Utah Supreme Court
Can counties abolish justice court precincts before elections? Facer v. Allen Explained
Summary
Box Elder County abolished Lorin Facer’s justice court precinct sixty-two days before the 1994 election, removing him from the ballot despite his certification for an unopposed retention election. The trial court granted summary judgment for the county, finding no statutory violation.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Lorin Facer served as a justice court judge for Box Elder County’s South Precinct from 1991 to 1995. When he decided to seek another term, the Judicial Council certified him for an unopposed retention election in November 1994. He filed his candidacy and paid his filing fee in March 1994. However, on September 6, 1994—just 62 days before the election—the county commission passed a resolution combining the north and south precincts into one, effective February 1995. The county removed Facer’s name from the ballot, arguing no election should be held for an office that wouldn’t exist when the new term commenced.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Box Elder County violated Utah Code Ann. § 17-5-212(3), which prohibited establishing, abolishing, or altering precincts within ninety days of any election. The county argued the statute applied only to voting precincts, not justice court precincts, and that the delayed effective date avoided any violation.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court traced the historical development of precinct terminology from territorial law through statehood. The court distinguished between precincts (subdivisions where justice court judges and constables serve) and election districts (voting units), noting they are separate governmental units. The court held that delaying the effective date cannot circumvent the ninety-day protection when the election process has already begun. The disruption occurs when candidates are removed from ballots, regardless of when the precinct changes take effect.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that pre-election protections focus on preserving electoral processes rather than technical effective dates. Practitioners should examine the entire election timeline when challenging governmental actions that affect candidacies. The ruling also demonstrates the court’s willingness to look beyond form to substance in statutory interpretation, particularly when fundamental electoral rights are at stake.
Case Details
Case Name
Facer v. Allen
Citation
1998 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 960463
Date Decided
May 12, 1998
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Counties cannot abolish justice court precincts within ninety days prior to an election under Utah Code Ann. § 17-5-212(3), even if the abolishment has a delayed effective date after the election.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging pre-election governmental actions, focus on the disruption to the election process itself rather than just the technical effective date of the challenged action.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.