This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it . Please introduce links to this page from related articles ; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (November 2024) |
League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature | |
---|---|
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Full case name | League of Women Voters of Utah, et al. v. Utah State Legislature, et al. |
Decided | July 11, 2024 |
Citation | 2024 UT 21 |
Questions presented | |
Are citizen initiatives that alter or reform the government protected from legislative changes or repeal? | |
Holding | |
The people have the right to alter or reform their government through citizen initiatives. Legislative changes that impair these reforms must be shown to be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. | |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Matthew B. Durrant, Chief Justice John A. Pearce, Associate Chief Justice Paige Peterson, Diana Hagen, Jill Pohlman, Justices |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Peterson, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Utah Const. art. I § 2 Proposition 4 S.B. 200 |
League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature was a 2024 Utah Supreme Court decision regarding the ability of the Utah State Legislature to amend ballot initiatives.
The case arose out of the passage of Proposition 4 by Utah voters in 2018, which made changes to redistricting procedures, including the creation of an independent redistricting commission, designed to stop gerrymandering. Following the passage of Proposition 4, the Utah State Legislature passed S.B. 200, which made multiple changes to Proposition 4, including removing the ban on partisan gerrymandering. [1] In 2021 the Utah State Legislature ignored the recommendations of the independent commission and instead passed their own Congressional map which was widely viewed as gerrymandered. [2] As a result, a number of organizations sued, including the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. The case came before the Utah Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal.
The Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments on July 11, 2023. Observers reported that the justices appeared skeptical of the legislature's arguments. [3] Exactly one year later on July 11, 2024, the court unanimously (5-0) ruled in favor of the League of Women Voters. [4] The court ruled that the people have a constitutional right to "alter or reform their government" and that it is protected from government infringement. Ballot initiatives that alter or reform the government are thus protected from impairment by the state legislature unless the legislature can show that those changes are "narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest." The court then remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
The decision was met with immediate criticism by Republican legislative leaders in the state, who called it “one of the worst outcomes we have ever seen from the Utah Supreme Court.” A month after the ruling, the Utah State Legislature called itself into emergency session to propose a constitutional amendment to undo the Utah Supreme Court's decision. [5] The legislature quickly passed Amendment D and placed it on the ballot for the 2024 elections with opposition from all Democratic and some Republican legislators. The amendment, which would have given the Utah State Legislature the power to amend any ballot initiative in any way it chooses, was criticized as being misleading. The legislature had previously changed the law to allow legislative leaders to write the ballot summary instead of nonpartisan staff. A lawsuit against the amendment was filed, arguing that it was misleading and had not followed a requirement that all proposed amendments be published in newspapers for 60 days prior to an election. A district court judge struck down the amendment, ruling that votes on it would not be counted. On appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, the court affirmed the lower court's decision in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, saying in part that "[n]ot only does the ballot title omit a central feature of Amendment D, but the included language would lead a reasonable voter to believe that the amendment does something entirely different." [6] Utah legislative leaders have indicated that they will try to place a similar amendment on the ballot next year. [7]
Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The State of California first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples from June 16, 2008 to November 5, 2008, a period of approximately 4 months, 2 weeks and 6 days, as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.
The Constitution of the State of Ohio is the basic governing document of the State of Ohio, which in 1803 became the 17th state to join the United States of America. Ohio has had three constitutions since statehood was granted.
Utah is divided into 4 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2010 census, Utah gained one House seat, and a new map was approved by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Gary Herbert.
Electoral reform in the United States refers to the efforts of change for American elections and the electoral system used in the US.
In the United States, a redistricting commission is a body, other than the usual state legislative bodies, established to draw electoral district boundaries. Generally the intent is to avoid gerrymandering, or at least the appearance of gerrymandering, by specifying a nonpartisan or bipartisan body to comprise the commission drawing district boundaries.
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
J. Frederic Voros Jr. is an American jurist, hymnist, and author. He was a judge on the Utah Court of Appeals from 2009 to 2017.
Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.
Redistricting in California has historically been highly controversial. Critics have accused legislators of attempting to protect themselves from competition by gerrymandering districts. Conflicts between the governor and the legislature during redistricting often have only been resolved by the courts.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission. In doing so, the Court expressly rejected a nascent version of the independent state legislature theory.
California Proposition 59 is a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
Redistricting in Wisconsin is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for municipal wards, Wisconsin State Assembly districts, Wisconsin State Senate districts, and Wisconsin's congressional districts. Redistricting typically occurs—as in other U.S. states—once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States census. According to the Wisconsin Constitution, redistricting in Wisconsin follows the regular legislative process, it must be passed by both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and signed by the Governor of Wisconsin—unless the Legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Due to political gridlock, however, it has become common for Wisconsin redistricting to be conducted by courts. The 1982, 1992, and 2002 legislative maps were each enacted by panels of United States federal judges; the 1964 and 2022 maps were enacted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Utah Proposition 4 was a ballot measure narrowly approved as part of the 2018 Utah elections. The proposition created by statute an independent redistricting commission in the state, a measure to avoid gerrymandering.
The 2010 United States redistricting cycle took place following the completion of the 2010 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies re-drew state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives also drew new districts for that legislative body. The resulting new districts were first implemented for the 2011 and 2012 elections.
The 2022 Kansas abortion referendum was a rejected legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the Kansas Constitution that appeared on the ballot on August 2, 2022, alongside primary elections for statewide offices, with early voting from July 13. If enacted, the amendment would have declared that the Kansas Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion, giving the Kansas state government power to prosecute individuals involved in abortions, and further declared that the Kansas government is not required to fund abortions.
Redistricting in Ohio is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for federal congressional and state legislative districts. It has historically been highly controversial. Critics have accused legislators of attempting to protect themselves from competition by gerrymandering districts.
The 2024 Ohio redistricting commission initiative was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, Issue 1 on the ballot, that was defeated 53.7% to 46.3% in the November 2024 election. If passed, the amendment would have replaced the existing politician-led Ohio Redistricting Commission with a citizen-led 15-member Ohio Citizen Redistricting Commission, appointed by retired judges, to redraw congressional and legislative districts.