House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, is pictured at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
After the courts last year voided a proposed constitutional amendment written by Utah’s top Republican legislative leaders — in part because the ballot language was misleading — lawmakers are advancing a bill to revert the duty back to legislative attorneys.
After less than five minutes of discussion, the House Government Operations Committee on Friday voted unanimously to advance HB563 to the House floor.
House Speaker MIke Schultz, R-Hooper, is running the bill himself. He and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, authored last year’s controversial proposed ballot question known as Amendment D.
Amendment D ballot language was misleading to voters, Utah Supreme Court affirms
That proposed constitutional amendment would have enshrined in the Utah Constitution the Legislature’s power to change all ballot initiatives, sidestepping a Utah Supreme Court decision last summer affirming that the Legislature’s powers have limits when it comes to changing the substance of government reform initiatives.
However, in the question posed to voters on the Nov. 5 ballot, Schultz and Adams characterized Amendment D as one that would “strengthen” and “clarify” the ballot initiative process. That prompted critics to sue, claiming Amendment D’s language was unconstitutional because it was “false and misleading.” The courts agreed and voided the question from the ballot.
Last year’s election was the first time the House speaker and Senate president wrote ballot language for proposed constitutional amendments, after the 2024 Utah Legislature passed SB37, a bill that took the duty away from legislative attorneys and gave it to the Legislature’s “presiding officers.”
“I’ll own it. We made a mistake in changing that last year,” Schultz told reporters in a media availability Thursday, though he added, “we changed it before we even knew about Amendment D. So it had nothing to do with any of that.”
“But going through that process, sometimes, you see that it might not have been the best idea,” Schultz said, adding that he wants to change the law “back to the way it was before, based off of the way it played out over the past year.”
However, Schultz’s bill doesn’t exactly match previous Utah law, and it specifies that legislative attorneys would write the language “as counsel for the presiding officers.”
Schultz’s bill is also crafted differently than other bills that were proposed far earlier in the 2025 session aiming to fix the problem. One bill by the House’s top Democrat, House Minority Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, sought to ensure future ballot language is unbiased. While Schultz’s bill received a committee hearing Friday, Romero’s bill never made it out of the House Rules Committee.
Romero’s bill, HB101, would have required legislative attorneys to write “an impartial” ballot title and analysis for a proposed constitutional amendment. While Schultz’s bill would revert the responsibility from the House speaker and Senate president back to “legislative general counsel,” his bill also specifies the legislative attorneys write the language “for the presiding officers.” Schultz’s bill does not include a mandate for impartial language, like Romero’s would.
Schultz, however, told reporters Thursday legislative leaders are not “going to be able to control what’s said.”
“It just takes it back to the way it was before,” he said.
Previous state code did not include the provision that explicitly states “the legislative general counsel performs the duties in this section as counsel for the presiding officers.”
However, during Friday’s committee hearing, Schultz only received praise and gratitude for sponsoring the bill.
“Thank you very much for closing the gap of trust in our state government,” said one public speaker, Kael Weston, a Democrat who ran for Utah’s 2nd Congressional District in 2020.
Utah legislative leaders express regret over Amendment D’s ‘misleading’ ballot language
Romero did make a note of pointing out it’s similar to her bill that was never prioritized for consideration. However, she voted in favor of Schultz’s bill.
“It’s really important that it’s a neutral person drafting the language,” she said.
Before Schultz’s bill becomes law, it still needs to wind its way through the rest of the legislative process, and only one week remains of the 2025 session, which must adjourn before midnight on March 7.
When asked whether he’s supportive of the way Schultz has drafted the bill, Adams told reporters Thursday, “I am.”
But at the same time, Adams said he believes legislative leaders “have the ability to write good ballot language.”
“Maybe we could have done a better job last time,” he said, adding “I’m not sure what the word ‘strengthen’ was about, but we used that word last time. It may have been improper use of the word, but I actually think we can write good language. But I think the bill will probably allow, maybe, some attorneys to write it. I think that may be a better way to go.”
Both Schultz and Adams expressed regret over the misleading language of Amendment D in November, acknowledging mistakes and vowing “to work together to find better ways.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.