Downs v. Thompson, 452 P.3d 1101

Background

Orem City passed a 2016 resolution authorizing agreements for a Bus Rapid Transit project; citizens filed a referendum petition challenging that resolution.
Citizens obtained referendum packets and gathered signatures; the City Recorder rejected the petition as addressing an administrative act and thus not referable; the Fourth District Court upheld that rejection.
Steven Downs (Orem public information officer) sent an email from his public email during the signature-gathering phase that distributed only anti-referendum materials; Utah County Clerk fined him $250 under Utah Code § 20A-11-1205(1)(b) (prohibiting use of public-entity email to advocate for/against a ballot proposition).
Downs demanded an impartial review; Utah County enacted a county ordinance delegating review of such fines to the County Commission and purported to make Commission decisions appealable to the state district court; the Commission upheld the fine.
Downs filed in state court; respondents removed to federal court, which certified three state-law questions to the Utah Supreme Court about (1) whether state district courts have appellate jurisdiction to review the County Commission’s decision under the county ordinance, (2) whether “ballot proposition” includes referenda during signature gathering, and (3) whether that term covers referenda during signature gathering even if the underlying action is later found administrative.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Utah state district court has appellate jurisdiction to review a Utah County Board of Commissioners’ decision upholding a §20A-11-1205 fine	Downs: county ordinance makes Commission decisions appealable to district court	County: county code §31-1-5 authorizes appeal to district court	Held: No — counties cannot confer appellate jurisdiction by ordinance; appellate jurisdiction must come from state constitution/statute; county code cannot vest it
Whether “ballot proposition” in §20A-11-1205(1)(b) includes a referendum during signature-gathering before requisite signatures obtained	Downs: referendum process (including signature phase) is a ballot proposition; statute’s definitions support broad reading	County/Clerk: term should apply only to items actually submitted to voters (i.e., after qualification)	Held: Yes — statutory definitions and context treat a referendum as the entire process, so “ballot proposition” covers the signature-gathering phase
Whether “ballot proposition” covers referenda in signature-gathering even if the challenged action is later found administrative and not referable	Downs: attempted referenda remain part of the referendum process and thus are protected/covered during signature phase	County/Clerk: if action is administrative and not referable, it should not count as a ballot proposition	Held: Yes — an attempted referendum remains a referendum throughout the process—even if it ultimately fails or is ruled administrative—so it is a “ballot proposition” under §20A-11-1205(1)

Key Cases Cited

U.S. Fid. & Guarantee Co. v. U.S. Sports Specialty Ass’n, 270 P.3d 464 (Utah 2012) (treatment of certified questions and standards when answering them)
Carter v. State, 345 P.3d 737 (Utah 2015) (jurisdiction derives from constitution or statute)
State v. Johnson, 114 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1941) (essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction defined)
Lockhart v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 958 (U.S. 2016) (discussion of the last-antecedent canon)
LPI Servs. v. McGee, 215 P.3d 135 (Utah 2009) (canons of construction and proximity preference)
Gallivan v. Walker, 54 P.3d 1069 (Utah 2002) (initiative/referendum petition-signing as part of the voters’ legislative right)
Baker v. Carlson, 437 P.3d 333 (Utah 2018) (judicial review of clerk’s determination that action is administrative/not referable)
Tobias v. South Jordan City Recorder, 972 P.2d 373 (Utah 1998) (process for initiating referendum petitions)