FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 5, 2025
CONTACT: Corey Astill • info@summit-institute-law.org

Summit Institute for Law and Policy is committed to upholding the foundational principles of the Utah Constitution, including the separation of powers and judicial restraint. We believe courts should interpret the law faithfully, without expanding their role to reshape government structures. In its July 11, 2024, ruling in League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (“League”), the Utah Supreme Court, in our view, overstepped these bounds. The decision creates an unprecedented shield for certain citizen initiatives, elevating them above ordinary statutes and limiting the Legislature’s ability to amend or repeal laws passed by voters. This primer outlines the case’s background, the court’s reasoning, and why we see it as a troubling departure from constitutional norms.

Redistricting occurs every decade after the U.S. Census to adjust electoral districts for population shifts, aiming for fair representation. However, it has long been contentious, with accusations of “partisan gerrymandering”—manipulating boundaries to benefit one party over others.

In 2018, Utah voters approved Proposition 4, known as “Better Boundaries,” a citizen initiative that established an independent commission to recommend district maps, prohibited gerrymandering, and imposed neutral criteria like compact districts and community preservation. The Legislature was required to consider these recommendations and justify any deviations if it chose its own maps.

In 2020, before the next redistricting cycle, the Utah Legislature enacted Senate Bill 200 (S.B. 200), amending Proposition 4 with a revised framework. This new law maintained an advisory commission but made its role non-binding, removed the strict gerrymandering ban, and adjusted transparency rules.

Plaintiffs, led by the League of Women Voters, challenged this as a violation of the Utah Constitution, arguing it undermined voters’ right to reform government through initiatives. The district court dismissed this key claim (Count V), but the Supreme Court revived it on appeal.

From our perspective at the Summit Institute, this dispute underscores a core constitutional principle: While voters may initiate laws under Article VI, Section 1, those initiatives, once approved by a majority, become statutes under the law with the same force as laws enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. As such, a law passed through initiative should be equally subject to modification, amendment, or repeal by the Legislature as would a typical statute. Under this plain reading of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature’s action on Proposition 4 was a valid exercise of its constitutional authority.

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Jill M. Petersen, the Utah Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Count V and remanded the case for further review. It focused on two constitutional provisions:

• Article VI, Section 1 (Initiative Power): This allows voters to pass laws directly by initiative, resulting in a statute on equal footing with a bill passed by the Legislature.
   
• Article I, Section 2 (Alter or Reform Clause): This affirms that power resides in the people, who may “alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.”
   

The court ruled that when initiatives enact “government reforms”—like Proposition 4’s redistricting changes—they gain special protection from legislative interference. Any amendment or repeal by the Legislature that would “impair” these reforms must survive “strict scrutiny,” a rigorous test requiring the government to show the changes are narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. The court pointed to limited historical evidence from Utah’s 1895 constitutional convention to argue this protects against government overreach.

We at the Summit Institute respectfully disagree. This interpretation invents an entirely new category of “super-statutes” for reform initiatives, placing them beyond the Legislature’s routine authority to amend laws—a power explicitly granted in the constitution. In doing so, the court disrupts the co-equal status between the people and the Legislature, potentially allowing initiatives to lock in policies without democratic accountability. Historical records emphasize popular sovereignty but do not support removing initiatives from elected representatives. The ruling risks judicial activism, where courts decide what qualifies as “reform” and second-guess legislative decisions.

The court left the fate of S.B. 200 and the 2021 maps unresolved, remanding Count V while holding other claims in abeyance. On remand, the district court sided with the plaintiffs in spring 2025, striking down S.B. 200 and reinstating Proposition 4—a decision that led to the Legislature’s request for a stay pending appeal, which was denied in September 2025, with map redrawing now underway.

The Utah Supreme Court’s ruling risks empowering a wave of future initiatives on issues like taxes or education by making them harder to amend. That threatens to erode Utah’s republican framework of representative government. The state constitution vests lawmaking power in both the people and the Legislature, yet this decision tips the balance, and will surely fuel more litigation and limit the ability of elected officials to respond to evolving needs.

It also invites heavier use of the initiative process, with millions of dollars of outside funding flowing into Utah to push measures that, once passed, could only be undone by another initiative or constitutional amendment.

At the Summit Institute, we call for judicial restraint: courts should enforce the constitution’s text, not stretch it to elevate direct democracy over representative government. This case highlights the need for balance—protecting voter input while protecting the Legislature’s ability to govern. As the appeals process unfolds, Utahns should watch closely. The outcome will shape how accountable and effective our system of government remains.

About the Summit Institute for Law & Policy
The Summit Institute for Law & Policy is dedicated to advancing constitutional integrity and promoting judicial restraint through nonpartisan education and research. Our mission is to help citizens understand the principles that underpin our government, ensuring that laws and court decisions align with the original meaning of constitutions while respecting the balance of powers.