Power to the people

Voter initiatives present a unique set of challenges and problems. However, their underlying premise, that the people can be a check on government, is a noble one.

And if Utah is going to remain one of 25 states that allow initiatives, it should not declare certain subjects off limits. That seemed to be the message the Utah Supreme Court was sending this week when it granted a stay on a lower court ruling and allowed citizens in Sevier County to forge ahead with a ballot measure on Nov. 4.

That measure will ask Sevier County voters whether local ordinances should be changed to require a public vote before any coal-fired power plant is granted a conditional-use permit. The initiative is backed by a group opposed to Sevier Power Co.'s intentions to acquire such a permit.

A power company attorney had argued that such an ordinance would be the first step down a slippery slope, perhaps one day leading to public votes over whether a particular church should be allowed in a neighborhood. We are sympathetic to the dangers inherent with allowing public votes on zoning matters, which ultimately affect a person's right to do as he wishes with his or her property.

But there are two reasons to reject the power company attorney's argument. The first, and most compelling, is that religion enjoys special protection under the Constitution's First Amendment. Requiring a vote on church locations would, we hope, be declared unconstitutional. The second is that decisions regarding power plants are made by a small group of elected people whose motives could be every bit as impure as what the power company may believe its opponents to be. Why not require the people in favor of coal-fired plants to sell their ideas to the people who will be most affected?

Utah lawmakers are certainly not new to the idea of tweaking the state's initiative laws to keep the public away. Ten years ago, they put a measure on the ballot that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass any initiative concerning wildlife issues. The worry there was the the public might curtail hunting rights. That measure passed.

Now they have tried to curtail the public's power once again and have been rebuffed. The court's decision sends what we hope is a loud message.