Ballot Initiatives In Utah: How and Why? - Utah League of Women Voters
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
230 West 200 South, Suite 2114 | Salt Lake City, UT 84101 | Phone 801.272.8683 | lwvutah.org
Ballot Initiatives In Utah: How and Why?
A study by the League of Women Voters of Utah.
The purpose of this study is to inform League members about current and proposed legislation
controlling ballot initiatives in Utah, and to consider whether the use of ballot initiatives to chart
policy leads to good government.
The League of Women Voters of Utah is a non-partisan 501(c)(3) non-profit political
organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government. It
works to increase understanding of major public policy issues and influences public policy
through education and advocacy.
Study Team Members
Kathryn Fitzgerald
Janice Gygi
Sandy Peck, Editor
January 2020INTRODUCTION 1 Comparisons of Laws Governing Direct Initiatives 2 Signature Gathering 2 2019 Legislative Changes in Utah's Initiative Process. 3 H.B. 195, Initiative and Referendum Amendments 3 H.B. 145, Citizen Political Process Amendments 4 HB 133, Initiative Amendments 5 Arguments Opposing the Use of Initiatives 5 Arguments Supporting the Use of Initiatives 7 Incentive for the Legislature 7 Expanding Civil & Voting Rights 8 Electoral Reform 9 Higher Voter Turnout 10 Beating Big Money 10 More Democratic Policy 10 Utah Initiative Protection Act 11 Conclusion 12 List of Sources 13 Appendix: Another Alternative: the Indirect Initiative 16 Discussion and Consensus Questions 17
INTRODUCTION
States have established a variety of ballot initiatives and processes governed by a multitude of
state laws. Currently, of greatest concern to Utahns is the direct initiative, d efined as a measure
1
put directly to a vote of the people after being submitted by petition.
In 2018, Utahns who believed that state legislators were not listening to their constituents
gathered enough signatures to place three initiatives on the ballot: Proposition 2, the Utah
Medical Cannabis Act, Proposition 3, the Medicaid Expansion Act, and Proposition 4,
establishing an independent redistricting commission to advise the legislature on redrawing
legislative and congressional district boundaries. All three were approved by voters, but initiative
supporters have been disappointed by the legislature's responses to their passage. The
Legislature has rewritten Propositions 2 and 3, not yet formally addressed Proposition 4, and, in
addition, amended state laws regarding the initiative process.
In this context, the LWVUT voted to conduct a study of the philosophy and process of direct
initiatives. We will
1. Compare current rules governing the signature gathering process in Utah to rules in
other states,
2. Examine the changes made in the initiative process by the 2019 Legislature and
3. Review arguments for and against using direct initiatives to make policy and law.
With the information gathered, we hope the league will be able to take a position on whether we
support the use of ballot initiatives to make policy and law, and what rules we think should
govern them.
1
“Ballot Initiative,” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_initiative , Access Date: October 26, 2019.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 1Comparisons of Laws Governing Direct Initiatives
It might surprise you to know that only 26 states allow directly initiated ballot measures at all,
and among those, several do not allow citizens to initiate measures that affect state statutes,
though they might allow recall votes or measures addressing the state constitution. Those that
allow citizens to put a proposed new state statute on the ballot vary considerably in the
restrictions they impose. State laws govern every step of the process from proposing a measure
for the ballot to how the legislature can alter a law after it is approved by voters. Here we will
initially focus on signature gathering, comparing Utah's requirements to those of other states, and
then examine other changes the 2019 Legislature made to the ballot initiative process.
Signature Gathering
The two major requirements to qualify for placing a measure on the ballot are the number and
the distribution of signatures. The number of signatures required is always a percentage of the
state's voters, but the base on which that percentage is calculated varies immensely. The
following bases are used by one state or another: the number of actual votes in the previous
general election, the number of registered voters in the previous general election, the number of
votes in the previous presidential election, the number in the previous gubernatorial election, and
even the number of votes cast in the previous election for secretary of state (Colorado). The most
common choice is the number of votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election. The
percentage of that base for determining the actual number of signatures required ranges from 4%
2
to 10%.
To the simple number of signatures required are added distribution requirements. Like Utah,
most states require that the signatures be spread geographically across the state, but they employ
a variety of strategies to ensure that. A couple of examples: Alaska requires the signatures of 7%
3
of the total vote in ¾ of its 40 state house districts in the last general election, while Missouri
requires 5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election in 2/3 of its eight Congressional
4
districts.
