Grant v. Gov. Herbert, 449 P.3d 122

In the 2018 general election Utah voters approved Proposition 2, the Utah Medical Cannabis Act, which went into effect Dec. 1, 2018.
Governor Herbert called a special legislative session Dec. 3, 2018 to amend the Medical Cannabis Act; the Legislature enacted H.B. 3001 that same day and the Governor signed it.
H.B. 3001 materially amended aspects of Proposition 2 and passed by two-thirds in both Utah House and Senate.
Petitioners (including referendum sponsors Maxfield, Newby, Grant, and others) filed a referendum application to place H.B. 3001 on the ballot; Lieutenant Governor Cox denied the application citing (1) a sponsor eligibility defect (Newby) and (2) the two‑thirds exemption.
Petitioners sought extraordinary relief directly in the Utah Supreme Court, arguing (a) the Governor exceeded authority by convening the special session/‘‘effectively vetoing’’ Proposition 2, (b) the two‑thirds referendum exception does not apply to laws that amend initiatives, and (c) sponsor‑eligibility requirements are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court dismissed most of the petition for failure to comply with Utah R. App. P. 19 but reached two purely legal issues on the merits, denying relief on both.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Governor ‘‘vetoed’’ Proposition 2 by calling the special session	Governor’s call functionally nullified voters’ law—thus a prohibited veto under Utah Code § 20A‑7‑212(3)(a)	The Governor has constitutional power to convene the Legislature on extraordinary occasions; calling a special session is distinct from veto power	Rejected: convening a special session is within constitutional authority and is not a unilateral veto
Whether the constitutional/statutory two‑thirds exception to referenda applies when the Legislature amends a citizen initiative	Two‑thirds exception applies only to laws originating with the Legislature in regular session, not to legislative amendments of voter initiatives	The constitution and statute say the exemption applies to "any law passed by the Legislature"—no textual limitation to session type or origin	Rejected petitioners’ challenge: two‑thirds exception applies; H.B. 3001 passed by two‑thirds and was exempt from referendum
Procedural: Whether petitioners could proceed directly in the Supreme Court under Utah R. App. P. 19	Emergency/tight referendum timelines justified direct extraordinary relief	Rule 19 requires showing no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy and why district court is impractical; petitioners did not show this	Most of the petition dismissed without prejudice for failing to satisfy Rule 19; only pure legal issues were addressed

Mawhinney v. City of Draper, 342 P.3d 262 (Utah 2014) (exercise of discretion in granting extraordinary relief)
Krejci v. City of Saratoga Springs, 322 P.3d 662 (Utah 2013) (scope of appellate discretionary writ relief)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (standing: only one petitioner need have standing)
Gricius v. Cox, 365 P.3d 1198 (Utah 2015) (extraordinary relief generally requires a factual record or affidavits)
Zonts v. Pleasant Grove City, 416 P.3d 360 (Utah 2017) (denial of extraordinary relief where district court remedy was available)
Univ. of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109 (Utah 2006) (interpretation begins with plain constitutional text)