Must referendum packets contain actual copies of required documents? Smith v. Return Development Explained

In Smith v. Return Development, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether referendum sponsors can satisfy statutory requirements by providing voters with access to required documents through a URL rather than including actual copies in the referendum packet.

Background and Facts

Nibley City residents opposed a residential development ordinance and initiated a referendum petition. Initially, they used traditional spiral-bound paper packets for in-person signature collection. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they shifted strategies and mailed a two-sided document to all city residents. The front contained advocacy information and a URL directing voters to online referendum materials, while the back included signature sheets. The city recorder rejected signatures collected through the mailed document, determining they did not constitute valid referendum packets under Utah law.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Executive Order 2020-14, which suspended certain physical binding requirements during the pandemic, permitted referendum sponsors to provide access to required documents through electronic means rather than including actual copies. The court had to interpret the statutory requirement that referendum packets contain “a copy of the referendum petition, a copy of the law that is the subject of the referendum, and signature sheets” bound together as a unit.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the mailed document failed to satisfy statutory requirements. While the executive order suspended certain physical binding requirements, it did not eliminate the need for sponsors to provide actual “copies” of required materials in a single “unit.” The court emphasized that a URL providing access to documents is not equivalent to providing a “copy” – defined as “an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work.” The mailer merely offered a means of accessing materials, requiring voters to take additional proactive steps rather than simply opening a complete packet.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that even during emergency modifications to election procedures, referendum sponsors must ensure their packets contain actual reproductions of all required documents. Practitioners should advise clients that providing electronic access through URLs or links does not satisfy the statutory requirement for “copies” bound together in a single unit. The ruling suggests that email attachments containing complete referendum materials might comply with the statute, but mere access points do not.