And that infuriates proponents of citizen lawmaking.

"Michelangelo knew when to stop chipping away at the David," said former legislative attorney Lisa Watts Baskin. "How much more can you regulate the initiative process?"

Lawmakers passed two new changes to initiative petitions in the recently concluded legislative session - one adding a place for citizens to include their birth date to make verification easier and one requiring the financial impact of the measure to be shown on petitions.

Supporters say the bills add transparency and integrity to how Utahns create their own laws. But critics contend the financial requirements present an unnecessary burden to the constitutionally protected practice.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has not yet decided to sign or veto the bills, the latest in a growing list of controls placed on citizen-initiative laws.

* In 1998, voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority vote to pass an initiative on wildlife issues. All others require a simple majority. Baskin is challenging this amendment in court.

l In 2002, lawmakers passed a bill requiring seven public meetings and increasing the signatures needed to place an initiative on the ballot. Signature totals must equal at least 10 percent of the votes cast in the last governor's race in 26 of the 29 state Senate districts.

This year's changes are in reaction to "the dirty secret behind" the open-space initiative that voters rejected last November, according to Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper.

Some of those who signed the petition were not aware that it called for a tax increase to buy and preserve watersheds and wildlife habitats, he said.

"People who participate in the initiative process should have to disclose that information," Hughes said.

And his House Bill 142 requires just that.

The bill mandates that each petition should include a fiscal explanation in bold type at the top of the page. Local or state budget directors would conduct the analysis, which would be repeated if voters approve the initiative. If the second review is more than 25 percent higher than the first, legislators can repeal the new law, change it or send it back to the voters.

Legislators already have the right to change laws created by initiatives, but Hughes said the provision is meant to "motivate" those conducting the financial review to get it right.

Some lawmakers feel the financial impact statements go too far.

All legislation debated on Capitol Hill includes a "fiscal note," explaining its effect on taxes or debt. But the state does not go back and review laws that were passed to ensure the fiscal notes were accurate.

"We don't do that with ourselves, so why should we do that to the people who want to sponsor an initiative?" asked House Minority Leader Ralph Becker.

Baskin, who drafted a failed 2002 initiative to ban high-level radioactive waste and raise taxes on other waste, takes the criticism a step further, saying financial impact statements are a way to scare people from signing petitions.

"The process is already too expensive, too unwieldy and now they will provide persuasive information to defeat the legislation even before it makes it to the ballot," she said.

She expects the fiscal impact to be politicized and manipulated by all of the parties.

Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George, said fiscal impact statements are not a way to ward off petition signers or price out citizen lawmakers, rather it is a way to empower voters.

"The better informed the voter is the better decision they can make," he said. "They just need to have all of the facts."

Becker says the goal of the Legislature is not that altruistic.

"The intent is to make [initiatives] difficult, because we don't like them."

Brigham Young University political science professor Kelly Patterson equates initiatives to a "fourth branch of government." And, he said, this branch generally irritates legislators because it assumes their policy-making role.

One of the major criticisms of citizen legislation, such as the failed open-space initiative, is the big money funneled into Utah by outside special interests.

"Originally the initiative process was a safety valve for common people to override government abuses, but in recent years the process has been hijacked by well-funded, out-of-state groups," said Mike Jerman, vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association.

But Patterson warned increasing regulations may push the initiative process out of the hands of regular citizens.

"The more difficult it is to place something on the ballot, the more likely it is certain types of groups from outside the state will be necessary," he said.

Whether the initiative process has been "hijacked" or not, it has proved to be an ineffective way to push an agenda. Utah cemented the right to vote on initiatives in 1917, and in the past 88 years only 18 initiatives have made the ballot. Of those, only four were approved by voters.

mcanham@sltrib.com