The Utah Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a lower court's decision to void Amendment D, ruling that the state Legislature used deceptive summary language and failed to follow constitutional notice requirements for the November 2024 election. The high court's decision concluded that the proposed amendment's description was misleading to voters regarding their right to reform government through ballot initiatives.
Court Finds Deceptive Language and Notice Failures,
In a ruling released in October 20 24, the Utah Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against Amendment D. The court's full opinion determined that the Legislature failed to comply with the Utah Constitution by failing to publish an accurate summary of the amendment and by neglecting mandatory publication requirements for proposed constitutional changes.
The litigation, brought by the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWE and MWEG), centered on the Legislature's attempt to place the amendment on the November 2024 ballot. While the Legislature argued that Amendment D would strengthen the citizen initiative process, the plaintiffs successfully argued that the practical effect would have allowed lawmakers to modify or repeal laws passed by voters at their own discretion.
Constitutional Rights and Publication Mandates,
The legal challenge presented two primary arguments against the amendment. First, plaintiffs asserted that the summary used to describe Amendment D on the ballot was deceptively written to mislead citizens into voting to eliminate their constitutional right to reform government through initiatives. Second, the plaintiffs argued that the Legislature failed to follow the strict procedures required by the state constitution, which mandates that the full text of a proposed amendment be published in at least one newspaper in every county where newspapers are published for two months leading up to an election.
These publication requirements are intended to ensure that Utah voters have adequate notice and understand their options before casting votes on constitutional changes. The court's ruling affirmed that Utahns possess a constitutional right to a fair ballot that is not misleadingly explained.
Legislative Response and Legal Timeline,
The dispute over Amendment D emerged following a July 2024 Utah Supreme Court ruling regarding Senate Bill 200. That earlier decision held that the Legislature could not alter ballot initiatives intended to reform government without meeting a standard of strict scrutiny, protecting the right of citizens to change their government through the initiative process.
In response to that July 2024 ruling, the Utah State Legislature attempted to use Amendment D to change the state constitution. The plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in September 2024, seeking to keep the amendment off the November 2024 ballot. This followed an earlier lawsuit involving SB 200, which largely repealed Proposition 4—a fair redistricting initiative that voters had approved in 2018.
Trial Court Ruling and Appeal Process,
The legal timeline progressed rapidly throughout the late summer and fall of 2024. In August 2024, the Utah Legislature officially placed Amendment D on the ballot. By September 2024, plaintiffs had filed both a primary complaint and a second supplemental complaint challenging the deceptive summary and the failure to meet notice requirements.
A trial court ruling on September 12, 2024, struck down the amendment, finding that the Legislature's summary would likely fail to accurately inform voters and violated their constitutional right to accurate information. Although the trial court allowed the text of Amendment D to remain on the ballot to permit a vote in case an appeal failed, it declared that no votes cast for the amendment would count unless the ruling was reversed.
Final Judicial Determination,
Following oral arguments heard on September 25, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court ruled in favor of the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. The high court's decision declared Amendment D void due to the lack of proper notice and the presence of a deceptive summary.
The League of Women Voters of Utah was represented by counsel from Campaign Legal Center, Parr Brown Gee & Lovings, and Zimmerman Booher during these proceedings.
