Must referendum disputes be filed directly in the Utah Supreme Court? Anderson v. Provo City and Orem City Explained

Background and Facts

Residents of Orem City and Provo City collected sufficient signatures to place referenda on the November 2017 ballot, but both cities refused to place the measures before voters. The cities concluded that the resolutions could not be referred to voters as a matter of law. The petitioners filed for extraordinary relief directly in the Utah Supreme Court, seeking writs to compel the cities to place the referenda on the ballot.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 20A-7-607(4)(a), which allows voters to “apply to the Supreme Court for an extraordinary writ” when clerks refuse referendum petitions, requires direct filing in the supreme court and excuses compliance with Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 19(b)(4)-(5). These rules require petitioners seeking extraordinary relief to explain why filing in district court would be impractical or inappropriate.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected petitioners’ argument that the Election Code mandates supreme court filing. Citing Low v. City of Monticello and Carpenter v. Riverton City, the court emphasized that section 20A-7-607 is permissive and “does not limit either the remedies that can be sought or the court in which those remedies can be pursued.” The court clarified that district courts possess authority to provide appropriate relief in referendum disputes and that the Election Code does not restrict their powers.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Rule 19(b) requirements apply universally to extraordinary relief petitions, regardless of statutory language suggesting supreme court jurisdiction. Practitioners must always justify why district court filing would be impractical or inappropriate, even in time-sensitive election matters. While many ballot disputes involve tight timelines making supreme court filing appropriate, automatic filing assumptions are insufficient.