Carter v. Lehi City
2012 UT 2
| Utah | 2012Background
- Lehi City voters sought to place two initiatives—salary limits for city employees and a residency requirement—on the 2011 municipal ballot.
- The Lehi City Council refused to place the initiatives on the ballot, prompting petitioners to seek extraordinary relief in court.
- The court reexamines Utah precedent on the people’s initiative power, adopting a new framework centered on the nature of 'legislation' rather than a balance-based test.
- Under the new framework, the people’s initiative power is parallel to and coextensive with the legislature’s power, both locally and statewide.
- The court abandons the Citizen’s Awareness Now/Marakis framework and holds that ballot initiatives are proper legislative acts if they create generally applicable, policy-based rules.
- The court allows Initiatives One and Two to proceed to ballot consideration, finding them to be proper legislative acts and not precluded by procedural or timing concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Initiatives One and Two proper legislative acts? | Lehi voters argue initiatives are legislative and within the people’s power. | Lehi City contends they are administrative and beyond direct initiative. | Yes; initiatives are proper legislative acts. |
| Does timing/timeliness bar the extraordinary writ petition? | Petition timely under the tenth-day rule and Low should apply. | Petition untimely under the governing deadline. | Low overruled; petition timely and properly before court. |
| Does Dewey v. Doxey-Layton constrain ballot initiatives to conform to municipal notice/hearing requirements? | Initiatives must comply with municipal procedural requirements like notice and hearing. | Procedural constraints apply to municipal actions, not to the people’s initiative power. | Dewey overruled to extent; procedural requirements on initiatives are governed by the constitution’s 'manner and conditions' clause, not municipal law. |
| Is pre-enactment substantive review ripe for adjudication? | Constitutional and statutory challenges are ripe for review before enactment. | Ripeness requires actual application; pre-enactment review is inappropriate. | Substantive issues deferred; ripeness concerns prevent pre-enactment review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizen's Awareness Now v. Marakis, 873 P.2d 1117 (Utah 1994) (three-part balancing test disavowed in framework shift)
- Keigley v. Bench (Keigley II), 89 P.2d 480 (Utah 1939) (people's power parallel to legislature; executive/judicial separation)
- Keigley v. Bench (Keigley I), 63 P.2d 262 (Utah 1936) (enterprise of initiative power; permanency concept)
- Low v. City of Monticello, 54 P.3d 1153 (Utah 2002) (rule 6(e) extension of time for extraordinary writs discussed)
- Friends of Maple Mountain, Inc. v. Mapleton City, 228 P.3d 1238 (Utah 2010) (context for legislative vs. executive zoning actions)
- Utah Power & Light Co. v. Provo City, 74 P.2d 1191 (Utah 1937) (initiative power parallel to legislature; coercive authority)
- Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (US 1810) (legislature's general rules versus individual application)
- Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (US 1915) (legislative/adjudicative distinction foundational)
- City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enters., 426 U.S. 668 (US 1976) (separation of powers and general rules)