BERYL — The sun-baked dirt road winds through the vast emptiness of Beryl. On the horizon, a homestead stands against the untamed surroundings of Southern Utah.

Built by Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller with their own hands, the home and its matching barn reflect years of dedicated labor and a lifetime of savings.

“We put everything we have into this home,” Ruth Seegmiller said. “If we lose it, we lose everything we’ve worked for and our only livelihood.” 

Inside, the home mirrors a close-knit family grounded in strong Christian values and cherished traditions.

Each detail underscores a life built on faith and togetherness. On the walls, a gallery of memories capture moments of joy — a child’s baptism, a family gathering, the smiling faces of their eight children. Interspersed are images of Christ and the temple, gentle reminders of their faith and the covenants that bind them.

The open floor plan centers around the kitchen, a hub of togetherness. Pots and pans hang above the island, a focal point of daily life where countless meals have been prepared with love, family stories shared, and homeschool lessons unfolded.

The large dining room window frames the family farm and the desert stretching beyond. The land is flat and unyielding, its surface cracked and dusty, dotted only with sparse sagebrush under an endless, scorching sky. The home’s comfort feels fragile against this harsh desert backdrop.

This contrast tells a story of dual realities: inside, there is comfort and love; outside, an encroaching desolation. Each gust of wind rustling the sagebrush seems to carry whispers of the legal troubles threatening to disrupt their carefully built haven.

The incident unfolds

The legal storm the Seegmillers now face began on June 11, 2022, at Newcastle Reservoir, about 23 miles from Beryl.

The family had organized a birthday party for one of their sons, and 14-year-old Kevin Cooper was among the guests. On that day, Coopers died from an incident that occurred at the party.

The Seegmillers assert they had made it clear that all the children should wear life jackets near the water.

“When we were at the reservoir, we told everybody regardless of whether they knew how to swim or not, everyone needed to wear a life jacket,” Ruth Seegmiller said.

Despite these instructions, Kevin and his brother managed to enter the reservoir unnoticed without the required gear while everyone was packing up to leave. This wasn’t the first time; several people had previously reminded the boys to put on their life jackets, Seegmiller said.

As the boys were on the water, some people began pointing to the other side of the reservoir. Witnesses on the lake and other children at the party later reported seeing the boys playing and standing up in their kayak. Moments later, one of the kayaks tipped over, and Cooper fell into the water. 

Bryson Seegmiller jumped into the reservoir to help, still unsure of what was happening.

“I swim out there and the first person I see is her (his daughter). I see Kevin’s brother in the distance holding onto this kayak with one arm frantic and trying to swim around, go underneath the water, trying to find his brother while yelling, ‘help, help, I can’t find my brother he’s drowned’ and continuing to repeat himself,” Bryson Seegmiller said.

Meanwhile, Ruth Seegmiller stayed on the shore and vividly remembers hearing Cooper’s brother and his cries for help.

“I can just remember him screaming, ‘I killed my brother.’ For weeks, months after that every time I could hear that scream it just reminded me,”  Ruth Seegmiller said during an emotional interview with St. George News / Cedar City News.

“Just the way he was screaming for his brother just tore my heart apart because I knew they hadn’t found Kevin yet. It was just the saddest thing to me watching his brother scream like that. I’ll never forget that. I never heard anyone scream or cry like that before.”

A nearby party on a boat assisted in getting Cooper’s brother to shore and then found a spot with service to call 911. After an extended search, Bryson Seegmiller, realizing the situation was dire, made the heartbreaking call to Cooper’s parents.

Despite extensive efforts by Bryson Seegmiller and first responders, 10 long hours passed before Kevin’s body was found.

The community rallied around the Cooper family, starting a GoFundMe account that the Seegmillers said raised approximately $120,000.

“There were so many people who came out to help them,” Ruth Seegmiller said. “People would just give them money out of their pocket. It was really amazing.”

In the days following the tragedy, Bryson Seegmiller also went to the Coopers’ home to help with cleaning up some accumulated garbage. He aimed to provide support and assist with any needs the family might have during their difficult time.

While he worked alongside another person, the Coopers communicated mainly with his colleague and were less responsive to him.

