Utah initiative law assailed as too restrictive

Utah has the "most difficult or second most difficult" ballot initiative laws in the country, according to the leader of the Utah Property Protection Act initiative campaign.

John Michael's assessment was included in a response filed Wednesday in 3rd District Court by the Utah Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition. The group filed a lawsuit earlier this year saying the initiative law restrictions passed by the 2003 Legislature virtually eliminate the ability of people to put an issue on the ballot and therefore violate the state and U.S. Constitution.

Michael's group in 2000 successfully backed a ballot initiative limiting law enforcement agencies' ability to seize property in drug cases. His opinion was shared by Richard Arnold, who led the successful signature-gathering campaign for the English as the Official Language initiative.

According to court documents, Arnold said the new laws would not affect paid signature-gathering efforts but would make it much harder for volunteer groups who need more time to gather the signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the election ballot.

The new law was aimed to fix problems with the state's process that were deemed unconstitutional.

Lawmakers adopted a signature requirement based on Senate districts, not counties, with initiative proponents now required to gather signatures in 26 of Utah's 29 Senate districts.

Additional changes impose a one-year deadline for proponents to gather signatures and submit them to the Lieutenant Governor's Office for certification and the requirement to hold seven public hearings throughout the state.

The state defended the new law in court documents filed earlier this month, saying difficulties in gathering signatures could be due to lack of interest or funding.

The coalition, which filed an initiative petition to prohibit people with concealed carry permits from bringing guns into schools, universities and churches with the Lieutenant Governor's Office in March, two months before the new law went into effect, is urging the court to declare the new law unconstitutional. At the very least, the coalition hopes the court will decide the changes will not be applied retroactively and consequently won't concern the initiative.

A hearing is set for Monday at 9 a.m. before Judge J. Dennis Frederick.

---

E-mail: jparkinson@desnews.com