Such varied requirements are confusing, yet it is possible to show a range from the most easily
met to most difficult. California clearly has the most lenient requirements, just 5% of the votes
2
“Laws governing ballot measures,” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_ballot_measures, Access
Date: October 26, 2019.
3
“Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Alaska#Number_required.
4
“Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Missouri.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 25
cast for governor in the preceding gubernatorial election with no distribution requirement.
Arkansas, a little more stringent, requires 8% of the vote for governor in the prior election with
6
half of that (4%) coming from at least 15 of Arkansas' 75 counties.
The 2019 Utah legislature made several substantive changes to the initiative process, to be
discussed in detail below, but the distribution requirement remained unchanged: the required
number of signatures must be collected from 90%, or 26 of 29, of state senate districts. This is
the most demanding distribution requirement in the country.
2019 Legislative Changes in Utah's Initiative Process.
The 2019 State Legislature passed three bills pertaining directly to the initiative process, H.B.
195, H.B. 145 and H.B. 133. We summarize the most significant changes below.
H.B. 195, Initiative and Referendum Amendments
H.B. 195 reduced the percent of signatures required from 10% to 8%, but increased the pool of
voters from all who cast ballots in the previous presidential election to Active Voters
(20A-7-201(2)(a). "Active voter" is a term found in federal law, namely the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993. It defines an active voter as someone who has voted in at least one of
the previous two general elections or who has recently updated their voter information. There
exists a federal central database in which every registered voter is listed as "active" or "inactive."
Thus, county clerks can easily consult the list to determine how many active voters they have at
any given time.7 Since active voters include everyone who has voted in either of the previous two
elections, it is guestimated that this will increase the number of required signatures from
approximately 113,000 to 115,000. Reducing the percentage required was an attempt to limit that
8
increase.
H.B. 195 also addressed challenges to signatures, allowing challenges to initiative signatures to
be submitted to courts other than the Utah Supreme Court. (20A-7-207(4)(a-d) Representative
Steven Handy, sponsor of the bill, explained the purpose of the change is to make it "quicker to
get a decision" on challenges to petitions. 9
5
“Laws governing the initiative process in California,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California#Collecting_signatures.
6
“Laws governing the initiative process in Arkansas,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Arkansas#Collecting_signatures.
7
Brenchley, Derek, Deputy Director of Elections, Utah Lt. Governor's Office, in-person interview, October 17, 2019.
8
Handy, Representative Steven, Private Email, September 25, 2019.
9
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 3H.B. 145, Citizen Political Process Amendments
H.B. 145 makes several significant changes to the signature gathering process. First, it
imposes deadlines throughout the signature gathering period for turning in petition packets.
Packets must be turned in on the earliest of the following dates:
● 30 days after the date of the first signature on the packet or
● 316 days after the day on which the application for the initiative petition is filed or
● Feb. 15 before the next regular general election after the application is filed. (This moves
the date back from the previous April 15.) (20A-7-206(1)(a)(i-iii)
Effectively, every petition packet must be submitted to a county clerk 30 days after the date of
the first signature on the packet, but all packets must be turned in by February 15. According to
Representative Norman Thurston, sponsor of H.B. 145, the purpose for the rolling deadlines is to
"decrease [the] burden on clerks and [to give] removers a reasonable chance to contact signers."
(Representative Norman Thurston, Private Email, Sept. 23, 8:30 a.m.) That is, requiring packets
to be turned in on an ongoing basis will give county clerks time to verify and post signatures, and
give those who want to convince signers to remove their names time to search for and contact
such people. Initiative supporters point out that the February 15 deadline increases the difficulty
of collecting signatures in at least three ways: it shortens the time available for collection by two
months, it removes the spring months of warmer weather from the time span, and it crunches the
time available to fulfill other requirements like holding the required statewide public hearings.
