Amendments to the Utah Constitution

In January 1896, after a fight spanning over four decades and six constitutional conventions, Utah was admitted to the Union as the 45th state. Utah’s long journey to statehood was the result of multiple obstacles and complications, including insufficient population, Congressional concern over admitting a state that sanctioned polygamy, and struggles involving the state’s position on slavery. After almost a half-century of lobbying and population growth, and changes in the territory’s sociopolitical conditions, including an 1890 renouncement of polygamy by Mormon president Wilford Woodruff, statehood for Utah finally prevailed. Congress passed the Utah Enabling Act, authorizing admission of Utah into the Union, on July 13, 1894. Utah’s first constitution remains in effect today, although it has been amended 132 times. 

To amend the Utah Constitution, a proposed amendment must first pass a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature, then be approved by a simple majority of voters casting votes on the amendment. In 1970, voters ratified the noteworthy “Gateway Amendment,” which allowed for constitutional amendments to implement more sweeping changes across multiple sections of the constitution. 

The legislature may also, by a two-thirds majority vote of each house, propose the calling of a new constitutional convention. The convention proposal must be approved by a majority of electors. Only once, in 1966, has the Utah Legislature voted to call a constitutional convention, but it was rejected by voters.

For more information about the Gateway Amendment, see 1971; and for more about the failed convention, see 1966. 

Right to Hunt and Fish

In 2020, Utahns passed an amendment (effective in 2021) to preserve the right to hunt and fish in the state and establish public hunting and fishing as the preferred method of managing and controlling wildlife. Proponents argued that enshrining the right in the constitution was necessary to protect against special interests “who have succeeded at removing opportunities to hunt and fish in other states.” They emphasized that hunters, anglers, and sharp shooters were responsible stewards of the land and resources. Proponents further highlighted hunter and fisher contributions to state revenue streams from taxes on firearms and equipment, and money from the sale of licenses—revenues that go directly to funding wildlife and habitat conservation efforts. Similar amendments had been passed in at least 20 other states, including the neighboring states of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.

Opponents felt that although “hunting and fishing are essential and undeniable parts of Utah’s cultural identity and history,” an amendment to the state’s constitution was not only unnecessary, but a dilution of the state’s fundamental law. In their view, “[a]ny threat [on the right to hunt and fish] is hypothetical or imaginary.” They argued that current statutory protections were adequate, and that “[i]f we do not carefully scrutinize what goes into [the constitution], the entire document will lose value.”

Legislative Ethics Commission

Prior to the ratification of the amendment creating the Legislative Ethics Commission, members of the Utah assembly could be punished by fellow members of their own chamber for disorderly conduct, which had been interpreted to mean “a violation of the Legislature’s Code of Official Conduct or a legislator’s improper conduct while acting as a legislator that would reflect discredit upon the House or Senate.” The constitution also authorized expulsion of any member for cause with a two-thirds vote but left to each house the authority to establish their own procedures for punishment and expulsion.

In 2010, voters approved an amendment setting up the state’s first legislative ethics commission. The five-member body was established to “participate in the process of evaluating complaints alleging unethical behavior.” The commission conducts independent reviews of allegations of legislator misconduct and determines whether a complaint merits further consideration by the House or Senate via a public hearing. While the amendment prohibits sitting members of the legislature or registered lobbyists from serving on the commission, the legislature remains embedded in the disciplinary process as the ultimate authority on punishment and expulsion remains with each house.

Initiatives Concerning Hunting and Fishing

In 1999, voters approved an amendment that made it more difficult to pass citizen initiatives affecting hunting or fishing. Specifically, the amendment requires a two-thirds vote (as opposed to the traditional simple majority) to ratify “legislation initiated to allow, limit, or prohibit the taking of wildlife or the season for or method of taking wildlife.”

The amendment attracted support from those who feared that outside animal-rights and conservation groups might use the state’s initiative process to limit Utah’s hunting and fishing practices. Those in favor of the proposition included the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, the Utah Trappers Association, the National Field Archery Association of the U.S., and others, who raised more than $600,000 to fund their campaign. 

On the other hand, opponents feared the measure might encourage special-interest groups to seek heightened vote thresholds for initiatives dealing with other important issues like education, taxes, and transportation. They argued the amendment was a “threat to the democratic process” that would burden core political speech in violation of the First Amendment. In a lawsuit brought two years after the amendment’s passage, the 10th Circuit rejected claims that the supermajority requirement was unconstitutional, holding that while the provision might discourage some speakers from engaging in protected speech, it did not prevent such speech.

