On Aug. 21, I attended the Utah Legislature’s special session to pass a resolution to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. This amendment would give the Legislature unlimited power not just to tweak but to completely undo citizen initiatives.

At the special session, the Legislature mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning the boundary initiative to make it seem like we must have this amendment. We do not. Some points to consider:

This amendment makes it sound like getting initiatives on the ballot will be easier because it increases the number of days to gather signatures for a referendum. But referendums are different from initiatives, and this is a change that could be effected without a constitutional amendment. In other words, it does nothing to change the actual initiative process. Utah has a very high bar to get an initiative on the ballot — signatures are needed from nearly 8% of the voters (three times the percentage needed in California) and with a signature threshold that must be met in 26 of 29 Senate districts. Since 1954, only seven initiatives have passed in Utah — that’s just a 25% success rate. That high bar will remain unchanged.

What will change is that the Legislature will have enshrined in the Utah Constitution that they have unlimited power to undo citizen initiatives, meaning that with any initiative that passed the high bar to get on the ballot and then be approved by voters, the Legislature would then be able to not just revise but completely undo it.

At the special session, legislators advocating for the amendment pointed to Prop 2 that made medicinal marijuana legal in Utah. Their claim was that they had to tweak this initiative then and continue to do so every year, and that somehow the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling makes this impossible. This is simply untrue.

The court ruling only addresses initiatives that “alter or reform the government,” allowing changes when there is a “compelling government interest to do so.” The ruling does NOT impact the Legislature’s ability to amend initiatives that do not fit this category. This would include initiatives on such issues as abortion, gun control and recreational drug use.

It was very disheartening to sit through hours of these false claims about “super laws” that are immune to legislative revision. This was simply fear-mongering. Kudos to the legislators from both parties who countered these claims and stood up for common sense.

Some legislators’ claim that the Supreme Court ruling is vague is also disingenuous. If that were the real reason for the amendment, then they could use the proposed amendment to clarify what it means to “alter or reform the government” or to clarify what a compelling government interest is. As it is, they are asking us to give them unlimited power to change initiatives.

Another claim made by the amendment’s proponents was that they don’t want foreign money influencing or funding citizen initiatives. If this was a legitimate threat, it wouldn’t have to be tied to expanding the power of legislators. The concern about foreign money could be handled by running a separate amendment or legislation.

The rushed nature of the process was also alarming. The legislators gave the public less than a day to review the new amendment and limited public comment to less than 30 minutes. Commenters who were told they would have three minutes were only given one. In addition, the Legislature claimed this was sufficient emergency to call a special session, even though the reasons for calling a special session are limited to “fiscal crisis, war, natural disaster, or other emergency.” Where is the emergency here? Clearly, the Legislature’s actions are big red flags that warrant our attention.

Finally, the ballot language describing the proposed amendment is misleading, misrepresenting the actual effects of the amendment. Please see this amendment for what it is — a power grab that will further erode the power of the governed to check the power of the government.

Sylvia Newman is a member of Mormon Women for Ethical Government and has previously served as a Weber County Republican delegate and precinct vice chair. She lives in Ogden.