Eventually, the father expressed that hearing from Seegmiller was too painful for them, and they needed to distance themselves. Respecting their wishes, Seegmiller ceased his efforts to provide further assistance.

“So I respected their wishes. I stepped out and stopped trying to be there for them,” Bryson Seegmiller said. 

Coopers pursue legal action

Kevin’s parents, William and Tina Cooper, later chose to pursue legal action.

They first secured an undisclosed settlement from the kayak owner’s insurance before filing a lawsuit against the Seegmillers for nearly $10 million. They also sought a claim against the Seegmillers’ insurance, but discovered that they didn’t have coverage.

This amount reflects the Coopers’ belief that Kevin’s notable achievements and potential justified their claim for damages.

Court documents and news reports highlight that by the age of 14, Kevin had already purchased a 350-acre farm and was involved in a range of ambitious projects. These included developing a luxury toiletries line, working on a movie script and children’s books, and breeding heritage turkeys.

Additionally, he bought a John Deere tractor for farm maintenance on his 11th birthday and later wrote two books, including an autobiography,

In their court petition, the Coopers argue that Kevin’s future role was essential to their financial stability. As the only able-bodied member of the household, the court documents state that Kevin Cooper was expected to support his older autistic brother and care for his mother, who is partially blind.

Additionally, William Cooper, a disabled veteran injured during boot camp, had relied on VA benefits while his children were dependents. With Cooper’s death and his brother now an adult, those benefits have ceased, worsening the family’s financial situation.

Cedar City News reached out to the Coopers’ lawyer for comment but received no response at the time of this report.

Seegmillers refuse legal assistance

Despite their legal issues, the Seegmillers have chosen not to hire an attorney — a decision deeply rooted in their faith.

As devout Christians, the couple said they repeatedly prayed about the litigation and felt guided not to seek legal counsel. For them, their decision to obey was about following divine direction.

“At this point, He has asked us that we take care of matters,” Bryson Seegmiller said. “We’re supposed to trust in the Lord and we’re supposed to use the community to knowledge and insight and to be able to help us through this ordeal. And we have gotten an immense amount of community support and knowledge.”

The Seegmillers said they have had several attorneys offer to represent them, but each time, they returned to prayer and consistently received the same answer.

The Seegmillers’ response

On July 3, 2023, the Seegmillers were served with the initial complaint. Ruth Seegmiller refused to accept the paperwork and recorded the incident on her phone. The constable noted that he left the summons in a secure spot. The court gave them 21 days to respond.

“It was definitely a hard thing to get,” Ruth Seegmiller said. “Then to read through it and read all the things that they were saying and to know we have proof against all this … it’s hard. You just feel like, this isn’t, this isn’t what happened.”

While denying any connection to the sovereign movement, the Seegmillers included elements of its ideology in their July 18 response.

They filed an “Affidavit of Conditional Acceptance,” a document commonly associated with sovereign beliefs, which imposed conditions on their acceptance of the legal proceedings. However, the court did not accept this response as valid.

Sovereign adherents claim exemption from government authority and legal systems, disputing the legitimacy of courts and regulations. U.S. courts typically reject these arguments as lacking legal standing.

The Seegmillers filed a formal response on August 16, well past the deadline. In their response, they used tactics associated with the sovereign movement, including the argument that the capitalization of their names in court documents invalidated the petition.

The Seegmillers also contested the Coopers’ claims about the drowning.

According to court documents, the Coopers alleged they had warned the Seegmillers that their son could not swim and had requested that he and his “severely autistic brother” avoid the water. They accused the Seegmillers of negligence in supervising the children.

The Seegmillers, however, denied this claim, arguing the Coopers never told them Kevin couldn’t swim.

“They never told us that he couldn’t get in the water and I clearly told her we would be playing in the water,” Ruth Seegmiller said. “And actually, the week before that we went out fishing and brought him with us then too … And he didn’t come to fish, they just played in the water a little bit and they never said anything about it.”

Text messages between Tina Cooper and Ruth Seegmiller, reviewed by St. George/Cedar City News, showed no mention of Kevin’s inability to swim or any warnings to keep him out of the water. Additionally, no court evidence was presented to support the claim that such a conversation took place.

