In a decisive move with far-reaching implications, 3rd District Court Judge Dianna Gibson has ruled to block Amendment D from appearing on the November ballot, citing misleading language that could deceive voters regarding its true intent. Deviating from the claims of providing a summary that allows "a free, intelligent and informed vote," Gibson asserted the legislature's description falls short of transparency. According to KSL, the judge's ruling criticized the legislative summary for not accurately reflecting the amendment's potential to let lawmakers override ballot initiatives passed by the people.
While the Lt. Governor's office refrained from engaging in the legal debate during Wednesday’s emergency hearing, they requested an allowance for printing ballots with Amendment D included, should an injunction be granted. Describing a dilemma of cost and timing, state representatives highlighted a potential $3 million expense to rewrite and reprint ballots. As FOX13 reports, Judge Gibson may issue a ruling tonight given that ballots are required to be printed the following day.
The injunction itself, while preventing the counting of votes for Amendment D, has not deterred the ballot's inclusion of the contentious constitutional change. Despite the plaintiff's concerns regarding voter confusion, there was an appeal for swift judicial action due to imminent ballot printing deadlines. Acting on that urgency, Gibson’s ruling allows for the logistics of the election to proceed uninterrupted, with a provision that bars the counting of votes for the amendment. As reported by ABC4, skirts a potential rewrite of ballots is an operation that would saddle the state with a hefty $3 million cost.
The League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government are among the plaintiffs who have voiced concerns about the misleading representation of Amendment D. They argue that the ballot question's language, crafted by legislative leaders, does not align with the actual implications of the amendment. As reported by KSL, "The omission entirely eliminates the voter's fundamental constitutional right," wrote Gibson in her ruling, emphasizing a breach of the electorate's ability to make informed decisions. The court has thus struck a balance, keeping Amendment D on the ballot but restricting its potential impact through the prohibition of vote tallying.
