I have uploaded here the cert petition in Initiative and Referendum Institute v. Herbert. The case involves the question whether it violates the First Amendment for a state (in this case Utah) to impose a 2/3 vote requirement only on a certain class of initiatives (in this case, initiatives involving the taking of wildlife). The case is on the Supreme Court’s Feb. 16 calendar. I would be surprised to see the Supreme Court take this case, but it does create a fascinating issue involving “bad legislative intent.” According to the cert petition

The [Utah state] Senate sponsor [of the measure imposing the 2/3 requirement] candidly explained that the “reason for this [resolution] is to basically make it much more difficult in the State of Utah to do an anti-hunting, anti-fishing type initiative.”3 Floor Debate, 52nd Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah Feb. 3, 1998) (Senate recording tape no. 17) (statement of Sen. Blackham). The intent was “definitely [to] discourage” anyone from “putting anti-hunting and anti-fishing regulations on the ballot.” Id. The House sponsor also candidly identified the targets of the resolution as wildlife advocacy groups such as PETA, stating that such “groups are coming to Utah, pushing initiatives, and threatening to overturn our management of wildlife in our state. . . . ” Floor Debate, 52nd Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah Feb. 25, 1998) (House recording tape no. 2) (statement of Rep. Styler).