Must Utah referendum petitions be filed within thirty-five days of ordinance passage? Tobias v. South Jordan City Recorder Explained

Background and Facts

In this case, petitioners Janalee Tobias, Judy Feld, and Brent Foutz sought to challenge South Jordan City Ordinance 97-20 through the referendum process. The ordinance extended time for a developer to satisfy conditions for rezoning land from agricultural use to office service zone. Petitioners believed the land should remain undeveloped for recreational and wildlife purposes. They filed an application for referendum petition forms on January 20, 1998, but the City Recorder denied their application as untimely.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code Ann. § 20A-7-601(2)(a) requires only the application for referendum petition forms to be filed within thirty-five days of ordinance passage, or whether the completed referendum petition itself must be filed within that timeframe. Petitioners argued that “referendum petition” in the statute was synonymous with “referendum application,” allowing them additional time to gather signatures after filing their application.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ interpretation, finding that Utah Code Ann. § 20A-7-602 clearly distinguishes between referendum petitions and applications by stating that “[p]ersons wishing to circulate a referendum petition shall file an application with the local clerk.” This language demonstrates they are separate documents. The court held that the completed referendum petition bearing voter signatures must be filed within thirty-five days after ordinance passage, making the application deadline necessarily shorter to allow time for signature gathering.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes an extremely tight timeline for referendum challenges to local ordinances. Practitioners must advise clients that successful referendum efforts require immediate action upon ordinance passage, with all signature gathering and petition filing completed within thirty-five days. The court acknowledged this creates urgency but noted that changing the timeline is a legislative, not judicial, function. Justice Zimmerman’s concurrence also suggests that city recorders lack authority to delay petition issuance based on subject matter suitability, though this issue remains open for future litigation.