Can a constitutional amendment be void due to misleading ballot language? League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature Explained

In a significant ruling affecting the constitutional amendment process, the Utah Supreme Court in League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature affirmed a district court’s preliminary injunction declaring Amendment D void due to constitutional violations in its submission and publication.

Background and Facts

Following the court’s decision in League of Women Voters I, which recognized constitutional limits on the Legislature’s ability to repeal government-reform initiatives, the Legislature convened an emergency special session in August 2024. The Legislature proposed Amendment D, which would eliminate existing constitutional restraints on legislative power to amend or repeal any citizen initiative. The amendment was posted to government websites rather than published in newspapers, and the ballot title described the amendment as “strengthen[ing] the initiative process by . . . [c]larifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.”

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary constitutional challenges under Article XXIII, Section 1: (1) whether the amendment was properly “submitted” to voters under the Submission Clause given allegedly misleading ballot language, and (2) whether the Legislature satisfied the Publication Clause by posting the amendment on government websites rather than publishing it in newspapers for two months.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court established that a proposed constitutional amendment cannot be “submitted” unless it is “placed on the ballot in such words and in such form that the voters are not confused thereby.” Applying this standard, the court found Amendment D’s ballot title would mislead reasonable voters by: (1) omitting that the amendment would eliminate constitutional limits on legislative power, (2) inaccurately claiming it would “clarify” rather than change existing law, (3) falsely suggesting it would affect voters’ ability to amend laws, and (4) misleadingly characterizing legislative expansion of power as “strengthening” the initiative process.

Regarding publication, the court interpreted the constitutional requirement that the Legislature “cause” the amendment “to be published in at least one newspaper in every county” for “two months immediately preceding” the election as requiring continuous newspaper publication, not merely posting on government websites. The court rejected substantial compliance arguments, noting the Legislature made no attempt to comply until purchasing newspaper ads for one week in mid-September.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important precedent for constitutional amendment challenges in Utah. The court adopted an objective “reasonable voter” standard for evaluating ballot language, requiring that titles accurately reflect what voters are being asked to approve or reject. The ruling also confirms that constitutional text controls over policy arguments about modernizing publication requirements—the Legislature cannot circumvent newspaper publication requirements through statute. For practitioners, the decision emphasizes the importance of prompt challenge timing, as constitutional violations in the amendment process cannot be cured once ballots are printed and deadlines have passed.