On Wednesday, the Utah Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling voiding Amendment D from the ballot. The proposed constitutional change sought to give lawmakers almost unlimited authority to veto ballot measures approved by voters.
In an unsigned opinion, the justices agreed with the lower court that the ballot language was misleading and would confuse voters and that the Legislature did not comply with the archaic constitutional requirement to publish the proposed amendment in newspapers for two months ahead of the election.
Wednesday's ruling was the latest development in the ongoing legal battle over Prop. 4, known as "Better Boundaries," the voter-approved ballot initiative that established an independent commission to remove redistricting from lawmakers' hands.
Lawmakers gutted Prop. 4 before it could go into effect, removing the independent commission's map-making authority and returning that power to themselves.
A coalition of groups sued, and a lower court ruled the Legislature overstepped its authority by drastically changing the initiative. The Utah Supreme Court upheld that ruling. In response, the Legislature held an emergency session to put Amendment D on the ballot.
The short-term impact is that the amendment will appear on the ballot because it was too late to print new ones, and any votes will not be counted.
The long-term impact could be much more consequential.
Utah could have new political maps for the 2026 election.
The Prop. 4 issue is now in the hands of a Utah District Court judge. If the Legislature cannot show a compelling interest in the wholesale changes it made to the initiative, the maps approved by lawmakers in 2021 will likely be thrown out.
Lawmakers must comply with the initiative's requirements if they are forced to draw new maps. They would not be allowed to use partisan voter data or consider where current officeholders live. The new districts would be required to keep cities and counties together whenever possible and not break up neighborhoods and communities of interest.
New maps would undoubtedly scramble the Legislature's composition where Republicans have a supermajority in both chambers. They control the Utah Senate by a 23-6 margin and the House 59-16.
Excluding partisan data could make elections much more competitive. According to data from Dave's Redistricting, the current maps give Republicans a partisan advantage in 23 of 29 State Senate districts and 60 of 75 House Districts. Just two Senate districts and six House districts favor Democrats.
Using the 2021 map proposals from the independent commission, the number of Republican-leaning House districts drops to 49, while the number of Democratic-leaning districts increases to 13. The change in the Senate would be less pronounced, with 22 GOP-leaning seats and three favoring Democrats.
The number of competitive seats would increase as well. Currently, just nine House districts can be considered competitive. Under the independent map proposal, that number rises to 13. The number of competitive Senate seats would remain the same.
Additionally, incumbents could likely be moved into the same district as another legislator, forcing them to run against each other, causing a further shakeup.
Utah's congressional maps would almost certainly see one of the four districts move from solidly Republican to more competitive for Democrats.
The future of the caucus system could be hanging in the balance.
Now that lawmakers don't have veto power over citizen initiatives, an already planned ballot initiative to remove party caucuses from the candidate nomination process will move forward.
The proposal would radically change Utah's elections. Currently, candidates can qualify for the primary election through collecting signatures or the party caucus and convention system. If two or more qualify from the same party, the candidate who receives the most votes in a primary election advances to the November election.
The "People 4 Utah" proposal puts all the candidates for an elected office on a single primary ballot. Regardless of political party, the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election. A race could feature two Republicans or two Democrats. Currently, five states use some sort of top-two primary system.
If the proposal qualifies for the ballot, voters will likely approve it. With Amendment D voided, lawmakers won't be able to step in to save the caucus system.
In 2014, a group known as Count My Vote was preparing a ballot initiative to end the caucus system. Public polling at the time showed it was headed toward passage if it made the ballot. Lawmakers saw the threat and negotiated a compromise with the initiative organizers, known as SB54, which created the signature path to the ballot.
Legislative response
Don't expect the GOP-controlled Legislature to idly stand by while its hammerlock on the state is threatened. There's a whole menu of actions available to them.
In recent years, lawmakers have made the already difficult process of placing a citizen initiative on the ballot even harder by imposing strict limits on the use of paid signature-gathering firms. They could pass legislation to raise the signature threshold or reduce organizers' time to collect signatures.
If a court orders the drawing of new maps, the Legislature could drag its feet and delay the process or come up with maps that run counter to the court's order, prompting further legal challenges and even more delays.
Earlier this year, a federal judge ordered Mississippi to draw new legislative maps because the current boundaries diluted the voting power of Black residents and violated the Voting Rights Act. Mississippi Republicans have argued that the court-ordered timeline for drawing new maps and holding special elections in the new districts this year is too short.
Photo by Beth Wilson/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0