Does Utah's five-day referendum filing deadline violate constitutional rights? Gricius v. Cox Explained

Background and Facts

Four sponsors of a proposed referendum petition sought to challenge HB 454, the “Prison Development Amendments,” enacted during the 2015 legislative session. The sponsors attempted to file their referendum application on March 27, 2015—fifteen days after the legislative session ended on March 12—but were refused because they missed the five-day deadline required by Utah Code Section 20A-7-302. The sponsors argued this deadline was unconstitutional because the Governor’s bill review period exceeded five days, preventing them from obtaining a signed copy of the “law” required by the statute.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether Utah Code Section 20A-7-302’s five-day filing deadline for referendum applications violates constitutional rights and what constitutes the “law” that must be attached to such applications. The sponsors claimed the deadline was practically impossible to meet because they needed a gubernatorially-approved version of the legislation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no constitutional violation. The court interpreted “law” within the statute’s context to mean “a bill passed by the Legislature in whatever form it exists at the time the legislative session ends,” not necessarily a gubernatorially-approved version. The court emphasized that the deadline’s reference point—the end of the legislative session—clarifies that sponsors need only attach whatever version of the bill is reasonably available. The court noted that sponsors made no inquiry to the Lieutenant Governor’s office before the deadline expired and found no practical impediment to compliance.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that referendum sponsors must act quickly after legislative sessions end. Practitioners should advise clients to prepare referendum applications immediately using whatever bill version is available and to contact the Lieutenant Governor’s office promptly with compliance questions. The ruling also indicates that the Lieutenant Governor cannot refuse applications that include good faith efforts to attach appropriate bill copies and may substitute more accurate copies when necessary.