HB 145 also imposes deadlines for signature removal. The voter must submit a removal request
by the earliest of the following:
● Within 30 days after signing the request or
● 90 days after the county clerk has posted the signature. This deadline is reduced to
45 days if the packet is filed after Dec. 1. (20A-7-205(3)(a)
A major benefit of these deadlines, according to Rep. Thurston, is that removal sponsors cannot
hide their signature count until it's too late to collect replacements. He says, " Gatherers would
know their status throughout the process and have transparency on the success of a removal
effort." 10
In addition, HB 145 imposes significant new requirements for the form and content of signature
sheets. To initiative supporters, one of the most troubling is that the signer must "read and
understand the law proposed by this petition" (20A-7-203(2)(e) and the signature gatherer must
sign the petition confirming that the signer has read the law. They argue that many laws are so
complicated that even legislators rely on experts to interpret them, and, further, that the
requirement, if followed to the letter, would be so time consuming that it would be impossible to
collect the required number of signatures. Rep. Thurston responds that gatherers have been
known to misrepresent their petition, so voters weren't aware of what they were actually signing.
This requirement ensures that signers know the meaning and effects of the petition before
signing. 11
10
Thurston, Representative Norman K., Private Email, September 23, 2019.
11
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 4HB 133, Initiative Amendments
HB 133 delays the effective date of an initiative approved by the people to 60 days after the end
of the General Legislative Session following voter approval. According to Dixie Huefner, Utah
Citizens' Council, an initiative proponent, this means that "the Legislature can gut or repeal [the
initiative] before it ever takes effect." 12 It ensures that the Legislature gets the final say on any
initiative.
Arguments Opposing the Use of Initiatives
Utahns who supported the 2019 ballot propositions in Utah are understandably incensed that the
State Legislature immediately acted to restrict or undercut two of them and to date have ignored,
at least publicly, the third. They argue that the measures should have been passed into law as
approved by the citizens. Yet, would it be a good idea, even if were were politically feasible, to
restrict the legislature's ability to act on an initiative? To make such a determination, we must
look beyond the three 2018 initiatives to the larger picture. The larger question is whether
voter-passed initiatives are a good way to make policy and law. Some people argue that there are
good reasons for concern about the use of the initiative process. We will address some of these
concerns with the initiative process before addressing the arguments in favor. Two California
initiatives, Proposition 13, passed in 1978, and Proposition 8, passed in 2008, can serve as
illustrations of the sometimes problematic nature of initiatives.
Proposition 13, an amendment to the state constitution, cut property taxes by assessing the value
of the property at the time of purchase at no more than 1% of its purchase price and limiting
increases to no more than 2% a year. In addition, it required a 2/3 majority in both state houses
for future increases of any state tax rates and a 2/3 majority in local elections to raise any local
taxes. Two anti-tax advocates, Howard Jarvis (a Utah transplant) and Paul Gann, wrote the
proposition, funded the campaign and promoted it tirelessly with the drumbeat of radio talk show
13
host Ray Briem. It passed by a large majority.
However, Proposition 13 resulted in unforeseen negative consequences. Because local
governments relied on the property tax for 90% of their revenue for basic services, they suffered
disproportionately from the cut, making them unable to adequately fund local needs including
schools, libraries, parks, health services, police and infrastructure. Critics looking deeper have
14
argued that the Proposition led to less visible consequences as well. Among them: comparable
houses are taxed at vastly different rates, and more power has accrued to the state government to
12
Huefner, Dixie, Utah Citizens' Council. Private Email, Monday, October 14, 2019.
13
Levin, Matt, “What is Prop 13?” CAL Matters, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
http://projects.scpr.org/prop-13/history/.
14
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 515
whom localities have turned because they cannot fund their own needs. Opponents of the ballot
initiative process would argue that this example illustrates at least two of the drawbacks of the
process: the initiative was proposed, written and supported by just two businessmen, not the
general public, and the initiative and campaign elided the interests of the entities most at risk,
who never got the opportunity to make their case. Though Californians were justifiably scared
that increasing tax rates would rob them of their homes, a more thoughtfully-written and
well-vetted proposal, opponents of the initiative process argue, wending its way through normal
legislative processes, might have found ways to ameliorate the crushing effects of the loss of
local property taxes.
Proposition 8, the amendment to California's state constitution banning gay marriage, passed
narrowly with the support of major religious organizations, namely the Catholic Church, the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and many African American churches. In this case,
16
the voice of powerful minorities won the day. In 2012, the decision of a three-judge panel of
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling the amendment unconstitutional withstood further
17
appeals. The amendment was wiped off the books.
Opponents of the initiative process would argue that this case illustrates that, first, the process
can be hijacked by powerful, well-funded interest groups, and second, the initiative can be
written without regard to established precedent.
