State defends initiatives

Round Two in the continuing boxing match over what provisions of Utah's initiative process are constitutional played out on Friday, with the state striking back at a challenge from a grass-roots coalition seeking to ban guns from churches and schools.

The state, in a brief filed before the Utah Supreme Court, argued the new provisions passed in the 2003 legislative session are not unduly burdensome to get an issue before the voters on an election ballot.

Rather, the group's inability to gather the required number of signatures in 26 of 29 Utah Senate districts, which it views as a roadblock, simply equates to the issue being unpopular, the document said.

"Their inability to obtain sufficient signatures may be due to lack of interest, improper presentations, lack of funding or various other difficulties."

The state Friday was responding to a challenge by the Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition, which mounted an argument to strike down a number of new amendments passed earlier this year by the Legislature.

Later this month, the coalition will file a counter response, with oral arguments scheduled to be heard Oct. 8 before the sitting justices.

At issue is how stringent, or how relaxed, Utah's law on the initiative process should be. Proponents of getting the weapons ban before voters in the 2004 election say the new amendments make it impossible for a purely grass-roots group with little money to get an issue to voters for an ultimate decision, even if that issue is backed by popular sentiment.

The state, in contrast, wants to safeguard against a free-for-all melee in the initiative process, ensuring that only those issues with widespread voter interest and legitimacy gain the momentum to put them on the ballot.

To that end, legislators imposed a requirement to collect signatures totaling at least 10 percent of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election in 26 of 29 Senate districts across the state. That new provision replaced another one deemed unconstitutional last year by the Utah Supreme Court that required the same amount of signatures from 20 of 29 counties.

It was stricken down because because it gave disproportionate weight to rural voters over urban residents, but the state says that argument does not hold with the new geographic distribution requirement that ensures a majority of residents support or oppose a particular measure.