Zonts v. Pleasant Grove City
2017 UT 71
| Utah | 2017Background
- Six sponsors prepared an initiative and gathered enough signatures to place it on Pleasant Grove City's November 2017 municipal ballot; the County Clerk verified signatures and the City Attorney drafted a final ballot title after comment.
- One sponsor, Jacob Zonts, initially filed a petition under Utah Code § 20A-7-508(6)(a) challenging the ballot title but was dismissed for failing to meet the statute's three-sponsor requirement.
- Six sponsors then petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for extraordinary relief under rule 65B (and alternatively under rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure), challenging the City Attorney’s final ballot title.
- The Court ordered supplemental briefing focused on whether the petitioners satisfied rule 19 by explaining why they could not first seek relief in district court and whether they had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy there.
- The Court denied the petition, concluding petitioners failed to show they could not have sought district court review, failed to support factual assertions with affidavits or reliable documentation, and relied on an assumption that filing directly in the Supreme Court was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Pleasant Grove's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners properly invoked the Supreme Court under Utah Code § 20A-7-508(6)(a) instead of seeking district court review | The petition assumed direct Supreme Court review was available and appropriate | The decision should be challenged via district court petition or extraordinary relief showing lack of adequate remedy below | Court held petitioners must show why district court relief was inadequate; they failed to do so |
| Whether petitioners met Rule 19 requirement to explain why they could not file in district court first | Filing in district court would be impractical given ballot timelines; Anderson permits some direct petitions | Petitioners offered no concrete explanation or evidence of impracticability | Court held speculative assertions insufficient; petitioners did not meet Rule 19 burden |
| Whether factual disputes required a record and affidavits before Supreme Court review | Petitioners relied on factual assumptions supporting ballot-title changes | Pleasant Grove pointed to disputed facts and lack of affidavits to support petitioners' claims | Court held factual disputes and lack of affidavits meant district court is better suited to develop a record |
| Whether the statute’s use of “appeal” creates an appeal of right to this Court | Petitioners treated statute as a straight appeal to the Supreme Court | Pleasant Grove emphasized statute permits petition but does not circumvent procedural rules requiring district-court first resort | Court clarified the statute’s term “appeal” can be misleading and does not obviate Rule 19/65B procedural requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Provo City, 387 P.3d 1014 (Utah 2016) (discusses timing pressures that may make district-court filing impractical in some ballot disputes)
- Brown v. Cox, 387 P.3d 1040 (Utah 2017) (explains Rule 19’s requirement to explain why district-court relief was unavailable is substantive)
- Gricius v. Cox, 365 P.3d 1198 (Utah 2015) (extraordinary relief typically requires allegations supported by affidavit or reliable documentation)
- Carpenter v. Riverton City, 103 P.3d 127 (Utah 2004) (appellate courts reluctant to resolve disputes dependent on unresolved factual issues without a record)