Judgment and appeals

After the Seegmillers missed the deadline to respond adequately, the Coopers’ attorney filed for a default judgment, which the court granted. A hearing for damages was scheduled for Jan. 16, 2024.

The Seegmillers did not attend the hearing, later claiming they were unaware of it due to communication issues with the court. Following the hearing, the judge awarded $9.5 million in damages to the Coopers.

To enforce the judgment, multiple writs of garnishment and liens led to the seizure of the Seegmillers’ property, including their water rights and farm.

Following the issuance of the writs, constables and the Coopers’ attorney arrived at the Seegmillers’ home to seize valuable assets while Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller were away in Cedar City, about an hour from their home.

All eight of their children were present during the raid when the constables used a locksmith to gain entry into the home. The forced entry and search for valuables left the children alone and unsettled.

At the time, the Seegmillers said they had no idea who the people were and instructed their children to stay out of sight while they kept them on the phone traveling home.Their 15-year-old son tried to prevent the constables from entering, but they were ultimately able to move past him.

“I got a phone call at some point from someone who was here that said, ‘we are breaking into your house … and the person I was on the phone with said,’tell your kid to stand down’,” Bryson Seegmiller said.

Among the items seized were some of the Seegmillers’ firearms, money and their children’s savings. The savings were ultimately returned.

Coopers’ attorney also gave the Seegmillers an ultimatum regarding two of their vehicles, including a work truck and a van for the family. The Seegmillers were given the option to either surrender both vehicles or keep one by allowing a friend to buy it back for $2,500.

In addition, a sheriff’s auction was scheduled for late July to sell the Seegmillers’ home and other seized assets. As the auction date neared, the Seegmillers filed a motion to stay the judgment and request a hearing.

While the judge granted part of their request and scheduled a hearing on Aug. 16, he did not halt the sale of their home.

Iron County Sheriff Ken Carpenter, however, delayed the auction for another month to give the Seegmillers an opportunity to be heard in court, urging them to reconsider hiring an attorney.

“I made the decision I did to give them to have their day in court,” Carpenter said. “And I really hope they will reconsider their decision not to hire an attorney because I am afraid if they don’t, they’re going to lose everything they have.”

The judge’s ruling

On Friday, the Seegmillers attended their hearing before 5th District Court Judge Matthew Bell. Even with the high stakes, the Seegmillers stuck to their decision to represent themselves, guided by their faith and conviction not to hire a lawyer.

Bell began by recounting the procedural history of the case, noting that the Seegmillers’ failure to comply with court rules and their reliance on “meritless legal theories” had led to their current predicament.

Bell expressed frustration with the Seegmillers’ repeated use of documents and strategies associated with the sovereign ideology, which he described as “improper” and “without a basis in the law.”

“The affidavit you submitted,” the judge stated, “was not a proper answer in form or substance. It was, in essence, a declaration of your intent not to participate in these legal proceedings unless your own terms were met — a stance that is both unreasonable and untenable in this court.”

Despite their recent efforts to challenge the default judgment, the judge denied all five motions filed by the Seegmillers, including their motion to set aside the judgment and writ of execution.

However, he did grant a temporary stay on the sheriff’s sale of their home, giving the Seegmillers 90 days to appeal the decision. If they do appeal and the appellate court grants their request, the stay will remain in place pending the outcome.

“If you choose to appeal, that is your right,” Bell said, adding, “but I urge you to seek proper legal counsel moving forward. The consequences of your current path are severe, and I fear you may lose everything if you continue down this road alone.”

Even after the judge’s strong admonitions, the Seegmillers are likely to stand by their decision not to hire an attorney, trusting instead in their faith to guide them. Though this path could cost them their home and livelihood, they hold firm in their belief that the trials they have faced are part of a journey they wouldn’t trade, despite the heartache.

“We have done everything the Lord has asked us to. It is a home. It is not my family. It is a mere miniscule thing they can take away. I’ve worked many years to build it but it is nothing because my family has gotten closer together,” Bryson Seegmiller said.

“We’ve had many miracles and so many blessings given to us not only for each other but for the community. I would never trade that for anything in the world. So even if I lost my home, from the gifts I have received from my Heavenly Father, it was well worth it.”

