It seems to me that the way to protect outside interests from influencing Utah ballot initatives would be to ban outside money from funding citizens initatives. In the same bill we could ban corporations and corporate PACS from donating to political races.
This feels like just another power grab by the state legislators. They have already made citizen initatives so much harder by changing the signatures needed and from where. And by raising the Senate Districts threshhold to 26.
I thought the same thing. Why are we limiting Utah citizens when we could just be limiting outside-of-Utah funding?
It's not that simple though. Since the 1970s, the courts have treated political spending as free speech protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state ban on corporate spending on ballot measures in 1978 (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti), and limits on donations to ballot measure campaigns in 1981 (Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley). States can require donors to be disclosed (which Utah does), but they can't wall initiatives off from that money.
Also, the high bar for citizen initiatives has actually pushed campaigns to seek money from outside of Utah. Getting a direct initiative on the ballot here can easily cost $1 million or more. Right or wrong, we've created an incentive for Utahns who want an initiative on the ballot to look outside Utah, where the pockets are deeper.
So there is some legitimacy to the argument that raising the bar to 60% is one of our best options for stopping outsiders from passing their own agenda in Utah with a good PR campaign. But by making it harder for them, you're making it much harder for a true grassroots Utah campaign as well.
Appreciate your analysis, but as folks familiar with Utah's ballot initiative process in general, we’d like to add some important context:
The first: The context of 2024's Amendment D, which state legislators put on the ballot complaining about outside interests and saying it would "strengthen the ballot initiative." (It would have done the opposite). As citizens who follow the state's actions closely and have watched them whittle away at power from the executive branch, the courts, and recently the people's ballot initiatives, we rightly feel suspicious that this is another attempt to curtail our power.
Second: One sponsor mentioned voting incumbents out. What they left out is that current lawmakers have a huge advantage. Voting out incumbents is really hard. As mentioned, votes could be up to 2 or 4 years away, which most elected officials realize is an eternity (most voters don't remember votes or positions from years ago). If voters are upset enough by their representative, they then have to defeat an incumbent who likely has the head start of name recognition, party support, and plenty of fundraising. Voting people out is not simple, easy, or cheap even when that politician is unpopular. In our opinion, this "just vote them out" argument is oversimplified and flawed, ignoring the realities of elections in Utah (and elsewhere).
Third: We've seen a lot of claims that ballot initiatives prioritize outside special interests. It is interesting that state leaders claim that
a) building a grassroots movement to collect signatures, the highest threshold of any state, just to get on the ballot, then
b) persuading over 700,000 Utah voters to vote for something (and that's just the simple majority scenario; over 1.4 million Utahns voted in the 2024 election)
Is more prone to the adverse affects of "special interests" than just a simple majority of state legislators (that's 53 total people) getting pressure from donors, lobbyists, and party leaders. Knowing how much pressure lawmakers face even from their own party, delegates, and outside organizations like the Eagle Forum / Utah Parents United / many other organizations to pass certain bills, we find this argument frankly baffling. We believe in our neighbors, Utah voters, and find them much less susceptible to such pressure.
Fourth: It is extremely hard to pass a ballot initiative. It takes over 140,000 signatures from Utah voters, significant fundraising (from within and without the state—most of the initiatives that legislature leaders grumble about receive donations from thousands of individual Utahns), and requires widespread voter support to pass. A simple majority keeps hundreds of thousands of citizens' votes co-equal with a simple majority of elected representatives; a check and a balance. Lawmakers know that 60% is virtually impossible (see Florida, which passed this two decades ago and hasn't passed a law since—13 have failed), which makes the threat of ballot initiatives less potent. (We believe that’s the goal)
Lastly: Utah leaders actually do have the ability to make changes to citizen-led ballot initiatives afterwards if there is a compelling state interest. That's in the Supreme Court decision! Lawmakers just can't meaningfully change it away from the intent of the law citizens passed, as leaders arguably did with all 3 ballot initiatives passed in 2018. That hasn't seemed to make them happy.
We’ll be voting no to protect Utah citizens’ power and hope many more join us.
I moved here from Colorado a few years ago, and a major part of the reason I left was because of out-of-state interests abusing our initiative process. I'm seeing the same thing happening here. I'm a hard yes on B.
It's been years since I moved, so some of the details are a bit fuzzy. If you want something that breaks it down in better detail, look up The Blueprint for Colorado. Let me start by saying that Coloradans are less civically engaged than Utahns. Some knew their US congressional rep, but I didn't know anyone who knew their state reps.
The shift really started in the Obama years where groups like unions, environmental groups, etc. would come in and put initiatives that were too controversial for legislators to want to deal with and run expensive ad campaigns flooding the state with rosy ads.
This lead to a situation where most things weren't debated, just advertised. Politicians never had to answer for bad laws.
