Dear friends and neighbors,

Today the Utah Legislature met in a Special Session at the state Capitol regarding a recent ruling of the Utah Supreme Court related to voter initiatives. The Special Session just concluded, and I wanted to quickly report back to you to explain what took place. I’ve noticed that there is much misinformation being circulated on social media, many news stories cover parts but not the entire story, and headlines could create confusion.

I want to thank everyone who has reached out to me in our House District 63. You’ve asked great questions, respectfully shared your concerns and recommendations, and I greatly appreciate your involvement. There are many interesting layers to the Utah Supreme Court ruling last month and I’ve spent time researching and studying the issues and underlying core issues and working in preparation for the discussions and debates and proposed options with the goal of preserving ballot initiatives, our rights to reform government, and see what could potentially be done to address the concerns being shared about a portion of the Court’s decision.

I try my very best to represent our local communities, recognizing that not everyone has the same perspectives, and I love hearing from you. The vast majority of people who have contacted me have been in support of addressing the concerns resulting from the recent Court decision. Recognizing there will be some who disagree with my votes, I’ve outlined below the background and details of the issue and my voting rationale.

Best regards,

Stephen

Utah is one of 23 states whose state constitution provides for both an initiative and a referendum process. These mechanisms allow Utah citizens to participate directly in the lawmaking process.

The initiative process allows voters to propose new laws. If enough signatures are gathered, the proposed law is placed on a ballot in a general election. If approved by a majority of voters at the election, the law proposed by the initiative becomes law.

Utah’s referendum process allows voters to vote on laws recently passed by the legislature. Like an initiative, a referendum requires a minimum number of signatures for the law to be placed on a ballot. Voters then decide whether to uphold or reject the law.

On July 11, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court issued its ruling on case number 20220991 titled League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature. The issue with this case dealt with a question related to the redistricting of congressional, legislative, and state board of education district boundaries which occurs every 10 years and a voter approved 2018 ballot initiative to enact an independent commission to draw Utah’s new boundaries.

There are some individuals and organizations that agree with the Court’s decision and others that disagree with the Court’s decision about redistricting. Regardless of your feelings and position on the Court’s decision, an underlying broader issue has emerged with the Utah Supreme Court’s decision.

The Court’s new interpretation of ballot led initiatives has created uncertainty, ambiguity, and concerns about ballot led initiatives.

Many generations ago, our Founders wisely designed a representative republic to prevent the chaos of direct democracy. Within our representative democracy, the voice of every person is crucial and needed in the governance of our state. People must continue to have the right to provide a check on the legislature. Citizens must continue to have the right to reform government through ballot initiatives and assure accountability from elected leaders. A voter initiative is a constitutional right and can create good public policy.

A voter initiative is a constitutional right and can create good public policy. The approach of creating a voter initiative forfeits the advantages of the legislative process involving public hearings and opportunities to amend and edit. The Legislative process is deliberative where changes to policy can be proposed. Initiatives don’t allow for compromise once ballot language is certified. Sometimes a voter initiative may need to be adjusted.

For example, in 2018, three voter initiatives were on the ballot for all Utahns to vote on: Medicaid expansion, medical marijuana, and the redistricting commission. Special interest groups placed language into the Medicaid expansion and medical marijuana propositions that posed considerable negative consequences to the state. As a result, the Legislature made alterations within months of their passage which mitigated the dangers.

1. National special interest organizations, both on the right and left side of the aisle, once feared sponsoring initiatives in Utah because of the Legislature’s ability to amend voter-led initiatives. The Utah Supreme Court’s ruling removes this barrier, and these special interest groups can now create and promote a voter initiative that serves their interests.