Representative Norman Thurston, an opponent of the use of ballot initiatives, argues that " In the
normal legislative process, complicated issues go through a refining process to ensure that in
addition to the general direction having support, every detail in the proposal is discussed and
worked out. In many cases, that involves research, revision, and ultimately compromise on
details to ensure sufficient support for constitutionally and fiscally sound policies. Initiatives do
not get that benefit. Instead, whatever the advocates put forward gets an up or down vote -
contrary to our normal legislative process. Without opportunity for review and dialog, the
proposals that passed have proven to be intractable, inadequately funded and even possibly
unconstitutional, which does not make for good policy." 18
As mentioned above, California's requirements for putting an initiative on the ballot are the most
lenient in the country. The simple number of initiatives that can make it to a single ballot can be
a problem. In California's recent history, the highest number of statewide propositions to appear
15
Knight, Nicole, “California’s anti-tax law has ‘robbed’ schools of billions. That could change in 2020. Rewire
News, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
https://rewire.news/article/2018/08/16/californias-anti-tax-law-has-robbed-schools-of-billions-that-could-change-in-
2020/.
16
It is interesting to note that the League of Women Voters of California opposed Prop 8 because "no person or
group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination." “2008 California Proposition 8., Wikipedia,
Access Date: October 26, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8#Proponents.
17
Cilliza, Chris & Sullivan, Sean, “How Proposition 8 passed in California - and why it wouldn’t today,” The
Washington Post, March 26, 2013.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/26/how-proposition-8-passed-in-california-and-why-it-
wouldnt-today/.
18
Thurston, Representative Norman, Private Email, September 23, 2019.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 619
on a single ballot was 45 in 1990 Since then, the state has imposed various restrictions, such
as a filing fee and limiting ballot propositions to even years. However, the average number of
20
propositions is still high: 13 per ballot. The concern is whether voters can be well enough
informed to make the best decisions on all the initiatives.
In summary, the arguments that ballot initiatives do not make good law include the following:
● It is possible for the process to be hijacked by well-funded, narrowly-focused special
interest groups.
● Ballot initiatives, not required to be vetted by any representative body, can fail to address
the concerns of all stakeholdersThe process requires engaged, informed voters to make
wise choices. Especially when there are several initiatives on the ballot, it may be
impossible for voters to perform the necessary research to fully understand them.
● The public information process can be hijacked by special interests who oversimplify or
mislead voters in TV and social media advertising.
● Initiatives can be poorly written by groups who do not understand how laws should be
formulated, thus confusing voters and creating bad law leading to expensive lawsuits.
Arguments Supporting the Use of Initiatives
What are the advantages of ballot initiatives? Proponents make the following arguments.
Incentive for the Legislature
Proponents argue that legislatures are more likely to enact reforms if the initiative mechanism
exists. Three examples of this have occurred recently in Utah.
For the 2014 election, Count My Vote petitions were circulated. Contending that political parties
had too much control of the caucus-convention system, resulting in nominating extreme
candidates who are out of the political mainstream, the initiative required a direct primary
election. The proposition was pulled when the legislature negotiated and passed SB54, a hybrid
option that allows candidates to qualify for a primary either by collecting signatures or through
the political convention. The Republican party brought a suit against the law, but lost the case.
Rich McKeown, executive co-chairman of Count My Vote, stated, “We were happy with a
19
“California 1914 ballot propositions,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_1914_ballot_propositions.
20
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 7hybrid solution, . . . But . . . there is a group that believes it has to be one way.” In response to
this, Count My Vote circulated petitions for a proposition for a direct primary to appear on the
2018 ballot, but fell short of the required number of signatures.21
For the 2018 election, the Our Schools Now initiative was circulated as a non-binding question.
The question was to read, “To provide additional funding for public education and local roads,
should the state increase the state motor and special fuel tax rates by the equivalent of 10 cents
per gallon?” Our Schools Now agreed to pull the proposition after a compromise was reached
with the legislature. Instead of the roughly $700 million that the proposition projected would be
raised by increasing motor and special fuel tax rates , the legislature offered a $350 million
adjustment of property, income, and gas tax adjustments.22
Third, Representative Norman Thurston gave the example of a recent law passed by the
legislature. “The retail merchants threatened that if the legislature did not allow higher alcohol
content beer to be sold in supermarkets . . . they were prepared to bring in several million dollars
in outside funding to push through an initiative. . . I believe that the threat of this initiative was
key for the passage of the bill increasing the alcohol content for retail beer.”23
Expanding Civil & Voting Rights
In some cases, initiatives have been used to expand civil rights when legislatures had suppressed
them. A major voter suppression tactic has been the refusal to allow convicted felons to vote
after their release from prison. In several states, this has disproportionately affected black votes.