This includes things like legalized marijuana, which can be done right, but was a disaster because of the poorly written initiative. We saw spending increases from one initiative while another one put limits on businesses that slowed the economy. It was a mess.
We put more pressure on legislators here, but things can go to hell pretty fast when we outsource lawmakers.
And just for reference, in 2012 Colorado had 3 ballot initiatives. This year there are 14. It's out of hand, and we need to actively keep that from happening here.
Garry, thanks a bunch. This point didn't come up in any of my reading or responses from pro-Amendment B sources. I'll do some research on Colorado and some of the other states where ballot initiatives have become common-place and analyze the effects.
After reading the article I actually don’t disagree with the premise but I think if we make it harder for the grassroots mechanism then the bar should be raised for the other mechanisms. From my perspective elements of the Utah Republican Party has been trying to undermine the grassroots system for years starting with the delegates that are voted on in the local caucuses to trying to have them appointed by elected officials. Great article with both perspectives. All for limiting power but let’s include the legislative powers also. This may be a chance to send that message.
Surprised you never talk about what lawmakers have to go through if they want to raise taxes. First there is disclosure for possible conflicts of interest. There are also public votes. Second, every bill goes through rigorous public process - votes in a committee hearing after public comment, then a vote on the floor of the body, then another committee and another floor of the other body. The governor then weighs in and decides to sign or not. Oh, and these elected officials are all held accountable in elections by the public after their public votes are seen.
With citizen initiatives, there is nothing close to the rigor, vote transparency, or process required to get 50% + 1 vote. I absolutely support only a super majority able to raise taxes through citizen initiatives. The public isn’t in the weeds on budgets and fiscal needs like elected officials are.
Thanks Aimee. I agree that lawmakers are much more in the weeds than citizens when it comes to budgets. And you’re right that the process for passing tax-raising legislation is more thorough through the legislature. I tried to make that point at the beginning of my take, but perhaps I should have gone deeper on what lawmakers go through, as you say.
Amendment B is needed. The initiative process is dominated by outside money. Keep Utah free from outside money. The top four states in initiatives are Oregon, California, Washington, and Colorado. None of these states are well governed. Do not let Utah become like them.
Thanks, Jason. Garry Johnson also made this point in an earlier comment. This point didn't come up in my research or interviews with pro-Amendment B sources. I'll take a closer look.
It seems to me that the way to protect outside interests from influencing Utah ballot initatives would be to ban outside money from funding citizens initatives. In the same bill we could ban corporations and corporate PACS from donating to political races.
This feels like just another power grab by the state legislators. They have already made citizen initatives so much harder by changing the signatures needed and from where. And by raising the Senate Districts threshhold to 26.
I thought the same thing. Why are we limiting Utah citizens when we could just be limiting outside-of-Utah funding?
It's not that simple though. Since the 1970s, the courts have treated political spending as free speech protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state ban on corporate spending on ballot measures in 1978 (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti), and limits on donations to ballot measure campaigns in 1981 (Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley). States can require donors to be disclosed (which Utah does), but they can't wall initiatives off from that money.
Also, the high bar for citizen initiatives has actually pushed campaigns to seek money from outside of Utah. Getting a direct initiative on the ballot here can easily cost $1 million or more. Right or wrong, we've created an incentive for Utahns who want an initiative on the ballot to look outside Utah, where the pockets are deeper.
So there is some legitimacy to the argument that raising the bar to 60% is one of our best options for stopping outsiders from passing their own agenda in Utah with a good PR campaign. But by making it harder for them, you're making it much harder for a true grassroots Utah campaign as well.
Appreciate your analysis, but as folks familiar with Utah's ballot initiative process in general, we’d like to add some important context:
The first: The context of 2024's Amendment D, which state legislators put on the ballot complaining about outside interests and saying it would "strengthen the ballot initiative." (It would have done the opposite). As citizens who follow the state's actions closely and have watched them whittle away at power from the executive branch, the courts, and recently the people's ballot initiatives, we rightly feel suspicious that this is another attempt to curtail our power.
Second: One sponsor mentioned voting incumbents out. What they left out is that current lawmakers have a huge advantage. Voting out incumbents is really hard. As mentioned, votes could be up to 2 or 4 years away, which most elected officials realize is an eternity (most voters don't remember votes or positions from years ago). If voters are upset enough by their representative, they then have to defeat an incumbent who likely has the head start of name recognition, party support, and plenty of fundraising. Voting people out is not simple, easy, or cheap even when that politician is unpopular. In our opinion, this "just vote them out" argument is oversimplified and flawed, ignoring the realities of elections in Utah (and elsewhere).
