452 P.3d 1109
Utah2019Background
- Count My Vote (CMV) sponsored the "Direct Primary Initiative" and submitted petition signatures in 2018, claiming >150,000 signatures and adequate counts in 26 of 29 state senate districts as of the April 15 submission deadline.
- Utah law allowed signers to remove their signatures up to May 15 (an extra ~30 days after sponsors must submit signatures); county clerks verify and the lieutenant governor certifies qualifying initiatives.
- Keep My Voice ran a targeted removal campaign during the post‑submission removal window, collected removal statements, submitted them en masse, and the lieutenant governor concluded CMV fell below the district thresholds in three senate districts and refused certification.
- CMV filed a petition for extraordinary writ in the Utah Supreme Court arguing (1) statutory: removal requests must be personally submitted by the signer, and (2) constitutional: the statutory scheme violated Equal Protection, Utah’s Uniform Operation of Laws Clause, and Article VI (initiative right / "undue burden").
- The court denied extraordinary relief: it interpreted the removal statute to permit third‑party submission (no personal‑submission requirement), rejected Equal Protection and Uniform Operation claims on the merits, but declined to decide the Article VI undue‑burden claim on the merits because of factual disputes and the limited record in an original writ posture; Justice Himonas concurred (expressing concerns about the undue‑burden standard), Justice Petersen dissented (would find the extra‑month provision unduly burdensome).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah Code §20A‑7‑205(3)(a) requires the signer to personally submit a removal statement | CMV: "voter" means personal submission; third‑party mass submissions (Keep My Voice) are invalid, so removals submitted en masse are ineffective | Respondents/LG: statute only bars electronic submissions; nothing requires in‑person or forbids third‑party physical submission | Court: Rejected CMV; textual reading and express bar on email imply other non‑electronic third‑party delivery (mail/agents) is permitted; lieutenant governor form is not binding law |
| Whether the Senate‑district signature requirement and removal process violate Equal Protection (one‑person, one‑vote) | CMV: combination of district requirement and removals dilutes some voters’ votes and warrants heightened scrutiny under one‑person/one‑vote precedents | LG: Utah senate districts used are roughly equal in population; no disproportionate power between urban/rural voters; rational basis suffices | Court: Rejected CMV; no one‑person/one‑vote violation because districts are population‑balanced; provisions pass rational‑basis review |
| Whether statute violates Utah Constitution’s Uniform Operation of Laws Clause by treating sponsors and opponents differently | CMV: sponsors face burdens (hearings, filing, signature rules) that opponents do not; disparate treatment of similarly situated persons | LG: sponsors and opponents are not similarly situated (sponsors seek to change law; opponents defend status quo); legislature may rationally treat them differently | Court: Rejected CMV; no disparate treatment of similarly situated persons, legislature's distinctions are rational |
| Whether the statutory scheme (esp. the post‑submission 30‑day removal window / "extra‑month") unduly burdens the initiative right under Utah Const. Art. VI (as‑applied) | CMV: targeted removal campaign during the extra month defeated an otherwise qualifying initiative; scheme forecloses sponsors from curing losses and thus unduly burdens initiative right | LG: CMV’s failure to qualify this cycle is not proof of an undue burden; other initiatives did qualify; petition lacks developed record and broader proof of systemic burden | Court: Denied relief on Article VI claim without reaching merits—found factual disputes, lack of record, and uncertainty about how to apply the "undue burden" balancing test; left issue for a fuller record/future case (Justice Petersen would have held unconstitutionally burdensome) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagley v. Bagley, 387 P.3d 1000 (Utah 2016) (expressio unius canon applied to statutory interpretation)
- Carpenter v. Riverton City, 103 P.3d 127 (Utah 2004) (extraordinary writ discretionary; need undisputed facts for merits)
- Gallivan v. Walker, 54 P.3d 1069 (Utah 2002) (initiative right is fundamental; one‑person/one‑vote analysis applied in county‑signature context)
- Utah Safe to Learn‑Safe to Worship Coal., Inc. v. State, 94 P.3d 217 (Utah 2004) (art. VI undue‑burden framework: weigh burden on initiative right against legislative purpose)
- Cook v. Bell, 344 P.3d 634 (Utah 2014) (application of undue‑burden standard; need practical evidence of burden)
- Hughes Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 322 P.3d 712 (Utah 2014) (Utah repudiates Chevron deference to administrative interpretations)
- Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1969) (one‑person/one‑vote precedents cited re: ballot access and equality of voting power)
- Halgren v. Welling, 63 P.2d 550 (Utah 1936) (common‑law recognition that signers may withdraw signatures before petition is acted upon)
- State v. Robinson, 254 P.3d 183 (Utah 2011) (three‑step Uniform Operation of Laws/Equal Protection framework)
- DIRECTV v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 364 P.3d 1036 (Utah 2015) (discussion of uniform operation / classifications)