League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah St. Leg.

554 P.3d 872

2024 UT 21

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF UTAH, et al.,^* Appellees & Cross-Appellants,

v.UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE, et al.,^** Appellants & Cross-Appellees.

No. 20220991

Supreme Court of Utah.

Heard July 11, 2023

Supplemental Briefing Received August 1, 2023

Filed July 11, 2024

Third Judicial District, Salt Lake County, The Honorable Dianna M. Gibson, No. 220901712

Attorneys^***

Troy L. Booher, J. Frederic Voros, Jr., Caroline A. Olsen, David C. Reymann, Kade N. Olsen, Salt Lake City, Mark P. Gaber, Aseem Mulji, Washington, D.C., Annabelle Harless, Chicago, Ill., for appellees and cross-appellants.

Victoria Ashby, Robert H. Rees, Eric N. Weeks, Tyler R. Green, Salt Lake City, Taylor A.R. Meehan, Frank H. Chang, Arlington, Va., for appellants and cross-appellees

Justice Petersen authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Pearce, Justice Hagen, and Justice Pohlman joined.

Justice Petersen, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶1 This case presents a question of first impression involving the interpretation of two provisions of the Utah Constitution.

¶2 The first constitutional provision involved in this appeal is the Initiative Provision of article VI, subsections 1(1)(b) and (2), which vests in the voters of Utah the power to pass legislation through the initiative process. Under our state constitution, the people’s legislative power is equal to the Legislature’s. The Legislature exercises its power by passing laws during legislative sessions. The people exercise their power by voting during elections on initiatives that have qualified for the ballot. If the people approve a proposed initiative, it becomes a statute in the Utah Code.

¶3 The second provision is the Alter or Reform Clause of article I, section 2, which establishes that the people of Utah have the right to "alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require."

¶4 The novel question before us asks: what happens when Utahns use their initiative power to exercise their "right to alter or reform their government" by passing an initiative that contains government reforms, and the Legislature repeals it and replaces it with another law that eliminates the reforms the people voted for?

¶5 Plaintiffs answer that this is an unconstitutional violation of the people’s right to reform their government¹ through a citizen initiative. And they allege that this happened when the Legislature repealed and replaced an initiative called "Better Boundaries" or "Proposition 4," which the people passed during the 2018 election. Proposition 4 sought to reform the process of drawing Utah’s electoral districts (redistricting) by prohibiting a practice called "partisan gerrymandering." In general, partisan gerrymandering refers to efforts by incumbent politicians to draw electoral boundaries that benefit themselves and their political party by diluting the votes of citizens they predict will vote for candidates of other parties.² Utah voters approved Proposition 4 at the ballot box. But the Legislature repealed the initiative before the next redistricting cycle.³ The Legislature then replaced Proposition 4 with another law, Senate Bill 200, which did not prohibit partisan gerrymandering. Plaintiffs assert that when it came time for redistricting—with Proposition 4’s requirements out of the way—Defendants drew new electoral districts that were the result of "extreme" partisan gerrymandering.

¶6 Defendants answer the question differently. They argue that the Legislature’s repeal and replacement of Proposition 4 did not offend the constitution at all. They contend that because the Legislature is authorized to amend or repeal any statute, and a citizen initiative is a statute, the Legislature is permitted to repeal initiatives without any constitutional limitation.

¶7 We answer the question before us as follows:

¶8 The people’s constitutional right to alter or reform their government is protected from government infringement. We could not hold otherwise, as the Declaration of Rights of the Utah Constitution states explicitly that:

All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

Utah Const. art. I, § 2 (emphasis added).

[1] ¶9 Like all constitutional provisions, the Alter or Reform Clause must be read in harmony with the rest of the constitution and exercised within the bounds of the constitution itself. Thus, it does not establish a right to reform the government in disregard of the constitution, nor in a manner that violates other provisions of the constitution.

[2–5] ¶10 One way for Utahns to exercise their reform right within the bounds of the constitution is through a citizen initiative, as established in the Initiative Provision of article VI of the Utah Constitution. The initiative power gives Utahns a mechanism to pass legislation that contains their desired government-reform measures. Thus, the Initiative Provision empowers Utahns to directly exercise their right to reform their government by enacting statutory government reforms.⁴

[6–9] ¶11 Therefore, we hold that when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through a citizen initiative, their exercise of these rights is protected from government infringement. This means that government-reform initiatives are constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement. Although the Legislature has authority to amend or repeal statutes, it is well settled that legislative action cannot unduly infringe or restrain the exercise of constitutional rights. Consequently, when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through an initiative, this limits the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal the initiative. This does not mean that the Legislature cannot amend a government-reform initiative at all. Rather, legislative changes that facilitate or support the reform, or at least do not impair the reform enacted by the people, would not implicate the people’s rights under the Alter or Reform Clause. Legislative changes that do impair the reforms enacted by the people could also survive a constitutional challenge, if the Legislature shows that they were narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.

¶12 In this case, Plaintiffs claim in Count V of their Complaint that Utahns used their initiative power as a means of exercising their right to reform the government when they passed Proposition 4. And they claim that the Legislature violated those rights when it enacted S.B. 200, which repealed Proposition 4 and replaced it with a new law that nullified Proposition 4’s key provisions. The Legislature’s general legislative power to amend, repeal, and enact statutes does not defeat this claim as a matter of law.

¶13 Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of Count V. And we remand this case, with Count V intact, to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.⁵

BACKGROUND

¶14 We now provide the factual background of this appeal, beginning with an explanation of the redistricting process, then moving to the facts that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, and finally discussing the litigation that has taken place so far in the district court. We emphasize that our recitation of the facts underlying Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the allegations in their Complaint. Because this appeal involves Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, we must assume all the factual allegations in the Complaint are true and determine whether the claims fail as a matter of law.⁶

The Ten-Year Cycle of the National Census and Electoral Redistricting

¶15 Every ten years, the federal government conducts a census to count our nation’s population. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. One purpose of collecting this census data, which shows population growth and decline across the country, is to adjust the apportionment of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the fifty states. See id. After the census data is released, every state, including Utah, re-draws its electoral districts to account for the addition or loss of congressional seats and population changes within the state. This process is called redistricting.

¶16 After Utah receives the results of the decennial census, the Utah Constitution requires the Legislature to "divide the state into congressional, legislative, and other districts accordingly," no later than the next general legislative session. Utah Const. art. IX, § 1. Each district of the same type must contain approximately the same number of people.⁷

¶17 The 2010 census showed significant growth in Utah’s population, and as a result Utah gained an additional congressional seat, bringing the total number to four.⁸

¶18 The most recent census was conducted in 2020. It shows that from 2010 to 2020, Utah was the fastest growing state in the nation by percentage.⁹ But this population growth was not equally distributed across the state. The bulk of Utah’s new residents settled in urban areas in Salt Lake County and Utah County. And 80% of the total population lived in urban centers along the Wasatch Front. During the same period, other parts of the state lost population.

¶19 Despite Utah’s rapid growth over the last decade, we did not gain any additional seats in Congress after the 2020 census. So Utah still has four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and each congressional district must contain an equal number of people.

Partisan Gerrymandering

¶20 Plaintiffs allege that partisan gerrymandering "has been a consistent problem and contentious issue in Utah’s history" of redistricting. As described above, partisan gerrymandering refers to efforts by incumbent politicians to draw district boundaries that benefit themselves and their political party, by diluting the...