Utah Supreme Court
Can voters force a referendum on laws that amend their initiatives? Grant v. Herbert Explained
Summary
Petitioners sought extraordinary relief after the Lieutenant Governor denied their referendum application targeting H.B. 3001, which the legislature passed by supermajority to replace voter-approved Proposition 2 (the Utah Medical Cannabis Act). The Supreme Court dismissed most claims for failing to meet Rule 19 requirements but addressed two legal issues on the merits.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Grant v. Herbert, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether voters can challenge legislative amendments to their own initiatives through the referendum process, delivering important guidance on the scope of referendum rights and extraordinary relief procedures.
Background and Facts
Utah voters approved Proposition 2, the Utah Medical Cannabis Act, in the 2018 general election. Before the law took effect, Governor Herbert called a special legislative session. The legislature passed H.B. 3001 by supermajority in both houses, replacing Proposition 2 with its own version of medical cannabis legislation. Petitioners immediately filed a referendum application to allow voters to approve or reject H.B. 3001, but the Lieutenant Governor denied the application because the bill passed by more than a two-thirds vote in each house.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: whether the Governor exceeded his authority by effectively “vetoing” Proposition 2 through calling a special session, and whether the constitutional and statutory two-thirds provisions that exempt supermajority-passed laws from referendum apply to legislation that amends citizen initiatives.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court rejected petitioners’ arguments on both issues. First, the Governor did not “veto” Proposition 2 but merely exercised his constitutional authority to convene a special session—the legislature itself chose to amend the initiative. Second, the court applied plain language interpretation to Article VI, Section 1(2)(a)(i)(B), finding that the two-thirds provision applies to “any law passed by the Legislature” without distinction between original legislation and amendments to initiatives.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that legislative supermajorities can effectively shield their amendments to voter initiatives from referendum challenges. For practitioners, the court’s Rule 19 analysis provides crucial guidance on extraordinary relief petitions, emphasizing the need to demonstrate why district court proceedings are inadequate and why no other remedy exists.
Case Details
Case Name
Grant v. Herbert
Citation
2019 UT 42
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20180997
Date Decided
August 6, 2019
Outcome
Dismissed
Holding
The two-thirds constitutional and statutory provisions that exempt laws passed by supermajorities from referendum apply to all laws passed by the legislature, including those that amend citizen initiatives.
Standard of Review
Discretionary review for extraordinary relief petitions
Practice Tip
When filing extraordinary relief petitions directly in the Utah Supreme Court, ensure compliance with Rule 19 by demonstrating no other adequate remedy exists and explaining why district court filing is impractical.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.