When can referendum sponsors challenge clerk rejections in district court? Croft v. Morgan County Explained

In Croft v. Morgan County, 2021 UT 46, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a jurisdictional question that frequently arises in referendum challenges: when can sponsors of rejected referendum applications file their challenges in district court rather than being required to seek extraordinary writs in the Supreme Court?

Background and facts: Registered voters in Morgan County sought to file a referendum challenging a county ordinance approving the development of a ski resort community. The county clerk rejected their referendum application for failing to include required certifications and a copy of the challenged ordinance. The appellants then filed their challenge in district court. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, interpreting Utah Code section 20A-7-602.8(4)(a) to require that sponsors be “prohibited from pursuing” an extraordinary writ in the Supreme Court before they could file in district court.

Key legal issues: The primary issue was interpreting when sponsors are “prohibited from pursuing” an extraordinary writ under section 602.8(4)(a). The district court concluded that appellants were not prohibited since they had simply declined to file for an extraordinary writ rather than being unable to do so. This interpretation raised questions about the relationship between the statutory language and Rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Court’s analysis and holding: The Supreme Court found section 602.8(4)(a) ambiguous and applied constitutional avoidance and surplusage canons to reject the district court’s interpretation. The Court held that Rule 19 informs the statute’s meaning—sponsors are “prohibited from pursuing” an extraordinary writ when they cannot satisfy Rule 19’s requirements, including showing it would be “impractical or inappropriate” to file in district court. Since appellants could not meet these requirements given the non-urgent nature of their challenge, they properly filed in district court.

Practice implications: This decision provides crucial guidance for referendum challenges. Practitioners must evaluate whether their clients can satisfy Rule 19’s stringent requirements before determining the proper forum. The Court’s analysis suggests that most referendum challenges lacking urgent timelines should be filed in district court, as extraordinary writs are reserved for cases where district court relief would be inadequate or inappropriate.