Court rejects wildlife case

The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a blow to environmentalist groups by refusing to hear an appeal that a Utah constitutional amendment infringed upon First Amendment free-speech rights.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the appeal is a victory for Utah that ends a six-year legal fight, according to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

"This is an important victory for Utah to be able to manage wildlife properly within the state," Shurtleff said Friday. "Our attorneys should be commended for convincing the courts to validate the will of the people."

Utah voters in 1998 approved an amendment to the state constitution that makes it necessary to get a two-thirds vote in order to enact citizen initiatives regarding fishing and hunting matters.

The Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) claimed the "Wildlife Referendum" violated free-speech rights and the organization filed a lawsuit, alleging that the requirement for a two-thirds approval would discourage them and others from even trying to get initiatives launched regarding wildlife issues.

Joining the IRI in the dispute were the Humane Society of the United States; Fund for Animals; Dick Carter and the High Uintas Preservation Council, a conservation group; the Humane Society of Utah; and others.

However, U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell said IRI and others still had plenty of rights available to them even with the Utah constitutional amendment in place.

She said they "can initiate and circulate petitions; they can engage in political discussions for or against any initiative; and they (can) raise money for and publicly lobby against any initiative they bring to the ballot."

Her ruling was upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

IRI in October 2006 filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling, but the Supreme Court has declined to do so.

---

E-mail: lindat@desnews.com