Cedar City News reporter Jeff Richards contributed to the coverage of this story.

Photo Gallery

The home of the Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller family, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Ruth and Bryson Seegmiller are joined by two of their children as they sit down for an interview with St. George News / Cedar City News reporters, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Advertisement

Ruth and Bryson Seegmiller and several of their children enjoy freshly baked cookies prior to an interview with St. George News / Cedar City News reporters, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Ruth and Bryson Seegmiller and several of their children enjoy freshly baked cookies prior to an interview with St. George News / Cedar City News reporters, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Photos and inspirational messages adorn the living room wall of the Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller family home, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

One of Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller’s children, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Ruth Seegmiller is surrounded by a few of her children following an interview with St. George News / Cedar City News reporters, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Advertisement

The home of the Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller family, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

A goat provides milk for the Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller family, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Various crops are growing on the Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller family property, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

The home of the Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller family, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

A legal notice has been posted on the front gate of the home of the Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller family, Beryl, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Advertisement

Newcastle Reservoir, Newcastle, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Newcastle Reservoir, Newcastle, Utah, June 26, 2024 | Photo by Jeff Richards, St. George News / Cedar City News

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2024, all rights reserved.

The Utah Republican Party, Sutherland Institute and other conservative groups and leaders are calling for a constitutional amendment to give the Utah Legislature veto power over initiatives after a Utah Supreme Court ruling allowed a lawsuit over redistricting to move forward.

Lawmakers may meet to vote to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot as soon as Wednesday, though Utah House and Senate leadership have not announced an official date for a session. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

The call for an amendment to the state’s constitution is in response to a unanimous decision handed down in July by the state’s highest court. The court ruled when citizens pass initiatives, those initiatives are protected from “unfettered legislative amendment, repeal or replacement.”

“I think that the ruling from the Utah Supreme Court establishes an expectation that is so out of line with the principles of a constitutional republic that we need to make the correction,” Utah GOP chair Rob Axson said in a phone interview with the Deseret News.

An open letter calling for a constitutional amendment was signed by several different groups and leaders including Pro-Life Utah, Gayle Ruzicka of Utah Eagle Forum and Worldwide Organization for Women.

Axson said the call for a constitutional amendment did not have to do with redistricting, but was in response to the language around initiatives in the Utah Supreme Court decision. The Sutherland Institute released a separate call for a constitutional amendment on Friday as well.

The state supreme court’s decision was in response to a lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a group of Salt Lake voters. They challenged a congressional map lawmakers had drawn and implemented after Utah voters approved a ballot measure to create an independent redistricting commission. The commission proposed several maps, but the Utah Legislature went with a map drawn by the Legislative Redistricting Committee consisting of five Democrats and 15 Republicans.

“I appreciate Utahns and stakeholders engaging and expressing their concerns on this important issue,” said Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams in a statement to the Deseret News. “There has been significant discussion about a special session, and we are carefully considering their requests.”

“There are discussions about the possibility of (a) special session, but no decisions have been made,” a spokesperson for the Utah House Majority said.

A member of the Utah Senate told the Deseret News the vote could come as soon as Wednesday. The senator said the vote will likely be close because a two-thirds vote is required to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Why amend the Utah Constitution?

After the Utah Supreme Court issued the ruling in the redistricting case, reactions fell mostly along party lines.

Utah Republicans widely criticized the Utah Supreme Court decision. Adams and Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz called it “one of the worst outcomes” they have ever seen and said “the court punted and made a new law about the initiative power, creating chaos and striking at the very heart of our republic.”

Adams and Schultz said the court created “supreme laws” and stripped away the ability of state, county and municipal authorities to enact policies. Cox expressed disagreement with some of the court’s analysis and determination at the time.

“The Senate Democrats applaud the court’s recognition of these constitutional protections, including the right to fair and impartial redistricting processes,” said Utah Senate Democrats when the decision was handed down. “We stand firmly with the authority of Utah’s voters and their right to shape a transparent and just government that truly represents the voice of all Utahns.”

Now almost a month has passed since the ruling and Axson said he thinks the consequences of what could happen if an amendment is not passed are dire, which drove the decision to call for the amendment.

