Gricius v. Cox
2015 UT 86
| Utah | 2015Background
- Four prospective referendum sponsors (Gricius, Edsberg, Bradley, Curtis) sought extraordinary relief after Utah Lt. Governor’s Elections Office would not accept their referendum application submitted March 27, 2015 to challenge HB 454 (Prison Development Amendments).
- Utah Code § 20A-7-302 requires referendum applicants to file an application within five calendar days after the end of the legislative session and to attach a copy of the “law.”
- Petitioners argued the five-day deadline (and the requirement to attach a copy of the “law”) is effectively impossible to meet in practice, given governor review time and potential unavailability of an enrolled bill copy.
- The Lieutenant Governor’s office stated it had not refused to file the petition but advised callers that the statute requires filing within five days. An affidavit from the Lt. Governor’s Chief of Staff was submitted.
- The petition lacked affidavits or other evidentiary support for key factual claims (e.g., efforts to comply before March 27) and the court requested supplemental briefing on the meaning of “law.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 20A-7-302’s five-day filing deadline is unconstitutional as practically impossible to meet | Deadline is unworkable and burdens referendum rights because sponsors cannot obtain required materials in time | Statute is clear; deadline measured from end of session and sponsors could obtain or inquire about materials; no evidence of attempted compliance before March 27 | Denied: petitioners failed to show a constitutional violation or that they were prevented from complying |
| Meaning of “law” in § 20A-7-302(2)(d) — must it be an enrolled copy? | “Law” should mean an enacted/enrolled bill, which may be unavailable within five days, making compliance impossible | In context, “law” means the bill passed by the Legislature in whatever form exists at session end; reasonable copies suffice | Court: term reasonably reads as the passed bill in its then-available form; if sponsors attach the most recent version they have in good faith, LG cannot refuse filing |
| Whether LG refused to accept/file the application | Petitioner asserts refusal to accept application submitted March 27 | LG asserts it did not refuse to accept or file; callers were told statutory deadline was five days | Court relied on LG affidavit and absence of evidence of a refusal; petitioners provided no affidavits proving refusal |
| Whether a gubernatorial veto undermines petitioners’ claimed injury | Petitioners imply veto timing makes filing futile | LG: veto and referendum are independent remedies; sponsors may pursue both simultaneously | Court: veto possibility does not establish a constitutional injury; remedies are complementary and sponsors can lobby the Governor while pursuing referendum |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. Riverton City, 103 P.3d 127 (2004) (appellate extraordinary relief requires factual allegations supported by affidavits or reliable documentation)
- Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne, 289 P.3d 502 (2012) (same principle regarding evidentiary support for extraordinary relief)