Later, in 2020, Utahns adopted a constitutional amendment explicitly preserving the right to hunt and fish.

“Miscellaneous” Amendment

In 1988, Utahns approved a sweeping “Miscellaneous Amendment” (referred to as such in the state’s official voter information pamphlet) that instituted a variety of changes across the state’s constitution. In addition to removing obsolete language, the measure also modified the limitations on the number of state senators. Prior to the amendment, the constitution provided there be at least 18 state senators but no more than 30. Consistent with size of the 1988 state senate, the constitutional amendment decreased the upward bound to 29, a limit which remains to this day. The amendment also clarified the legislature’s duty and authority to reapportion congressional, legislative, and school districts after each United States census. 

Opponents of the “Miscellaneous Amendment” raised a variety of concerns, the majority of which centered around either the need for clearer language regarding the amendment’s provisions, or the desirability of maintaining certain sections that supporters had characterized as obsolete or unnecessary. 

Judicial Conduct Commission

The Utah Judicial Conduct Commission was established by the legislature in 1977, but it wasn’t until the revision of the judiciary article in 1984 that the body obtained constitutional authority. Comprising ten members, the commission is tasked with hearing complaints against justices or judges for misconduct in office, failure to perform judicial duties, disability, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Procedurally, complaints against judges and justices are filed with the commission, which undertakes an initial investigation and decides whether to dismiss the complaint, dismiss the complaint but issue a private warning to the judge, or open a full investigation. The full investigation may result in the dismissal of the complaint or formal proceedings. Likewise, the formal proceeding may still result in a dismissal, but the commission may make a recommendation to the Utah Supreme Court to reprimand, censure, suspend, or remove the judge subject to the complaint. The Utah Supreme Court is constitutionally obligated to review the commission’s proceedings, though it lacks authority to undertake initial reviews. 

As the commission’s caseload has increased throughout the years, so too has public scrutiny over the commission’s ability to perform its functions. As detailed in a 1995 report by the commission’s Chair, public criticism has been primarily centered around three main areas: (1) the timeliness and effectiveness of the investigative process; (2) concerns that the investigations are confidential and therefore secretive; and (3) worries that the commission serves to protect the judiciary rather than the public at large.

Optional Forms of County Government

The original Utah Constitution required a uniform system of county government: a three-member commission elected at large from the entire county. In 1972, voters approved an amendment to remove the uniformity requirement and to permit the legislature to provide for alternate forms of county government, which counties could adopt if they so desired. Counties were also permitted to retain the existing form. 

“Efforts to provide a wider range of choice in Utah local government” were not new in the state, but by 1972, there was a growing sentiment that the uniform system was outdated and ill-suited to the current needs of the state. Given the variance across Utah’s twenty-nine counties in population, wealth, and political makeup, proponents of the new amendment felt it was important to allow counties to select their own form of government from a set of options.

Of Utah’s 29 counties, seven of them have adopted larger legislative bodies, such as five-member commissions or seven-member county councils. Most recently, Utah County Commissioners supported increasing the number of members on the governing body from three to five. In their view, better representation throughout the county was needed, and having a larger commission “would allow the governing body to be more ‘efficient’ and more present in the community they represent.”

The Gateway Amendment

As a part of the Constitutional Revision Commission’s early work, the commission proposed a “gateway amendment” that would change the way amendments to the Utah Constitution were structured by the legislature and voted on by the people. The amendment was prompted by what the commission noted as a potential hurdle to their assignment: the single-subject requirement. The single-subject requirement is a provision requiring that “no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject.” Single-subject requirements like this were commonly included in state constitutions when Utah’s constitution was drafted. They are meant to prevent legislative “logrolling,” in which two or more independent proposals are joined together so those who support any one measure will feel obliged to vote for the others. The Constitutional Revision Commission’s findings and recommendations were in tension with the single-subject requirement, as they called for sweeping changes to multiple constitutional articles.

The Gateway Amendment avoided this potential conflict, substantially rolling back the single subject requirement in Utah with regard to legislatively referred constitutional amendments. The amendment allowed the legislature to submit an amendment to an entire article, or the addition of an article, as a single question to the voters. “Such amendment [amending or adding an entire article] may relate to one subject, or any number of subjects, and may modify, or repeal provisions contained in other articles of the constitution, if such provisions are germane to the subject matter of the article being revised, amended or being proposed as a new article.”

