Does Utah's constitution permit purely advisory ballot initiatives? Proulx v. Salt Lake City Recorder Explained

The Utah Supreme Court addressed a fundamental question about the scope of Utah’s initiative power in Proulx v. Salt Lake City Recorder, clarifying that the state constitution does not permit purely advisory ballot initiatives.

Background and Facts

A group called Move to Amend Salt Lake submitted a petition to place an advisory initiative on Salt Lake City’s November 2012 ballot. The initiative would have declared that corporations are not people and that money is not speech, while instructing state and federal representatives to support a constitutional amendment to that effect. Salt Lake City’s Law Department determined the petition failed to constitute proper legislation under Utah law and rejected it. Caleb Proulx, a registered Salt Lake City voter, filed a petition for extraordinary relief seeking to compel the city recorder to place the initiative on the ballot.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah’s constitutional initiative power encompasses purely advisory measures that lack binding legal effect. The Court examined the meaning of “legislation” under Article VI of the Utah Constitution, which grants voters the power to “initiate any desired legislation.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court applied standard dictionary definitions and constitutional interpretation principles to conclude that “legislation” means law with positive, binding effect. Citing Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court defined legislation as “the process of making or enacting a positive law” that is “applied and enforced in the courts.” The proposed advisory resolution, while expressing policy preferences, would not constitute binding law and therefore fell outside the scope of Utah’s initiative power. The Court reaffirmed its 1936 precedent in White v. Welling, which established that initiative petitions must have “the characteristics or attributes of a law.”

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear boundaries for Utah’s initiative process. Practitioners should understand that successful initiatives must propose measures with binding legal effect, not merely express opinions or policy preferences. The ruling also confirms that election officials have authority to reject legally insufficient petitions and provides guidance for evaluating whether proposed initiatives constitute proper “legislation” under Utah’s constitutional framework.