Utahns may have thought they had witnessed the last hurrah Thursday of passionate people vehemently opposing the new state flag that lawmakers approved last year.
But these people are now filing a federal lawsuit against the state, alleging that the process of allowing the referendum effort is unconstitutional.
During a Thursday legislative hearing on a bill to repeal the state’s new flag, Rep. Melissa Garff Ballard, R-North Salt Lake, told anti-flag enthusiasts to cool down the bill. It’s time to move on. She urged them to focus their efforts on more important things, such as the fight against pornography.
That won’t happen.
In fact, the fight against Utah’s initiative law could have repercussions far beyond the flag issue.
Lawmakers in Utah worry that direct democracy could become like California (where initiatives are often stuffed onto ballots) and actually make the process more difficult. The bill currently moving through the Capitol would be even more difficult, requiring a 60% majority for tax increases.
Those opposed to the flag distributed an initiative petition. The deadline is Feb. 15 to collect enough signatures from registered voters across 26 of the state’s 29 Senate districts. The lawsuit was brought by a political action committee known as “Are You Listening Yet,” and the effort garnered approximately 91,622 signatures, but “12,596 were formally rejected” by the lieutenant governor’s office. It has said. Nearly 135,000 signatures are needed.
The complaint points to three deadlines facing signature gatherers and says, “All deadlines, individually and collectively, significantly limit signature gathering.” .
The complaint also challenges state rules that require paid signature gatherers to be paid an hourly wage, rather than a flat amount, for each signature collected, and to wear badges that indicate they are paid. ing.
Victory may sound like music to other special interest leaders who want to make it easier to vote in Utah. Whether that is good for the country remains to be seen.
Utah was the second state in the nation to allow citizen initiative and referendum in 1900. Since then, lawmakers have done everything they can to limit the process, arguing that bills that go through the state legislative process best serve the public. Amendments and hearings.
It is even possible that any court victories by anti-New Flag groups will be short-lived. State legislators always make the final decision. Voters approved three initiatives in 2018, but lawmakers later changed all three. Why couldn’t they do that again?
And even if the new flag’s opponent wins something on the ballot, victory is not guaranteed. An October poll conducted by the Deseret News and the Hinckley Institute of Politics found that 41% of Utahns support the new flag, 37% oppose it and 22% are undecided. Only 23% said they were “strongly opposed.”
Still, this lawsuit appears to be their best and last chance.
HB436, sponsored by Republican Rep. Phil Lyman, would have repealed the new flag and required any future Utah flag changes to be subject to a public vote. It failed Thursday in the House Economic Development and Labor Services Committee. Rather, the committee simply resolved to move on to the next item. In other words, it is possible that it will come back, but it seems unlikely.
The committee’s meetings were filled with breathless exaggerations that are characteristic of the anti-new flag movement.
People quoted Karl Marx and claimed the new flag was a “woke” conspiracy to erase the nation’s history. In her video presentation, a young woman read a poem she wrote that included a depiction of her state’s old flag being torn down and trampled. One said it was similar to Texas adopting the Mexican flag.
More rational arguments said the issue should have been put to a referendum.
It’s hard to understand all this emotion. The law that established the new flag also specifically preserves the original flag as a legal symbol of the state. You can fly anywhere for any reason.
Either way, this problem will persist, at least for a while.
The state constitution establishes initiatives as an alternative form of lawmaking in Utah. It will also be subject to “the conditions, methods, and numbers established by law.”
If the court decides that it is unreasonable for the state to impose these restrictions, it could have far-reaching implications for Utah’s future.