In the 2018 election, Florida voted to restore voting rights to former felons when they completed
their prison sentences. It was reported that the results of this initiative will re-enfranchise 1.4
million former felons.24
Due to an initiative in Louisiana, voters repealed a law allowing non-unanimous juries in felony
trials. This law was also found to disproportionately impact African American felons. Colorado
voters “amended their constitution to prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as
punishment for a crime.”25
21
Davidson, Lee, "Count My Vote launches voter petition to dump party conventions in favor of direct primary
elections,"# The Salt Lake Tribune, September 28, 2017.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/09/27/count-my-vote-launches-voter-petition-to-dump-party-conventions
-in-favor-of-direct-primary-elections/.
22
Wood, Benjamin, "Utah Voters have a crowded ballot this year. Here’s what all the questions, propositions and
amendments are about," The Salt Lake Tribune, October 18, 2018.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/09/02/utah-voters-have-crowded/.
23
Thurston, Representative Norman K., Private email, September 23, 2019.
24
Cohen, Ilana, "The power of ballot initiatives," Harvard Political Review, December 10, 2018.
https://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-power-of-ballot-initiatives/.
25
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 8However, the initiative process is a double-edged sword, as is illustrated in San Juan County,
Utah, a county whose population is fairly evenly divided between Navajos and more recent
settlers. Due to a court judgment against the county’s voting district map, a federally mandated
map was drawn that in 2018 resulted in the first ever Navajo majority on the 3-person county
commission. Soon thereafter, Blanding Mayor Joe B. Lyman and Monticello Mayor Tim Young
with three other county residents spearheaded a campaign that collected enough signatures to put
an initiative on the ballot. The ballot question asked voters whether to appoint a committee to
propose a new form of government.26 When accused of attempting to undermine the current
Navajo majority commission, Lyman responded that his “motivation [was] restoring
representation to Blanding.”27 If successful, this effort would have reversed recent progress in
ensuring a voice for Navajos in the county government.
Electoral Reform
If a change in law seems to be against the interest of legislators, an initiative may be the only
way to effect change. For example, although a majority of voters support campaign finance
reform, legislators who benefit from outside money to help pay for expensive campaigns may
hesitate to support it. In the last election, New Yorkers supported an initiative that would expand
the city’s public matching funds program. The hope is that providing $8 for every $1 raised will
encourage the use of small donations for grassroots candidates. A Massachusetts initiative
establishes “a citizens’ commission to examine the potential for repealing the infamous Citizens
United decision.” 28
Gerrymandering is a practice that tends to skew elections by manipulating voting district
boundaries. It has been suggested that this is a way for politicians to select their voters rather
than voters selecting the politicians. Colorado passed two amendments by initiative establishing
“independent redistricting commissions on both congressional and state legislative levels.” 29
One of the three propositions that passed in Utah in 2018 also established an independent
commission for redistricting. Because the legislature has the final say on all laws, this may be
changed before the time comes to redraw the districts, but it has the potential to make
redistricting more fair to all political parties.
26
“Prop 10 Appears to Lag in San Juan,” Zak Podmore, Salt Lake Tribune, November 7, 2019.
27
https://www.kuer.org/post/special-election-san-juan-county-leads-questions-confusion#stream/.
28
Cohen, Ilana, "The power of ballot initiatives," Harvard Political Review, December 10, 2018.
https://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-power-of-ballot-initiatives/.
29
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 9Higher Voter Turnout
“Studies have consistently shown that entrusting citizens with the ballot initiative process results
in more people voting.” 30
Voter turnout is generally lower in a midterm year, but in 2018, with three propositions on the
Utah ballot, the percentage of active, registered voters who voted climbed from 46% in the
previous midterm election (2014) to 75% in 2018. Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox, who oversees elections
in the state, said that the turnout was “incredible.” He attributed the turnout to a number of
factors, one of which was the statewide ballot initiatives. Proposition 2, the legalization of
medical marijuana, “saw the highest number of total votes cast of any question on the ballot,”
including the senatorial race between Mitt Romney and Jenny Wilson. 31
Beating Big Money
Big money can provide funding for citizen initiatives as Rep. Norman Thurston indicated above.
