The Utah Legislature has taken swift action to appeal a recent court decision that blocked Amendment D from appearing on the November ballot.
According to Deseret News, state lawmakers filed an appeal with the Utah Supreme Court on Friday, seeking to reverse the ruling that prevented the proposed constitutional amendment from reaching voters.
The appeal comes in response to a preliminary injunction granted by 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson on Thursday. The injunction effectively halted the inclusion of Amendment D on the November 5 ballot, which would have asked voters to affirm legislators' authority to modify or repeal citizen-led ballot initiatives.
The Legislature's legal team, led by attorney Tyler Green, emphasized the urgency of the situation in their filing with the Utah Court of Appeals. They argue that the district court's order has cast uncertainty over the upcoming election, particularly regarding citizens' ability to learn about and vote on Amendment D.
Green's filing asserts that the preliminary injunction should be vacated to allow the ballot question to proceed to voters. The Legislature is requesting the Supreme Court to address the matter promptly, ideally within the coming week.
The filing opens with a powerful statement: "People decide elections; courts don't." This sentiment encapsulates the Legislature's position that the decision should ultimately rest with the voters rather than being determined by judicial intervention.
Despite the Legislature's push for an appeal, the plaintiffs in the case remain confident in the court's initial ruling. The plaintiffs, including Mormon Women for Ethical Government and the League of Women Voters of Utah, contend that Judge Gibson's decision was appropriate.
The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Mark Gaber defended the district court's ruling. He criticized the legislative leadership's approach, stating:
The district court's decision was correct. In their rush to transfer power from the people to themselves, the legislative leadership wrote deceptive ballot language and simply ignored the Constitution's publication requirement. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal, I am confident they too will enforce the Constitution.
The controversy surrounding Amendment D stems from the Utah Legislature's late August vote to place the question on the ballot. The proposed amendment aims to affirm lawmakers' right to modify, change, and repeal citizen-led ballot initiatives.
Critics of the amendment view it as an attempt by the Republican-dominated Legislature to consolidate power at the expense of citizen-led initiatives.
They argue that the language of the ballot question was misleading, which formed the basis for the legal challenge that resulted in Judge Gibson's preliminary injunction.
The Legislature's appeal highlights the ongoing tension between legislative authority and direct democracy through ballot initiatives. It also underscores the time-sensitive nature of electoral matters, with the November 5 election date looming.
The Utah Legislature has appealed a court decision blocking Amendment D from the November ballot. The proposed amendment would affirm lawmakers' authority over citizen-led initiatives. Critics view it as a power grab, while supporters argue for legislative oversight. The Utah Supreme Court is now asked to review the case urgently, with potential implications for the upcoming election and the balance of power in state governance.
