Utah voters won’t decide this November on a proposal to amend the state constitution that would let state lawmakers rewrite voter-approved ballot measures but the question will remain on ballots with just weeks to go until the election, a judge ruled Thursday.

Legislative leaders vowed to appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.

Salt Lake County District Judge Dianna Gibson sided with the League of Women Voters and others who challenged the measure, agreeing that it carries misleading ballot language and has not been advertised in newspapers statewide as required.

To keep ballot-printing and other election deadlines on track, the amendment will still be on Utah ballots in November but won’t be counted.

The ballot language — which says the change would “strengthen the initiative process” — is not only misleading but says the opposite of what the amendment would actually do, a League of Women Voters attorney argued in a hearing Wednesday.

Gibson agreed in her ruling.

“The short summary the Legislature chose does not disclose the chief feature, which is also the most critical constitutional change — that the Legislature will have unlimited right to change laws passed by citizen initiative,” Gibson wrote.

RELATED COVERAGE The Sundance Film Festival may get a new home. Here are the 3 finalists Utah citizen initiatives at stake as judge weighs keeping major changes off ballots Federal judge temporarily blocks Utah social media law aimed at protecting children

An attorney for Utah lawmakers stood by the ballot language in the hearing. But lawmakers’ argument that extensive media coverage of the proposed amendment suffices for statewide publication also didn’t sway the judge.

“No evidence has been presented that either the Legislature or the lieutenant governor ‘has caused’ the proposed constitutional amendment to appear in any newspaper in Utah,” Gibson wrote, referring to the publication requirement in Utah law.

The amendment stems from a Utah Supreme Court ruling in July which upheld a ban on drawing district lines to protect incumbents or favor a political party. Lawmakers responded by seeking the ability to limit such voter-approved measures.

Meeting in a special session in late August, they approved the state constitutional amendment for voters to decide in November.

Opponents who sued Sept. 5 to block the proposed amendment have been up against tight deadlines, with less two months to go until the election.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Gibson asked Tyler Green, an attorney for the lawmakers being sued, whether some responsibility for the tight deadline fell to the Legislature.

“The legislature can’t move on a dime,” Green responded.

Legislative leaders in a statement criticized Gibson’s ruling as a “policy-making action from the bench.”

“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,” said the statement by Senate President President J. Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz.

The statement blamed organizers in Washington, D.C., with “seemingly unlimited funds” for the ruling and vowed to “exhaust all options” including a state supreme court appeal.

The amendment has been a “power hungry” attempt to silence voter voices, Salt Lake County Democratic Party Chairman Jade Velazquez said in a statement.

“We must be prepared for more attempts by the Republicans in our Legislature to expand their power at the expense of Utahns’ freedoms,” Velazquez said.

The proposed amendment springs from a 2018 ballot measure that created an independent commission to draw legislative districts every decade. The ballot measure has met ongoing resistance from the Republican-dominated Legislature.

In 2020, lawmakers stripped from it a ban on gerrymandering. Then, when the commission drew up a new congressional map, they ignored it and passed its own.

The map split Democratic-leaning Salt Lake City into four districts, each of which is now represented by a Republican.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.