However, initiative supporters argue the average citizen is probably less likely to be swayed by
outside money than the politicians themselves. "Multiple studies reveal that citizens tend to favor
'grassroots' initiatives over 'big money' initiatives, whereas legislators usually vote on the side of
big money.” An example is when “the citizens of California enacted term limits despite being
outspent by a greater than 6 to 1 margin.” 32
More Democratic Policy
“ Ballot initiatives allow citizens to enact meaningful policy changes that otherwise have little
chance of being passed by politicians. Just like legislators, voters can pass bad laws or fail to
pass good ones. But historically, voters have a far better record.” 33
Initiatives are a form of direct democracy that allow citizens to go over the heads of the
legislature to write and pass laws, allowing citizens to bypass a particularly recalcitrant,
unresponsive state legislature. An example of this is Proposition 3, the Medicaid expansion
initiative, which was on the Utah ballot in 2018. In support of this initiative, the Salt Lake
Tribune said: " The people of Utah have already left more than a billion dollars in federal support
30
“Benefits of initiatives,” Citizens in Charge. Access date: October 19, 2019.
http://www.citizensincharge.org/learn/benefits-of-initiatives.
31
Wood, Benjamin, "Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox praises 'ridiculous' jump in Utah voter turnout after statewide canvass of
election results," The Salt Lake Tribune, November 26, 2018.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/11/26/lt-gov-spencer-cox/.
32
“Benefits of initiatives,” Citizens in Charge. A ccess date: October 19, 2019.
http://www.citizensincharge.org/learn/benefits-of-initiatives.
33
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 10on the table over the last five years due to our stubborn, partisan and hurtful refusal to go along
with the provisions of the original Affordable Care Act and expand eligibility for Medicaid to
thousands of our uninsured relatives and neighbors. If Prop 3 passes, Utah voters will have
commanded their reticent state government to accept the expansion, take the money, and provide
coverage to some 150,000 working and low-income Utahns who now, through no fault of their
own, lack the kind of access to health care that the residents of 33 other states -- and every nation
considered civilized -- take for granted.” 34Although the proposition passed with 53.32% of the
vote, the legislature elected to repeal and replace it with a bill that adds some some services to
those available before the election but appreciably cuts the services required in Proposition 3.35
To summarize, proponents of the initiative process argue that
● legislatures are more likely to enact reforms if the initiative mechanism exists,
● if a change in law seems to be against the interest of legislators, an initiative may be the
only way to effect change,
● initiatives tend to increase voter engagement and turnout,
● initiatives are a form of direct democracy that allows citizens to go over the heads of the
legislature to write and pass laws.
Utah Initiative Protection Act
Propositions 2, 3, and 4 all passed in the 2018 election, but the legislature has already made
substantial changes to Propositions 2 and 3, and it is assumed that they will alter Proposition 4 as
the deadline for creating voting districts approaches. “Utah is one of 11 states that have no
restrictions on legislative alterations, which means the legislature can amend or repeal initiated
state statutes with a simple majority vote at any time.” 36
The legislature rewrote and weakened Proposition 2, The Medical Marijuana Initiative, and
Proposition 3, Medicaid Expansion, both of which had been passed by the electorate in the 2018
election. In response to this, Steve Urquhart, a Republican former state senator, and Christine
Stenquist, president of the medical marijuana advocacy group, TRUCE, put forth a proposal that
would make it more difficult for the legislature to override the will of the people. 37
The proposed Utah Initiative Protection Act reads as follows:
“After citizens pass a law by initiative, subsequent legislative repeal or substantive amendments
to the law would need to be ratified by voters at the next general election to become effective.’ 38
34
“Tribune editorial: Vote yes on Utah Propositions 2, 3, and 4,” The Salt Lake Tribune, October 14, 2018.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2018/10/14/tribune-editorial-vote/
35
“Utah proposition 3, medicaid expansion initiative (2018),” Ballotpedia, accessed October 19, 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Proposition_3,_Medicaid_Expansion_Initiative_(2018).