Constitutional Revision Commission

Following the failed attempt to call a constitutional convention in 1966, the Utah Legislature created a Constitutional Revision Commission in 1969. The Commission was tasked with making “a comprehensive examination of the constitution of the state of Utah, and of the amendments thereto, and thereafter to make recommendations to the governor and legislature as to specific proposed constitutional amendments.” The commission was set to expire in 1975, but it was subsequently renewed on an ad hoc basis, and in 1977 the legislature made it a permanent body. Over the years, the commission undertook thorough studies of many of the constitution’s important articles, including the Executive Department, Judicial Department, and Education. Their reports led to several significant amendment proposals eventually approved by the Utah legislature and voters, including, for example, the 1979 revision of the Labor Article, and the 1982 amendment establishing a Legislative Compensation Commission, 

In 2011, the commission began facing increased criticism that it was becoming a “political body dispensing political advice rather than technical advice.” Some pointed to the commission’s efforts to review a legislatively referred constitutional amendment banning affirmative action, efforts that “apparently upset some lawmakers,” as the impetus for the backlash. In response, a new law was passed allowing only the governor or the legislature to call meetings of the commission. No matter the motivation, the law drastically reduced the body’s independence. Not long after, the legislature decided in 2018 to do away with the commission altogether.

Mandatory Retirement of Judges

Voters ratified an amendment in 1968 to allow the legislature to set standards for mandatory retirement and removal of judges from office. Prior to its enactment, judges were only removable by impeachment or by similar procedures requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. Under the amendment, any determination resulting in the removal of a judge from office would still be subject to review by the Utah Supreme Court. The Utah Legislature’s first mandatory retirement law set the limit at seventy for judges and seventy-two for justices of the supreme court. The limit has since been raised to 75 for both justices and judges. 

The 1968 provision—formerly Section 28—was later repealed in part and transferred to a new Section 15 following a reworking of the judicial article in 1984. 

Failed Constitutional Convention

The problem of effective governance, particularly at the state level, became a topic of popular inquiry in Utah during the early 1960s. Examples of this focus include the creation of the Legislative Study Commission and the publication of an extensive report by the Commission on the Reorganization of the Executive Branch (the “Little Hoover Commission”). When voters took to the polls in November of 1966, they encountered a variety of constitutional amendment proposals relating to the structure and function of the state’s legislative and executive branches. The proposals also included a call for a constitutional convention to revise the constitution, marking the first (and only) time in the state’s history such a proposition was put to voters. But the convention proposal was soundly defeated, with only about 15 percent of those voting on the question favoring its passage (ratification would have required approval by a majority of all voters voting in that election). All seven of the other amendment proposals suffered a similar fate, failing by substantial margins. 

Minimum Wage for Women and Minors

In 1933, the legislature passed a statute empowering the Industrial Commission of Utah to investigate employment issues related to, and regulate the working conditions of, women and minors. This included the authority to set maximum working hours and a minimum wage. At the time the bill was being considered, there was some uncertainty as to whether the legislature could place this authority in the hands of the commission. To address this concern, legislators agreed to refer a constitutional amendment to voters that would give the legislature the power to set a minimum wage for women and minors and generally provide for the welfare of all employees, “with the idea of having the issue settled and the will of the people on the question definitely expressed.”

Utahns ratified the amendment in 1933, thereby removing any doubt as to the constitutionality of the minimum wage law. Five years later, after the Industrial Commission issued an order setting maximum work hours and minimum weekly wage, the Utah Supreme Court rejected a state constitutional challenge contending that these regulations violated the state constitutional rights of employers. The court also held that the legislature had the power to enact the statute at issue even without the constitutional amendment. Although the court invalidated the Industrial Commission’s order for other reasons, the court settled the question of whether the legislature could endow to the Industrial Commission the authority to set a minimum wage and enforce other requirements related to labor conditions.

Initiative and Referendum

In 1900, Utah voters approved the first three amendments to their state constitution, one of which authorized citizen ballot initiatives and referendums. Utah was only the second state in the Union to provide for these direct democracy mechanisms on a statewide level in their constitution, but it would take another 16 years before the Utah Legislature, which was dominated by a Republican majority that generally disfavored the idea of direct legislation, “reluctantly passed an implementing bill” to give the provisions operative effect.

The original statute governing the initiative process specified that anyone signing an initiative petition had to sign “in the office and in the presence of an officer competent to administer oaths.” In practice, this cumbersome requirement made gathering the signatures necessary to place an initiative on the ballot almost impossible. It wasn’t until after World War II that this restriction was finally eliminated.

The power of initiative and referendum applies in Utah to both state and local legislation, but voters cannot initiate constitutional amendments, nor can they utilize veto referendums on emergency legislation. The legislature also retains the authority to exempt additional areas of legislation from referendum efforts.