One of the arguments used by supporters is it will “restore” the power the legislature had before the recent Utah Supreme Court decision in July, as though that decision changed long-standing law.

That is not true. As the court explained in its decision, there is nothing in the state constitution or other Utah law expressly stating that the legislature has the power to amend or repeal citizen initiatives. It was a “question of first impression” and the court applied traditional constitutional analysis to reach its conclusion.

As part of that analysis, the court considered what Utah voters had in mind when they added the citizen initiative language to the state constitution in 1900. Historical records show that voters intended citizen initiatives to be a check on the legislative branch of government because they were concerned about the influence of money, lobbyists, and “deal-making” on legislators. With that intent, they did not include any language giving the legislature power to amend or appeal citizen initiatives.

Ultimately the court held that not necessarily all citizen initiatives, but those dealing with government reform, such as anti-gerrymandering initiatives, “are constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement.” That means the legislature can still make changes, but with some limitations.

Of course, the legislature has legal theories to support its position, but the idea that Amendment D “restores” power to the legislature that the court took away is false.

The separate issue of whether the ballot language accurately summarizes the amendment is currently before the court. Regardless of how that turns out, it’s important for voters to know the truth about Amendment D.

The full League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature decision can be found on the Utah Supreme Court website.

Helen Anderson, Provo