People vote at the Main Library in Salt Lake City on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
After the description of a proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution on November’s ballot sparked controversy, Democratic lawmakers are seeking more neutrality in future drafts.
With HB101, titled Ballot Proposition Amendments, a bill sponsored by House Minority Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, lawmakers are expected to explore switching the authors of ballot titles and analysis for proposed constitutional amendments, or questions submitted by the Legislature.
Under a change adopted by lawmakers last year, the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House are in charge of writing titles and questions submitted by the Legislature, summarizing the subject and explaining any laws that could become effective if voters approve. However, after the language of Amendment D prompted a successful court challenge by critics that left the question voided on voters’ ballots, Romero wants legislative attorneys, part of a nonpartisan body, to take over the job of drafting future ballot questions.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
“My concern when we’re doing these amendments is to ensure that when people are reading the language of what that amendment does, it doesn’t have a political lens of Republican or Democrat. It’s a neutral perspective from our attorneys,” Romero said.
The bill is expected to be co-sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, who, like Romero, heard concerns from constituents about the description of Amendment D, written by House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, which the Utah Supreme Court ruled to be misleading.
Amendment D would have enshrined in the Utah Constitution the Legislature’s power to change all ballot initiatives, sidestepping a Utah Supreme Court decision affirming that the Legislature couldn’t change the substance of government reform initiatives. But, votes toward that question were voided after the justices found the Legislature failed to give proper notice of the proposed amendment.
After the legal fight, Romero said that she wants to ensure that lawmakers don’t make such a deep impact on already scarce citizen initiatives in another special session.
Both Schultz and Adams expressed regret over the vague language of Amendment D in November, acknowledging mistakes and vowing “to work together to find better ways.”
After Romero’s bill became public, Schultz said he looks “forward to having these discussions when the legislature convenes in the upcoming session.”
With a Republican supermajority, however, Romero isn’t certain on how her bill will fare once lawmakers convene on Jan. 21. But, she hopes to see more involvement from Utahns to ensure their voices are heard.
“If people want to see a more balanced government here in the state of Utah, then we can look at redistricting, and yeah, has that disenfranchised people? Probably,” Romero said. “But at the same time, if more people would get involved and vote, I think we would have a different Legislature, and it’s up to us, as elected officials, too, to give people a hope and a reason to vote, too.”
Romero called on Utahns to be alert, especially during the session, since nationally there have been actions restricting people’s access to voting, including potential changes to mail-in voting.
“My sense from when I talk to people from across the state of Utah, is they don’t want to see vote by mail change. And people were outraged,” Romero said. “That’s why these different citizen groups took this to our judiciary, to get to stand up for the rights of people.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.