36
Ibid.
37
“The Utah Initiative Protection Act,” Facebook, Access Date: October 19, 2019. facebook.com/utahipa/.
38
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 11The legalities involved in this were stated on the group’s Facebook page.
“Article VI, Section 1 [of the Utah Constitution] establishes, “(1) The Legislative power of the
State shall be vested in: (a) a Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the
Legislature of the State of Utah; and (b) the people of the State of Utah as provided in Subsection
(2).” Subsection (2) authorizes initiatives. Importantly, it states that initiatives are
constitutionally authorized “in the numbers, under the conditions, in the manner, and within the
time provided by statute.” The language of Subsection (2) gives lawmakers - (and remember,
citizens are also lawmakers in Utah) - wide latitude in determining the specifics of of Utah’s
initiative process. One lawmaking body (the Legislature) has used that latitude to seriously check
the power of the other lawmaking body (the citizens).” 39
The Utah Initiative Protection Act will be presented to the Legislature, but the probability of
passage is small. If the Legislature chooses not to pass it, the group is prepared to take it to the
people as an initiative in the 2022 election.
Putting a proposition on the ballot is an expensive and time-consuming process, making it
frustrating to the sponsors when the proposition is substantively changed after the citizens have
ratified it. On the Facebook page, the comment was made by Tina Ream: “For many of my friends
and myself, this is the first time we had gone out and voted for anything. We did because I wanted
it and we passed it! Utah turned around and basically slapped us in the face and let us know that us
voting means nothing. They say lots of people don’t vote? I wonder why. They should be ashamed
of themselves.” 40
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to present an unbiased overview of the complex factors surrounding
the use of ballot initiatives to make policy and law. The final assessment of this information is up
to League members. We have briefly summarized typical features of the initiative process in
other states to compare to Utah's processes, have examined significant changes made by the 2019
legislature to Utah law governing our process, and have reviewed examples of negative impacts
and discussed arguments in favor of using the initiative process. Now it is League members' turn
to judge what positions League should take regarding the use of ballot initiatives.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 12List of Sources
“Ballot Initiative,” Ballotpedia, h ttps://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_initiative. Access Date: October
26, 2019.
“Benefits of initiatives,” Citizens in Charge.
http://www.citizensincharge.org/learn/benefits-of-initiatives, accessed October 19, 2019.
Cilliza, Chris & Sullivan, Sean, “How Proposition 8 passed in California - and why it wouldn’t
today,” The Washington Post, March 26, 2013.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/26/how-proposition-8-passed-in-calif
ornia-and-why-it-wouldnt-today/.
Brenchley, Derek, Deputy Director of Elections, Lieutenant Governor's Office, Utah. Interview,
October 17, 2019.
“California 1914 ballot propositions,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_1914_ballot_propositions.
Chambless, Tim, Private Email, September 30, 2019, 8:05 p.m.
Cohen, Ilana, "The power of ballot initiatives," Harvard Political Review, December 10, 2018.
https://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-power-of-ballot-initiatives/.
The Council of State Governments
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/elections-101-initiatives-referendums-and-other-ballot
-propositions. Access Date: October 26, 2019.
Davidson, Lee, "Count My Vote launches voter petition to dump party conventions in favor of
direct primary elections,"# The Salt Lake Tribune, September 28, 2017.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/09/27/count-my-vote-launches-voter-petition-to-dum
p-party-conventions-in-favor-of-direct-primary-elections/.
Daw, Brad M., House of Representatives, Utah State Legislature. Private Email, September 23,
2019, 9:44 a.m.
Handy, Stephen G., House of Representatives, Utah State Legislature, Private Email, September
25, 2019, 12:53 p.m.
Huefner, Dixie, Utah Citizens' Council. Private Email, Monday, October 14, 2019.
Knight, Nicole, “California’s anti-tax law has ‘robbed’ schools of billions. That could change in
ccess Date: October 26, 2019.
2020. Rewire News, A
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 13https://rewire.news/article/2018/08/16/californias-anti-tax-law-has-robbed-schools-of-billions-th
at-could-change-in-2020/.
“Laws governing ballot measures,” Ballotpedia,
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_ballot_measures. Access Date: October 26, 2019.
“Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Alaska#Number_required
ccess Date: October 26,
“Laws governing the initiative process in Arkansas,” Ballotpedia, A
2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Arkansas#Collecting_signatur
es.