“I think the core issue is that in a republic you are electing folks to represent you and they are most closely accountable to the voters while also being positioned to make necessary judgments and adjustments,” said Axson, explaining there is sometimes a need to change law quickly and the Legislature is in the position to do that.

The ruling means if there is a ballot initiative, even if it is well-meaning, it could create a bad situation and there would be no speedy way to fix it, said Axson.

“That makes zero sense in a day and age when we need to be nimble to respond to changes in the needs of our population,” he said.

When asked to respond to the potential criticism that some citizens may see this as vetoing their voice, Axson said there should always be a back and forth. He said he thinks there is a difference between petitioning your elected officials and putting out a referendum.

“It removes deliberative dialogue necessary for good policy,” said Axson, adding he thinks there needs to be room for nuance, adjustment and collaboration.

“What we are calling for is the Legislature to take action, not to remove the rights of people, but instead, to enshrine the principles of a constitutional republic where dialogue and engagement is permitted,” he said.

Axson said not just in Utah, but across the country, special interest groups fund ballot initiatives. He does not think “the project of some billionaire” or foreign influence should prevent the Utah Legislature from acting in the best interest of citizens.

The decision to call for a constitutional amendment does not have to do with redistricting, said Axson, it has to do with Utah’s future.

“We will find massive amounts of money coming into Utah from outside groups and individuals to impact public policy,” said Axson. “And at best, we would be in a space of constant pendulum swinging one way or the other.”

“We should always be deferring to what Utahns want Utah to be,” said Axson. He thinks a constitutional amendment would allow that.

The Sutherland Institute also issued a statement recommending a constitutional amendment “to correct the flawed understanding of the Utah Constitution’s principle of proper exercise of legislative power reflected in the Utah Supreme Court’s recent ruling in League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature.”

“Any amount of experience with lawmaking quickly shows that good public policy is rarely fully established when a law is initially enacted,” said the Sutherland Institute. “Unforeseen consequences are a natural feature of our system of government – making the power to reform any new law an essential aspect of the reasonable understanding of the proper exercise of legislative power in our republic.”

Utah Minority Leader Angela Romero has not seen text of a proposed amendment, but in the case the amendment allows the Utah Legislature the ability to veto a citizen-driven initiative, she said she has major concerns.

“For truly a citizen legislature, we should be listening to the people of our state,” Romero said. “And I don’t think a majority of people in Utah would want to do anything that jeopardizes their voice.”

Romero said she has concerns about putting an amendment on the ballot, but she also thinks the effort might “backfire.”

Another concern Romero raised was the impact this could have with abortion laws. “When abortion has been put on the ballot, even in red states, the people have spoken and they don’t want the laws that are currently on the book,” she said, adding she thinks legislators having the ability to override that is “problematic.”

Romero said as a policymaker she is “very, very progressive,” but she finds value in seeking out commonality and looking for answers in the middle — that is what she thinks most Utahns want.

“I think of a lot of Utahs would be very frustrated if this was to be put on the ballot, and I hope if it is put on the ballot that they would come out in numbers and vote it down,” she said.

The process of amending the Utah Constitution

The first step to amend the Utah Constitution is the introduction of the text of a proposed constitutional amendment. It has to be proposed in either the Utah House or the Utah Senate.

Two-thirds of both the House and the Senate have to vote in favor of the amendment. If approved, the amendment would be put on the ballot. The Legislature has to ensure the public has the opportunity to see the amendment “in at least one newspaper in every county of the state, where a newspaper is published.”

Utah voters then decide whether or not to amend the state constitution.

As legislative leaders weigh what issues might be ripe for a potential special session Wednesday, top Republicans and conservative organizations are clamoring for lawmakers to put a constitutional amendment on the fall ballot to undo a Utah Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the public’s right to change laws via initiative.

Last month, hearing a case centered on a 2018 ballot measure intended to prevent political boundaries drawn to benefit one political party, the state’s high court unanimously declared that Utahns have a right to reform government through such initiatives and the Legislature must have a compelling interest to alter the will of the voters.

