Opinion ID: 2745633
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legitimate Legislative Purpose

Text: ¶25 We now consider whether an improper legislative purpose in passing the 2011 amendments may void the challenged provisions. Generally, “[t]he authority of the legislature . . . . is limited . . . to the role of providing for the orderly and reasonable use of the initiative power.” Sevier Power Co. v. Bd. of Sevier Cnty. Comm’rs, 2008 UT 72, ¶ 10, 196 P.3d 583. Legitimate legislative purposes include “deterring fraud, ensuring the efficiency of the process, [and] ensuring a modicum of numerical support for an initiative.” Gallivan, 2002 UT 89, ¶ 53. “The legislature may not, however, impose discriminatory restrictions on the initiative right . . . simply for the sake of making it harder to [place an initiative on the ballot] and restricting the initiative power.” Id. ¶26 No showing of such an illegitimate legislative purpose has been made here. As the State notes in its briefing, Utah had held a special interim election to replace Governor Huntsman, who had recently been appointed as United States Ambassador to China. The State claims that as a result of this irregular occurrence, and under the prior iteration of section 20A of the Utah Code, a significantly reduced number of signatures would have been required in 2011 for an initiative to reach the ballot than in prior years. It is reasonable to conclude that the legislature, interested in providing for the orderly and reasonable use of the initiative power, acted to maintain a comparable standard of numerical support by which initiatives might reach the ballot during this period. This is a legitimate legislative purpose. ¶27 In weighing the reasonableness of the burdens placed upon the initiative right against the legislative purpose for the restrictions, we conclude that the challenged provisions are reasonable, both individually and in the aggregate, and are supported by a legitimate legislative purpose. These provisions reasonably serve to maintain a consistent threshold of minimal support required before legislation 8 Cite as: 2014 UT 46 Opinion of the Court may be placed on the ballot via initiative, promoting an efficient and orderly initiative process. We therefore hold that the challenged provisions do not unduly burden the right to initiative.