554 P.3d 872
Utah2024Background
- In 2018 Utah voters enacted Proposition 4 (the "Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act" or "Better Boundaries") by initiative to prohibit partisan gerrymandering, create neutral redistricting standards, and establish an independent commission plus a private enforcement cause of action.
- Before the 2020 redistricting cycle, the Legislature enacted S.B. 200, which repealed Proposition 4 and replaced it with a statute that weakened or removed Proposition 4’s ban on partisan gerrymandering, made the commission advisory in practice, reduced transparency and eliminated the private enforcement mechanism.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging (Count V) the Legislature violated the Utah Constitution by nullifying the people’s exercise of their initiative power to reform government (Utah Const. art. I, § 2 — the "Alter or Reform Clause" — together with the Initiative Provision, art. VI, § 1). They also asserted separate constitutional challenges to the enacted congressional map (Counts I–IV).
- The district court dismissed Count V (holding the Legislature may repeal or amend initiatives as statutes) but denied dismissal of Counts I–IV. Both sides sought interlocutory review; the Utah Supreme Court granted review of both questions.
- The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Count V, holding the people’s right to alter or reform their government via initiative is constitutionally protected from legislative actions that impair the reform; it remanded for further proceedings and stayed resolution of Counts I–IV pending Count V’s outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Legislature may freely repeal or replace a citizen initiative that effects government reform | Proposition 4 embodied the people’s exercise of the Alter or Reform Clause; repeal/replacement that nullifies the reform infringes a constitutional right | Legislature has general power to amend/repeal statutes (and a voter-enacted initiative is a statute), so it may repeal/replace initiatives without constitutional constraint | Reversed dismissal: legislative repeal/amendment is limited where it impairs a government-reform initiative; such impairments are subject to constitutional protection |
| Whether the Alter or Reform Clause (art. I, § 2) and the Initiative Provision (art. VI, § 1) create a justiciable, self-executing right enforceable in court | The Alter or Reform Clause protects a fundamental, enforceable right to reform government; the initiative is a constitutional means to exercise that right | The provision is aspirational/structural or not self-executing; political branches’ actions on reform are non-justiciable | The Clause is judicially enforceable in this context; when the people use initiatives to reform government, that exercise is protected from undue legislative infringement |
| Standard of review for legislative actions that impair a government-reform initiative | Strict scrutiny applies because the right to reform via initiative is fundamental | Legislative enactments are structural exercises of delegated popular power and should be reviewed only for proper legislative character | If plaintiff proves (1) initiative enacted government reform and (2) legislature’s action impaired that reform, then burden shifts to defendant to show the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest (strict scrutiny) |
| Whether the Court should resolve Counts I–IV (challenges to the congressional map) on interlocutory appeal | Plaintiffs: constitutional claims to the map are ripe but may be mooted if Count V succeeds | Defendants: Court should resolve map-related claims now | Court retained but did not resolve Counts I–IV; remanded Count V first because its resolution may moot the other claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (U.S. 2019) (discussion of partisan gerrymandering concepts and federal nonjusticiability ruling)
- Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (U.S. 2015) (describing partisan gerrymandering and independent commissions)
- Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. 54 (U.S. 2016) (population-equality requirement for districting)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1964) (principle of equal population in congressional districts)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (one person, one vote principle)
- Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (U.S. 1849) (political-question doctrine regarding which government is legitimate)
- Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1912) (political-question limits on judicial intervention in disputes over governmental authority)