That didn’t sit well with lawmakers. House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, said in a joint statement at the time that the ruling was “one of the worst outcomes we’ve ever seen from the Utah Supreme Court” and that it “made a new law about the initiative power, creating chaos and striking at the very heart of our republic.”

Now, 36 key Republicans and conservative organizations sent a letter to legislative leadership Friday night urging the Legislature to amend the state constitution to reverse the ruling. They include Utah Republican Party Chair Rob Axson, GOP attorney general nominee Derek Brown, Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka and others.

“This ruling represents an existential threat to the values, culture and way of life that define our state,” the letter states. “Utah now faces the risk of becoming like California, where large sums of outside money influence laws that do not reflect the values of our citizens and undermine our cultural integrity.”

To make it on the November ballot, the Legislature would have to pass the amendment before Sept. 3.

Separately, the Sutherland Institute, an influential conservative think tank, is encouraging the Legislature to “correct the flawed understanding … reflected in the Utah Supreme Court’s recent ruling.”

The institute said the court’s decision puts laws enacted by the Legislature beneath those enacted by voters via ballot initiative, which cannot be changed by lawmakers.

“This bifurcated view of Utah law — aside from being constitutionally suspect,” Sutherland warned in a statement Friday evening, “makes certain that bad public policy enacted by ballot initiative that fails to serve the public good cannot be corrected.”

The proposition at issue

In its ruling, the court said the Legislature can change laws that facilitate implementation of what voters want, but alterations that fundamentally undercut the will of the people are held to higher scrutiny by the courts.

In 2018, voters approved Proposition 4, which created an independent redistricting commission to draw political boundaries, setting standards for the maps and prohibiting the consideration of partisan benefits.

The Legislature largely gutted the law, making the commission advisory, and drew congressional maps that split Salt Lake County, the most liberal part of the state, into four districts.

The League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and several individual plaintiffs sued, arguing the maps deprived voters of a meaningful voice in Congress.

Moreover, they contended that the Utah Constitution states that “all political power is inherent in the people” and by undoing the will of the people, the Legislature deprived voters of a constitutional right.

Last month, the high court agreed, writing that “when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through a citizen initiative, their exercise of these rights is protected from government infringement. This means that government reform initiatives are constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement.”

The justices sent the case back to a district court to determine if lawmakers had a “compelling” interest in rewriting the initiative. If they did not, the court could order the Legislature to redraw the boundaries.

“Although the intent of initiatives is to amplify that voice, this ruling creates a rigid and unmanageable system that disrupts our republican form of government,” Friday’s letter from the conservative leaders states.

“Given these exigent circumstances,” it adds, “we believe it is imperative that the Legislature be immediately called into special session to propose a constitutional amendment.”

Special session discussions are underway

The pressure comes as legislative leaders weigh requests from lawmakers for issues that could be on the agenda for a potential special session Wednesday.

Asked specifically about the potential for a constitutional amendment to address the initiative issue, spokespeople for the House and Senate issued nearly identical statements.

“There are always discussions about the possibility of a special session, but no decisions have been made for next week,” said Paige Bridges, spokesperson for the House Republicans.

Similarly, Aundrea Peterson, spokesperson for the Senate Republicans, said, “There are a lot of discussions about the possibility of a special session. Leadership is reviewing the requests, but no decisions have been made.”

The Senate held a virtual caucus Thursday, but Peterson would not say what, if any, decisions were made there.

Katie Wright, executive director for the group Better Boundaries, which championed 2018′s Proposition 4 creating an independent redistricting commission, said that “we should all be concerned when the Utah Legislature is contemplating calling themselves into session to override the Utah Supreme Court’s unanimous decision — just like they did for Prop 4.”

A spokesperson for Gov. Spencer Cox did not respond to questions Friday about whether the Republican governor would support a constitutional amendment limiting ballot initiatives or if he would call a special session.

Under a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2018, the Legislature has the power to convene a special session in instances of fiscal crisis, war, natural disasters or “an emergency in the affairs of the state” without approval from the governor if two-thirds of both bodies support doing so. What constitutes an emergency is not defined.

Likewise, constitutional amendments need to pass the House and Senate by two-thirds margins — they are not signed or vetoed by the governor — in order to be put on the November ballot for possible ratification by voters.