A 3rd District Court Judge handed down a ruling on Thursday, Sept. 12, granting two motions for preliminary injunctions and declaring the constitutional amendment proposed by the Utah State Legislature in a special session to be void.

Amendment D was the constitutional amendment crafted by the Legislature and approved in a special session held Aug. 21, 2024, that would change the language of the State Constitution regarding the people’s right to legislate through initiatives and referendums.

In the announcement dated two days before the special session, Adams and Schultz released a joint statement that read, in part, “If passed by the Legislature, a constitutional amendment will be on the November ballot. If voters approve the proposed amendment, the constitutional and statutory changes 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.”

While the amendment did include the 20 extra days for signature gathering and a prohibition of the influence of foreign individuals, entities, or governments, it also clarifies that “the people’s exercise of their legislative power as provided [in the state constitution] does not limit or preclude the exercise of legislative power, including through amending, enacting, or repealing a law, by the Legislature, or by a lawmaking body of a county, city, or town, on behalf of the people whom they are elected to represent.”

In addition to the proposed constitutional amendment, the state legislature also approved a state code that requires, during the session following the passage of an initiative, the legislature to give deference to the general purpose of the intuitive, “in the legislature’s determination.” The change also gives the Legislature authority to amend the law in any manner if they determine it is necessary to mitigate adverse fiscal impact.”

Gibson’s decision to void amendment D revived around two points raised by the plaintiffs—the proposed ballot language and the notification and publication of the proposed amendment.

Gibson cites a previous Utah case on ballot language that stated the court should determine if the language is “framed with such clarity as to enable the voters to express their will.”

She then goes on to cite other case law on ballot language from other jurisdictions, including one from Ohio: “The integrity of the voting process requires that ballot language fairly and accurately present the issue to be decided in order to assure a ‘free, intelligent, and informed vote by the average citizen.”

“The ballot language does not fairly and accurately ‘summarize’ the issue to be decided,” wrote Gibson in her ruling. “[it] omits the material and consequential constitutional change, that the Legislature will have the unlimited right to change law passed by citizen initiative. The omission entirely eliminates the voter’s fundamental constitutional right. This court cannot say that the amendment D ballot language fairly and accurately summarizes the proposed constitutional amendments for the average voter.”

The Utah State Constitution mandates that a proposed constitutional amendment be published in at least one newspaper in every county of the state, where a newspaper is published, for two months immediately preceding the next general election. 

The defendants argue that they have complied by publishing the amendment on the Lieutenant Governor’s website and through news stories published about the case.

Gibson responded, “Under the circumstances presented here, the court disagrees.”

The requirement to publish the amendments in newspapers is explicit, she said.

“Given Utah’s rules of constitutional construction, it is unclear how the court could interpret ‘newspaper’ to mean an ‘online website.’”

In a previous case [Snow v. Keddington], the Utah Supreme Court concluded that the “method of notice prescribed by the constitution is one reasonably calculated to give notice to the voters.”

Gibson then added, “The constitutional requirement has not changed, and Snow remains good law.”

After finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, possible injury to the plaintiff outweighs any possible damage to the opposing party, and that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest, Gibson concluded that Amendment D is void and shall be given no effect.

She also ordered that ballots may be printed as certified, with the Amendment D language on them. The Lieutenant Governor’s Office said a process was in place for handling items removed from the ballot pre-election, subject to further notice of Gibson’s or another court. County clerks are to be instructed by the Lieutenant Governor in the process to assure votes for Amendment D are not counted.

Adams and Schultz issued a joint statement following the release of Gibson’s ruling:

“We are extremely disappointed by the lower court’s policymaking 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 as an out-of-state interest group from Washington, DC, with seemingly unlimited funds, blocked Utah voters from voicing their opinions at the ballot box. The people who claim to advocate for greater voter engagement are the same ones who obstructed Utahns from having the opportunity to vote on this important matter.

“The court’s actions have introduced significant uncertainty into the electoral process, raising concerns about the impartiality and timing of judicial interventions. Such interference during an ongoing election undermines public confidence in the integrity of the process. The court is denying the right of the people to vote and should not be exerting undue influence on this election.

“We will not stop fighting for Utahns. It’s critical we find a path forward that safeguards our state from external influence and keeps Utah’s future in Utah’s hands. We will continue to exhaust all options to prevent foreign entities from altering our state and clarify the over a century-long constitutional practice, including our appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. We urge them to undo this wrong and preserve the voices of Utahns.”