Third: We've seen a lot of claims that ballot initiatives prioritize outside special interests. It is interesting that state leaders claim that
a) building a grassroots movement to collect signatures, the highest threshold of any state, just to get on the ballot, then
b) persuading over 700,000 Utah voters to vote for something (and that's just the simple majority scenario; over 1.4 million Utahns voted in the 2024 election)
Is more prone to the adverse affects of "special interests" than just a simple majority of state legislators (that's 53 total people) getting pressure from donors, lobbyists, and party leaders. Knowing how much pressure lawmakers face even from their own party, delegates, and outside organizations like the Eagle Forum / Utah Parents United / many other organizations to pass certain bills, we find this argument frankly baffling. We believe in our neighbors, Utah voters, and find them much less susceptible to such pressure.
Fourth: It is extremely hard to pass a ballot initiative. It takes over 140,000 signatures from Utah voters, significant fundraising (from within and without the state—most of the initiatives that legislature leaders grumble about receive donations from thousands of individual Utahns), and requires widespread voter support to pass. A simple majority keeps hundreds of thousands of citizens' votes co-equal with a simple majority of elected representatives; a check and a balance. Lawmakers know that 60% is virtually impossible (see Florida, which passed this two decades ago and hasn't passed a law since—13 have failed), which makes the threat of ballot initiatives less potent. (We believe that’s the goal)
Lastly: Utah leaders actually do have the ability to make changes to citizen-led ballot initiatives afterwards if there is a compelling state interest. That's in the Supreme Court decision! Lawmakers just can't meaningfully change it away from the intent of the law citizens passed, as leaders arguably did with all 3 ballot initiatives passed in 2018. That hasn't seemed to make them happy.
We’ll be voting no to protect Utah citizens’ power and hope many more join us.
I moved here from Colorado a few years ago, and a major part of the reason I left was because of out-of-state interests abusing our initiative process. I'm seeing the same thing happening here. I'm a hard yes on B.
This is great input, thank you. Can you go into some detail?
It's been years since I moved, so some of the details are a bit fuzzy. If you want something that breaks it down in better detail, look up The Blueprint for Colorado. Let me start by saying that Coloradans are less civically engaged than Utahns. Some knew their US congressional rep, but I didn't know anyone who knew their state reps.
The shift really started in the Obama years where groups like unions, environmental groups, etc. would come in and put initiatives that were too controversial for legislators to want to deal with and run expensive ad campaigns flooding the state with rosy ads.
This lead to a situation where most things weren't debated, just advertised. Politicians never had to answer for bad laws.
This includes things like legalized marijuana, which can be done right, but was a disaster because of the poorly written initiative. We saw spending increases from one initiative while another one put limits on businesses that slowed the economy. It was a mess.
We put more pressure on legislators here, but things can go to hell pretty fast when we outsource lawmakers.
And just for reference, in 2012 Colorado had 3 ballot initiatives. This year there are 14. It's out of hand, and we need to actively keep that from happening here.
Garry, thanks a bunch. This point didn't come up in any of my reading or responses from pro-Amendment B sources. I'll do some research on Colorado and some of the other states where ballot initiatives have become common-place and analyze the effects.
Really appreciate the thoughtful comment.
After reading the article I actually don’t disagree with the premise but I think if we make it harder for the grassroots mechanism then the bar should be raised for the other mechanisms. From my perspective elements of the Utah Republican Party has been trying to undermine the grassroots system for years starting with the delegates that are voted on in the local caucuses to trying to have them appointed by elected officials. Great article with both perspectives. All for limiting power but let’s include the legislative powers also. This may be a chance to send that message.
Surprised you never talk about what lawmakers have to go through if they want to raise taxes. First there is disclosure for possible conflicts of interest. There are also public votes. Second, every bill goes through rigorous public process - votes in a committee hearing after public comment, then a vote on the floor of the body, then another committee and another floor of the other body. The governor then weighs in and decides to sign or not. Oh, and these elected officials are all held accountable in elections by the public after their public votes are seen.
With citizen initiatives, there is nothing close to the rigor, vote transparency, or process required to get 50% + 1 vote. I absolutely support only a super majority able to raise taxes through citizen initiatives. The public isn’t in the weeds on budgets and fiscal needs like elected officials are.
Thanks Aimee. I agree that lawmakers are much more in the weeds than citizens when it comes to budgets. And you’re right that the process for passing tax-raising legislation is more thorough through the legislature. I tried to make that point at the beginning of my take, but perhaps I should have gone deeper on what lawmakers go through, as you say.
Amendment B is needed. The initiative process is dominated by outside money. Keep Utah free from outside money. The top four states in initiatives are Oregon, California, Washington, and Colorado. None of these states are well governed. Do not let Utah become like them.
Thanks, Jason. Garry Johnson also made this point in an earlier comment. This point didn't come up in my research or interviews with pro-Amendment B sources. I'll take a closer look.