2. Foreign entities can contribute to ballot initiatives or referenda.

3. Utah now faces the risk of becoming like other states, such as California, where large sums of outside money influence laws that do not reflect the values, culture, and way of life that define our state. Here are just a few examples from across the nation and in a small sampling of states:

• In 2022, ballot initiatives in 11 states attracted more than $1.1 billion in spending.
• California: This year there will be 11 ballot propositions on California’s November ballot.
• Florida: In 2024, $40 million has been spent by the CEO of Trulieve cannabis company to legalize recreational marijuana. $42 million has been spent by groups, including out-of-state abortion activists, to legalize abortion.
• Arizona: In 2024, $17 million has been spent from groups including ACLU, Planned Parenthood and Bill Gate’s daughter to legalize abortion.
• Ohio: In 2023, $124 million was spent by groups that included the “1630 fund” which receives millions from foreign activists, to legalize abortion.
• · Washington: In 2011, Costco spent $22 million in support of a ballot initiative to privatize liquor.

4. The Utah Supreme Court’s decision has created “super laws” that the legislature cannot amend. At first glance, this might seem like it is desirable and would protect the voice of the people. However, if these initiatives turn out to hurt certain groups of people, have unintended consequences, cause legal confusion or lawsuits, or turn out to be costly to administer, nothing could be done about it until another initiative could be proposed, advertised, and voted upon two or more years later, and there would be little financial incentive to fix issues through the initiative process. Initiatives may take a shallow view of the intended policy and fail to reveal the true impact of the law. The language is often vague or ambiguous. While the legislature must have 50% of its total membership approve a proposal for it to become law, in contrast, initiatives are passed with far less than a majority vote. You may be interested to know that the last three ballot initiatives (including one tax increase) passed in Utah with less than 35% support from registered votes. Here are two examples of California initiatives that highlight these concerns:

• Proposition 13 (1978) – Property Tax Limitations:

  i. Policy Change: Proposition 13 drastically reduced property taxes by capping them at 1% of the property assessed value and restricted annual increases to no more than 2% unless the property was sold. It also required a two-thirds majority in the legislature to raise taxes.

  ii. Negative Outcomes: While Proposition 13 provided immediate tax relief to homeowners, it severely reduced funding for public services, especially education, leading to a significant decline in the quality of California’s public schools. Additionally, it contributed to the state’s housing crisis by discouraging property turnover, which has kept housing prices artificially high and decreased the availability of affordable housing.

  iii. Original Campaign Message: The primary message for Proposition 13 focused on “Taxpayer Relief” and protecting homeowners, especially the elderly, from skyrocketing property taxes that could force them out of their homes. The campaign was driven by a narrative of fighting back against an out-of-control government that was perceived to be wasting taxpayer money. Promoters of Proposition 13 argued that the measure was necessary to prevent people, particularly those on fixed incomes, from losing their homes due to increasing taxes.

  iv. Slogan: “People Before Bureaucrats”.

• Proposition 47 (2014) – Criminal Sentencing Reform:

  i. Policy Change: Proposition 47 reclassified certain non-violent felonies, including drug possession and theft under $950, as misdemeanors rather than felonies.

  ii. Negative Outcomes: This measure was intended to reduce prison overcrowding and focus resources on more serious crimes. However, it has been widely criticized for contributing to a rise in retail theft, drug use, and homelessness. Law enforcement agencies and business owners have pointed to a surge in shoplifting and other petty

  crimes, as criminals face little to no consequences under the new rules.

  iii. Original Campaign Message: The campaign for Proposition 47 was built around the idea of “Smart Justice” – arguing that the state should focus its resources on more serious and violent crimes rather than overcrowding prisons with non-violent offenders. Supporters framed the measure as a way to make the criminal justice system more efficient and just, reducing the prison population and saving taxpayer money. They also emphasized the potential for reinvesting savings into prevention and rehabilitation programs.

  iv. Slogan: “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”.

5. Although the intent of voter led initiatives is to amplify the voice of the people, the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling creates a rigid and unmanageable system that disrupts our republican form of government.

Concerned that the Utah Supreme Court’s recent ballot initiative decision will render irreparable harm to Utah, many people, leaders, and groups across the state representing a wide array of backgrounds, regions, and political beliefs, including many people from our House District 63, have asked the Legislature to meet in a Special Session to address the concerns and propose a solution.

