Utah Senate President Stuart Adams and House Majority Leader Mike Schultz are backing a constitutional amendment that would let the Utah Legislature modify or veto laws passed by voter initiatives. They argue this move preserves the voice of the people while allowing lawmakers to refine policies.
Lawmakers are set to vote on the amendment in a special session on Wednesday. If two-thirds support it, Utah voters will see it on the November ballot.
Adams and Schultz discussed the amendment in interviews, emphasizing that they aren’t trying to change the initiative process but want to restore how it’s been for the past 130 years. Schultz noted, “We’re just asking to keep things the way they’ve been.”
The amendment would allow the legislature to amend or repeal laws passed by voters, extend the signature collection period for referendums, and ban foreign entities from contributing to ballot initiatives.
Supporters say the amendment is necessary to protect Utah’s legislative process from outside influences. Adams pointed out that other states have faced foreign interference in their initiatives and that Utah should act to prevent this.
However, the amendment has its critics. Some groups argue it would disrupt the balance of power between Utah’s legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Rep. Brian King, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, called it “a blatant abuse of authority.”
Adams and Schultz maintain that the amendment is about preserving Utah voters’ control over their laws. They highlighted how the legislature has worked with stakeholders in the past to improve initiatives, like when lawmakers adjusted the medical marijuana initiative to focus on true medical use while removing unintended consequences.
Schultz expressed concerns that without this amendment, Utah could face the same problems as California, where initiatives often lead to budget issues due to special interest influence.
If the amendment passes, Schultz believes Utahns should be proud of the process, as it allows them to make the final decision. He added that this amendment might not be the last conversation about Utah’s political processes, suggesting that judicial appointments could also be re-evaluated in the future.