cox’s spokesperson said.

What spurred this special session on ballot initiatives?

Thanks to a constitutional amendment voters approved in 2018, the Utah Legislature can call itself into a special session (without needing the governor’s approval) if two-thirds of the Legislature in both the House and Senate agree there’s a “persistent fiscal crisis, war, natural disaster, or emergency in the affairs of the state” that necessitates a special session.

The special session call comes after dozens of conservative leaders and organizations across the state signed onto an open letter sent Friday from the Utah Republican Party to the governor, Senate President Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz expressing “profound alarm” regarding the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling in the redistricting case and its impact on voter initiatives.

The letter went on to call the ruling an “existential threat to the values, culture, and way of life that define our state.”

“Given these exigent circumstances, we believe it is imperative that the legislature be immediately called into special session to propose a constitutional amendment,” the letter says. “This amendment should safeguard our laws from being unduly influenced by outside groups while simultaneously respecting the role of properly balanced grassroots-led initiatives and strengthening the people’s right to veto laws through a referendum process.

Separately, the conservative think tank Sutherland Institute on Friday also issued a news release calling the ruling an “error” that needed to be corrected and urging the Utah Legislature to “immediately exercise its constitutional authority to place an amendment before voters that would ensure that elected lawmakers and the people themselves can properly exercise their legislative power to reform the law, no matter how that law was enacted.”

“By allowing initiatives to become immutable ‘super laws,’ the Court has opened the door to potentially devastating consequences,” the Utah GOP letter continues. “Utah now faces the risk of becoming like California, where large sums of outside money influence laws that do not reflect the values of our citizens and undermine our cultural integrity.”

That paragraph of the letter essentially mirrors what Adams and Schultz expressed in a scathing statement the day of the Utah Supreme Court ruling, claiming it effectively made a “new law about the initiative power, creating chaos and striking at the very heart of our Republic.”

Adams also told Utah News Dispatch that day that he feared it would open the door for California-style politics in Utah by allowing voters to create “super laws” that can’t be changed by the Legislature. In California, voter initiatives and referendums are quite popular, with voters having passed 137 between 1912 and 2024, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

The letter goes on to say that even though “past legislative overreach has understandably led to some distrust among the people, the voice of the people in governance remains crucial and cannot be overstated.”

“Although the intent of initiatives is to amplify that voice, this ruling creates a rigid and unmanageable system that disrupts our republican form of government,” the letter states. “We believe grassroots-led initiatives can have value when they garner strong support and can be refined as necessary through the legislative process. We also believe the right of the people to provide a check on the legislature, through a referendum process — a people’s veto of legislative actions –remains essential.”

Does the Utah Supreme Court ruling actually open the door to ‘super laws?’ Opinion notes limitations

Even though Republican legislative leaders, the Utah Republican Party and Sutherland Institute have interpreted the ruling as one that could be catastrophic — painting it in with a broad brush and implying it could have implications for all voter initiatives — the Utah Supreme Court opinion does leave room for nuance.

“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,” the opinion states. “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.”

The opinion also says “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.”

While giddy about what the ruling meant specifically for the Utah League of Women Voters’ lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ attorney, David Reymann with Parr Brown Gee & Loveless told reporters the question of whether the ruling will apply to other voter initiatives that aren’t targeted so specifically at government reform has yet to be answered.

“It’s a good question and it’s one they left for another day,” Reymann said at the time. “They said in this case there’s no question that this initiative was exercising the people’s right explicitly to reform their government, but there will be other initiatives that will be considered government reform initiatives, and it will be left to those cases to decide where the boundaries lie.”

In a footnote included in the opinion, justices also said they appreciate filings from the governor and counties included in the lawsuit “flagging potential unintended consequences that, from their perspective, might flow from” the ruling that held the “Alter or Reform Clause” of the Utah Constitution establishes a constitutional right of the people to reform their government.

“As we explain in this opinion, we conclude that the original public understanding of the Alter or Reform Clause was that it enshrined a constitutional right of the people of Utah to reform their government,” the opinion says. “We have endeavored to describe the scope of this right, consistent with its original public meaning, in a manner that is clear, accurate, and precise.”

The opinion also clearly states “our holding today applies only to initiatives that advance government reforms within the meaning of the Alter or Reform Clause, not those that have no reform element.”

Utah’s recent voter initiative history

The year 2018 was a big year for voter initiatives in Utah. Three citizen initiatives passed at the ballot box: Proposition 2, which legalized medical marijuana; Proposition 3, which expanded Medicaid; and Proposition 4, which created an independent redistricting commission that eventually led to the lawsuit against Utah Legislature that led to the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling last month.

The Utah Legislature ultimately replaced all three of those voter initiatives with their own versions of the law, including a more restrictive state-run medical marijuana program, a more limited Medicaid expansion, and a watered-down version of the new redistricting process that allowed Utah Lawmakers to ignore independently-drawn maps and adopt their own versions, which is ultimately what Republican lawmakers did in 2021 when it came time to set Utah’s new political districts for the next 10 years.

Then came the lawsuit. The League of Women Voters — along with the group Mormon Women for Ethical Government and individual Salt Lake County residents who alleged they were disenfranchised by unlawful gerrymandering — have claimed the Utah Legislature overstepped when it repealed and replaced the group Better Boundaries‘ voter-approved initiative.

A 3rd District Court judge later dismissed that claim. But the Utah Supreme Court ruled last month that it “erred” in doing so, and that the case deserved its day in court.

“We hold that the people’s right to alter or reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement of the initiative in a manner that impairs the reform enacted by the people,” Justice Paige Petersen wrote in the opinion. “Thus, an alleged violation of the people’s exercise of these rights presents a legally cognizable claim on which relief may be granted.”

No abortion bill on special session agenda — at least not yet

Wednesday’s special session will not include an agenda item to enact more abortion restrictions in Utah — something other Republican lawmakers also want to tackle by the end of the year.

Sen. Dan McCay called for a special session after the Utah Supreme Court earlier this month upheld an injunction blocking Utah’s 2020 near-total abortion ban from taking effect while a district court litigates the law’s constitutionality.

The day of the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling that continues to block the trigger law from being enforced, McCay, R-Riverton, urged the governor and legislative leaders to call a special session to consider a bill to potentially restrict Utah’s abortions up to six weeks of gestation. Currently, while the 2020 ban is on hold, abortions have remained legal in Utah up to 18 weeks of gestation.

If the Republican-supermajority Utah Legislature does tackle abortion restrictions in a special session, it will have to come at a later date, but it’s unclear when. McCay didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Newsletter