What standard applies when challenging referendum ballot titles? Burr v. City of Orem Explained

In Burr v. City of Orem, the Utah Supreme Court established important precedent regarding the standard of review for referendum ballot title challenges, providing crucial guidance for Utah appellate practitioners handling election law matters.

Background and Facts

The Orem City Council approved a property tax increase of $1,700,000 per year through Resolution R-2012-0014. The increase was largely driven by the city’s UTOPIA debt guarantee obligation—approximately $2.8 million of the city’s $88 million budget. Petitioners successfully gathered signatures to challenge the tax increase via referendum. When the City Attorney drafted the ballot title, petitioners objected that it failed to mention UTOPIA specifically and used language that minimized the tax burden on businesses.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary challenges: (1) whether the ballot title gave a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose without mentioning UTOPIA, (2) whether the truth-in-taxation language created an argument favoring the measure, and (3) whether the wording was otherwise “unsatisfactory” under the statute. The central issue was determining the appropriate standard of review for ballot title challenges.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court established that city attorneys deserve considerable deference in drafting ballot titles, applying an abuse of discretion standard for content review. The court explained that drafters have “broad discretion” in word choice, and courts may not substitute their “editorial judgment” for the drafter’s decisions. The ballot title’s description of the tax increase as being “for municipal operations” was neither untrue nor partial, even without mentioning UTOPIA specifically. The court emphasized that voters have additional resources beyond the ballot title, including voter information pamphlets and public debate.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly raises the bar for successful ballot title challenges. Practitioners must demonstrate clear statutory violations rather than arguing for better or more complete language. The court’s deferential approach means that multiple satisfactory alternatives may exist, and challengers cannot succeed merely by proposing superior wording. This standard applies specifically to statutes lacking their own review provisions.