Summary
The Utah Supreme Court denied a petition for extraordinary relief challenging the five-day deadline for filing an application to circulate a referendum petition under Utah Code section 20A-7-302. The court held that the petition lacked adequate evidentiary support and did not establish that the deadline or the statute’s reference to a copy of the law violated constitutional rights. The court also explained that the statute refers to a bill passed by the Legislature and that sponsors may attach the most recent version reasonably available to them.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Utah Code section 20A-7-302's five-day deadline for filing a referendum application is unconstitutional because sponsors may not yet have a Governor-approved or enrolled version of the legislation.
- Whether the term "law" in section 20A-7-302 refers to a bill passed by the Legislature, rather than only a bill that has become effective law after gubernatorial approval or expiration of the veto period.
- Whether petitioners established entitlement to extraordinary relief based on allegations unsupported by affidavits or other reliable documentation.
- What form of the bill may be attached to a referendum application when an enrolled copy is not available before the statutory deadline.
Holdings
- A court ordinarily will not grant extraordinary relief when the petition is unsupported by affidavits or other reliable documentation and presents no adequate record for resolving disputed material facts.
- In the context of section 20A-7-302, "law" refers to a bill passed by the Legislature in whatever form exists when the legislative session ends; it does not mean only legislation that has become effective or has been approved or not vetoed by the Governor.
- Petitioners did not establish that the five-day deadline in section 20A-7-302 is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the facts alleged.
- When an enrolled copy of a bill is unavailable before the filing deadline, the statute may be construed to require whatever form of the bill the sponsors reasonably can obtain for attachment to a timely application. A good-faith effort to attach the most recent available version prevents the Lieutenant Governor from refusing the application on that basis.
Key quotations
“Thus, there is no reasonable interpretation of the term “law” that could mean anything other than a bill passed by the Legislature in whatever form it exists at the time the legislative session ends.” (¶ 6)
“And, to the extent sponsors of a referendum application have made a good faith effort to comply with the statute by attaching a copy of the most recent version of the bill that is available to them, the Lieutenant Governor clearly cannot refuse the application.” (¶ 8)
“Accordingly, we decline to grant the relief they request.” (¶ 9)
Factual background
Petitioners were prospective sponsors of a referendum seeking repeal of HB 454, the Prison Development Amendments, enacted during the 2015 legislative session. They alleged that they attempted to submit a referendum application on March 27, 2015, but were refused because Utah Code section 20A-7-302 requires filing within five calendar days after the end of the legislative session. The petition was unsupported by affidavits or other documentation, and the Lieutenant Governor's affidavit stated that the office had not refused to accept or file the application and had advised callers of the statutory deadline.
Procedural history
Petitioners sought extraordinary relief after asserting that the Lieutenant Governor's Election Office refused to accept their referendum application concerning HB 454 because it was submitted after the statutory five-day deadline. The Lieutenant Governor submitted a response and an affidavit stating that the office had not refused to accept or file the petition and had advised callers about the five-day deadline. The Utah Supreme Court denied relief.