After a series of legal challenges from citizen groups, a proposed constitutional amendment will not be on the Nov. ballot. Judge Dianna Gibson ruled the amendment used deceptive presentation in its wording, which was written by House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams. 

The decision, which came on Thursday, Sept. 12, coincided with the state drop-dead deadline where if ballots were not printed, the state would run the risk of missing federal deadlines for mailing absentee ballots overseas. In a 16-page opinion issued by Judge Gibson she states,” Without transparent, accurate and complete disclosure about the amendments, there can be no meaningful right to vote … Amendment D is void and shall be given no effect”

The ballots will still be printed with Amendment D however, in case the state decides to appeal the decision to the Utah Supreme Court, but unless that happens votes will not be counted regarding the matter.   

On X, formerly Twitter, Schultz released a statement reading,” 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.” This continues Schultz’s lambasting of the state’s judiciary, which started with the Supreme Court ruling stating the legislature couldn’t repeal citizen-led ballot initiatives.

Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, who is in charge of the state’s ballots, released a statement on the ruling as well,” We appreciate the court’s prompt attention and serious consideration of this matter. State and county election officials will move forward as ordered.”

The language of the amendment as it was written by the legislature read:

• Make clear that “notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people’s exercise” of their ballot initiative or referendum power “does not limit or preclude the exercise of Legislative power, including through amending, enacting or repealing a law, by the Legislature, or by a law making body of a county, city, or town, on behalf of the people whom they are elected to represent.”
• Ban “foreign individuals, entities or governments” from “directly or indirectly” influencing, supporting or opposing an initiative or referendum, and allow the Legislature to enforce that ban. 

On the ballot, the language would read:

Should the Utah constitution be changed to strengthen the initiative process by:

• Prohibiting foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums.
• Clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.

A move that was criticized by those opposed to the bill as, “Orwellian doublespeak.”

The next step of appeals for the state would be to the Utah Supreme Court, which kicked off this saga in July when in a unanimous decision they ruled the legislature could not alter anything they wanted with citizens’ ballot initiatives; rather, the justices said legislators can tweak initiatives to facilitate the will of the people, but legislative changes to government reform initiatives must be narrowly tailored and serve a “compelling” state interest.

This led to an emergency joint session of the legislature which you can read more on here.