Can the legislature prohibit citizen initiatives on land use ordinances? Sevier Power v. Hansen Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Sevier Power v. Hansen provides crucial guidance on the constitutional limits of legislative authority over citizen initiatives. The case arose when Sevier Power Company challenged a citizen initiative that would require voter approval for coal-fired power generation conditional use permits in Sevier County.

Background and Facts

Citizens led by Sharlene Hansen sought to modify Sevier County’s zoning ordinance to require voter approval for coal-fired power generation facilities. After the county clerk verified their initiative petition met statutory requirements, the Board of County Commissioners approved placing it on the general election ballot. Sevier Power then sued to remove the initiative from the ballot, citing Utah Code section 20A-7-401, which prohibits initiatives involving “a land use ordinance or a change in a land use ordinance.” The district court granted relief and ordered the initiative’s removal.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 20A-7-401’s prohibition on land use initiatives violated the constitutional right of initiative. The court also addressed whether the proposed initiative was legislative or administrative in nature.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that section 20A-7-401 was unconstitutional. Analyzing Utah Constitution Article VI, section 1, which reserves to the people the right to initiate “any desired legislation,” the court distinguished between the legislature’s authority to set procedural conditions and its lack of power to impose substantive prohibitions. The court reasoned that allowing the legislature to foreclose entire subjects from initiative action would render the constitutional reservation illusory. The initiative was also deemed legislative rather than administrative because it sought to modify the general framework for conditional use permits.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts initiative and referendum law in Utah. Practitioners should note that legislative attempts to categorically exclude subjects from initiative power face strict constitutional scrutiny. The ruling also provides guidance for distinguishing between legislative initiatives (which are permissible) and administrative actions (which are not subject to initiative). The decision reinforces that the people’s constitutional right to direct legislation is fundamental and cannot be substantially curtailed by statute.