Anderson v. Provo City
2016 UT 50
| Utah | 2016Background
- Petitioners are residents of Orem and Provo who collected sufficient signatures to trigger referenda on city resolutions for the November 2017 ballot.
- Both Orem City and Provo City clerks refused to accept and file the referendum petitions, concluding the resolutions could not be referred as a matter of law.
- Petitioners sought extraordinary writs in the Utah Supreme Court under Utah Code § 20A-7-607(4)(a) to compel the clerks to file the referenda.
- Utah R. App. P. 19(b)(5) requires a petitioner seeking extraordinary relief to explain why filing in district court would be impractical or inappropriate.
- Petitioners argued § 20A-7-607(4) implicitly requires filing in the Supreme Court and that the statute’s remedy language reserved authority to this court.
- The Supreme Court concluded the statute is permissive, does not mandate exclusive review here, and that Petitioners failed to meet the Rule 19(b)(4)–(5) burden; it denied the petitions without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Cities' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 20A-7-607(4) requires petitioners to file extraordinary-writ petitions in the Utah Supreme Court | § 20A-7-607(4)(a) directs voters to the Supreme Court; statute implicitly mandates exclusive Supreme Court review | Statute is permissive; it does not limit remedies or courts where relief may be sought | Court: statute does not require filing in Supreme Court; district courts may provide appropriate relief |
| Whether the language in § 20A-7-607(4)(b) (remedy if Supreme Court finds petition sufficient) limits district court authority to order clerks to file referenda | The statutory remedy language implies only the Supreme Court can order clerks to file referenda | The remedy language does not restrict district courts; it contemplates one possible pathway but isn’t exclusive | Court: § 20A-7-607(4) does not strip district courts of power to grant relief |
| Whether petitioners satisfied Utah R. App. P. 19(b)(4)–(5) showing it would be impractical or inappropriate to file in district court | Filing in district court would be impractical/inappropriate because statute points to the Supreme Court and timelines/urgency justify direct Supreme Court review | Petitioners must affirmatively show impracticality/inappropriateness per Rule 19; failure to do so warrants denial | Court: Petitioners failed to show impracticality/inappropriateness; petitions denied without prejudice |
| Appropriate remedy for clerk’s refusal to accept referendum petitions | Immediate extraordinary writ from Supreme Court ordering clerks to file | Relief can be sought in district court or Supreme Court; statute permits either | Court: Petitioners may pursue relief in district court; Supreme Court not exclusive forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Low v. City of Monticello, 54 P.3d 1153 (Utah 2002) (§ 20A-7-607 does not limit remedies or courts where relief may be pursued)
- Carpenter v. Riverton City, 103 P.3d 127 (Utah 2004) (§ 20A-7-607 is permissive and not exclusive to the Supreme Court)
- Carter v. Lehi City, 269 P.3d 141 (Utah 2012) (overruled Low on other grounds; cited for procedural context)