“Laws governing the initiative process in California,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26,
2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California#Collecting_signatu
res
“Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri,” Ballotpedia, Access Date: October 26,
2019. https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Missouri.
Levin, Matt, “What is Prop 13?” CAL Matters, Access Date: October 26, 2019.
http://projects.scpr.org/prop-13/history/.
ccess
Longley, Robert, “Direct Democracy: Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons,” ThoughtCo. A
Date: October 26, 2019. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-direct-democracy-3322038.
Lumen: American Government
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/amgovernment/chapter/direct-democracy. Access Date:
October 26, 2019.
Salt Lake Tribune, “Prop 10 Appears to Lag in San Juan,” November 7, 2019.
Thurston, Norman K., House of Representatives, Utah State Legislature, Private Emails,
September 23, 8:30 a.m. and 4:05 p.m.
ccess Date: October 26, 2019.
“2008 California Proposition 8., Wikipedia, A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8#Proponents.
“The Utah Initiative Protection Act,” Facebook, Access Date: October 19, 2019.
facebook.com/utahipa/.
“Utah proposition 3, medicaid expansion initiative (2018),” Ballotpedia, accessed October 19,
2019. https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Proposition_3,_Medicaid_Expansion_Initiative_(2018).
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 14Wood, Benjamin, "Utah Voters have a crowded ballot this year. Here’s what all the questions,
propositions and amendments are about," The Salt Lake Tribune, October 18, 2018.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/09/02/utah-voters-have-crowded/.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 15Appendix: Another Alternative: the Indirect Initiative
This study has addressed direct initiatives, those that allow citizens to put a proposal directly on
the ballot. All the initiatives discussed here have been of this type, but the state of Utah allows
indirect initiatives as well. Indirect initiatives are also proposed by the people, but are submitted
to the state legislature rather than put on the ballot. The legislature must vote the initiative up or
down. If it rejects the initiative, it can go to the people if enough additional signatures are
collected. However, even if placed on the ballot and approved, the initiative can still go back to
the legislature for further action. The advantage of the indirect initiative is that it requires just
half the number of signatures to be presented to the legislature as a direct initiative requires. It
might exert pressure on the legislature with a lesser signature collection burden.
Below is Deputy Director of Elections Derek Brenchley's summary of the steps in this
little-known process.
(1) [Sponsors] file an application with the Lieutenant Governor's Office.
(2) Review by the Lieutenant Governor.
(3) Preparation of the Initial Fiscal Impact Estimate.
(4) Sponsors hold public hearings throughout the state.
(5) Sponsors collect petition signatures. The requirement for initiatives submitted to the
legislature is 57,935 signatures, half of the usual 115,869 signature requirement.
(6) Sponsors submit petition signatures before November 15. This submission deadline is
three months earlier than other initiative petitions.
(7) Signature verification and evaluation. If the petition meets the signature requirement,
the Lt. Governor's Office will deliver the proposed law to the legislature. This is where
the process diverges from initiatives that are placed on the ballot.
(8) The legislature must consider the proposed law, and they must either enact or reject it
without change or amendment (besides technical corrections).
(9) If the legislature rejects the proposed law, sponsors can collect the additional 57,935
signatures to place it on the ballot. 41 42
To Benchley's knowledge, this alternative has never been used. 43
41
Utah State Code 20A-7-208, 20A-1-201 – 20A-7-207.
42
Brenchley, Derek. Private email, October 25, 2019.
43
Ibid.
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 16Discussion and Consensus Questions
Discussion Questions
1. Discuss the differences among states in the initiative process. How does Utah stack up?
2. What are the advantages of using the initiative process to make law? Disadvantages?
3. Do you think it is a good idea to limit the changes the legislature can make to a
voter-approved initiative? If so, what changes do you think they should/should not be
allowed to make?
4. What changes in current law would you like to see?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Initiative Protection Act?
Consensus Questions
1. Is the initiative process a good way to make policy and law? Why or why not?
2. Would you favor making the initiative process easier or more difficult? Why? How
would you determine whether it was easier or more difficult?
3. Would you like to limit the changes the legislature can make to a voter-approved
initiative? If so, what limits do you want to see imposed?
LWV Utah Ballot Initiatives in Utah: How and Why Page 17You can also read
