However, other judges argued that U.S. Supreme Court rulings seem to indicate that just because initiative proponents can still talk about the issue is not a clear remedy to the fact that they are put at a disadvantage.

Assistant Utah attorney general Thom Roberts argued that the U.S. Constitution offers no clear right for citizens to take up initiatives, but that it is at the discretion of state legislatures.

One judge noted, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that just because a right to initiative is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and states reserve that right, states are not allowed to limit its use based on content.

Roberts said even though they won't have success, animal rights activists still have the right to talk about their issues. One judge asked if the Utah Constitution required a 99 percent vote, would the state still feel the same?

The outcome could have widespread implications regarding initiative laws across the United States, attorneys on both sides said.

In addition to Utah, several other states have two-thirds majority requirements on initiative subjects ranging from alcohol sales to road and school funding. No other states had moved to join the case, however.

Baskin said earlier this year, the 10th Circuit was set to rule on the case but chose to give the case a rare hearing at the request of its own judges. Most of the time, it is attorneys in the case who make such a request, Baskin said.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com