Across the country, direct democracy has provided some electoral bright spots — including when it comes to democracy itself. The ballot initiative process offers an important means of combating partisan gerrymandering and other self-serving government activity. But as state voters have turned to the initiative, state legislatures have tried to undermine their power. Of late, legislatures have not only attempted to impose barriers, such as signature distribution requirements; they have also tried a sneakier back-end approach: allowing an initiative to come into effect only in order to amend or repeal it.
In League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, the Utah Supreme Court protected government-reform initiatives from such legislative interference.
In 2018, Utah voters approved an initiative requiring the legislature to consider plans produced by an independent commission and prohibiting partisan gerrymandering. Shortly after the 2020 census, however, the Utah legislature repealed the initiated statute and adopted a gerrymandered map favoring Republicans.
The Utah Supreme Court recognized in League of Women Voters that popular sovereignty is central to the state constitutional project. Explicating Article I, Section 2 of the state constitution (“All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require”), the court held that the people have a fundamental right to reform their government through the initiative process. Accordingly, legislation impairing government reform enacted through an initiative is subject to strict scrutiny. Although the state legislature has not abandoned its efforts to subvert the initiative, the court’s unanimous decision is important in its own right and can offer guidance to other state courts considering how to strike a balance between direct and representative democracy under state constitutions.