Article VI, Section 2 of the Utah Constitution authorizes the President of the Utah Senate and the Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives to convene the Utah Legislature in a Special Session when two-thirds of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives favor convening because of an emergency in the affairs of the state.

I was in favor of convening into a Special Session because the Utah Supreme Court’s recent decision 1) upends over 100 years of representative democracy in Utah without the voice of the people, essentially changing the way our government has operated since we became a state, 2) leaves the state vulnerable to laws advanced by foreign interests through ballot propositions that citizens cannot amend through elected representatives, and 3) if we don’t take action now, the next opportunity will be in 2026, and by then, our state could be flooded with initiatives that permanently alter our state.

On August 21, 2024, when the Special Session was held, the Legislature was already meeting at the state Capitol for interim committee meetings which had been scheduled earlier in the year. Holding the Special Session while the Legislature was already at the Capitol helped to save tax payer dollars.

Utah needs to strike the right balance of preserving and honoring citizens’ Constitutional right to reform government through ballot initiatives and the reality that laws may need to be adapted and refined over time as the needs of our citizens evolve.

1. Give all Utahns the opportunity to vote to decide the nature of initiatives and referenda by proposing a Constitutional Amendment on the November 2024 ballot, which would.
   • Restore the initiative practice to what it was before the July 11 Utah Supreme Court decision.
   • Restore the over 100-year-old usage of citizen initiatives.
   • The initiative process will remain unchanged, and Utahns will continue to have the ability to propose and run ballot initiatives.
   • Foreign entities would be prohibited from contributing to ballot initiatives or referenda, adding safeguards against undue influence.
   • Add 20 days to collect signatures for the referendum process, extending it from 40 to 60 days to make referenda easier to be placed on the ballot.
   • Restore the long-standing practice that voters, the Legislature, and local bodies may amend or repeal legislation.

1. I voted in support of SJR401, which proposed a constitutional amendment to Utah voters that restores the traditional effect of citizen initiatives and referenda on Utah laws by ensuring that voters, their elected representatives, and local bodies retain the ability to amend or repeal legislation, and protects the initiatives and referendum process from foreign funding interference. 

1. • This bill passed the House with 54 in favor, 21 opposed, and 0 abstaining.

2. I voted in support of SB4003, which increases the allowed number of days for referendum sponsors to gather signatures to place a voter referendum on the ballot, including postponing the effect of legislation that is potentially subject to a voter referendum.

1. • This bill passed the House with 58 in favor, 15 opposed, and 2 abstaining.

3. I voted in support of SB4002, which amends provisions related to the administration of the 2024 regular general election only to the extent necessary to accommodate placing the above proposal to amend the Utah Constitution on the ballot for voter consideration, adding or amending no other provisions related to the 2024 regular general election.

1. • This bill passed the House with 54 in favor, 21 opposed, and 1 abstaining.

4. I voted in support of SB4001, to amend provisions related to the justice court jurisdiction to address an error in the 2024 General Session, S.B. 180, Court Jurisdiction Modifications.

1. • This bill passed the House with 72 in favor, 0 opposed, and 3 not voting.

Because the Legislature (both the House of Representatives and Senate) passed a proposed Utah Constitutional Amendment for the consideration of all citizens, all Utahns will now have the opportunity to vote this November on whether they support or oppose the proposed Constitutional Amendment. Ultimately, Utah voters will decide the nature of voter initiatives.

If the Constitutional Amendment is approved by voters on the November ballot, the only constitutional and statutory changes would include:

• Prohibiting foreign entities from contributing to ballot initiatives and referendums.
• Restoring and strengthening the long-standing practice that voters, the Legislature, and local bodies may amend or repeal legislation.
• Adding 20 more days to collect signatures for the referendum process, extending the process from 40 to 60 days.

Unsubscribe from future updates