Opinion
OPINION: Amendment D. a power grab, and fear-mongering
Matt Hemmert | Lehi Free Press
One of the most jealously guarded rights afforded to citizens of the United States is the right to redress the government without fear of government retaliation. This right is so crucial that it’s in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
We often hear that disagreements with elected officials, individually or as an elected body, can be settled at the ballot box. I’ve been guilty of saying that myself from time to time. But that isn’t the only avenue of recourse when an issue is large enough or is seen by a large portion of citizens as significant enough to be pushed to an alternative route.
Today, Utah’s citizens’ right to redress the government was affirmed, and rightly so. “Amendment D is void and shall be given no effect,” Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson wrote in her conclusion. A 124-year-old Utah mechanism to utilize initiatives and referenda was kept safe from being effectively nullified by members of the Utah legislature through what they proposed as constitutional Amendment D—at least for the time being.
Judge Thompson ruled that Amendment D is void and will have no effect due to defects in process and “misleading” content provided by legislative sponsors.
No one is above the rules, not even the state legislature or an unnamed failed gubernatorial candidate. But it seems that some in power, or who want to be in power, genuinely believe that policies, rules, laws, procedures, and the actual constitution don’t necessarily apply to them and their efforts in specific contexts.
The legislative sponsors knew better than to disregard the two-month notice requirement and the additional requirement of an accurate summary of a proposed amendment. But those sponsors frantically rushed to counter a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling they disagreed with. Those sponsors didn’t agree with the Utah Supreme Court insofar as the court stated that the legislature overstepped by modifying the language of a ballot initiative after the initiative passed by the citizens’ vote.
To justify Amendment D from a practical perspective, I’ve heard some point to extreme edge-case hypotheticals about possible initiatives passing that would nullify the state’s power to levy taxes, shut down departments, curtail budgets, etc. We can’t allow hypothetical fringe cases to hamstring or hobble a right granted to the people of the State of Utah in 1900.
It was also disingenuous to hide Amendment D’s true intent by providing language that would make it seem impossible not to vote for. Adding that the intent was to keep foreign influence out of the Utah election process was misleading at best and nefarious at worst. Who would vote against an attempt by states or rogue nations to meddle with us here in Utah? Has there been a foreign influence? Is there foreign influence? Is it China, Russia, or California? That added language was a smoke screen to hide the fact that the legislature wanted to keep any durable quasi-legislative power out of the hands of Utah citizens by reserving the ability to retroactively “fix” what the unwashed masses proffered and passed.
I see an element of trying to have it both ways as well. Earlier this year, the legislature created a mechanism to challenge the actions or inactions of an elected body by allowing municipalities (through interlocal agreements) to supersede the elected body and put a question on the ballot. I’m talking about the Alpine School District split. The legislature recognized the right to redress the government in this specific context. Yet, with Amendment D, they moved in a contradictory way. Interlocal agreements pull power from the elected body and place it in the hands of citizens. Amendment D would have taken power from the citizens and put it in the hands of the elected body. I know nuances and differences exist and can be articulated easily, but the underlying concept is the same.
Yesterday’s ruling was good for the citizens of Utah. I hope that as the legislators sponsor the appeal of yesterday’s court ruling, they will also remember that we, the people, grant them the dual cloaks of power and authority and expect them to be worn with prudence and humility.
