Can an incumbent county clerk place their name on every ballot page? Ellis v. Swensen Explained

The Utah Supreme Court addressed a unique election law question in Ellis v. Swensen, examining whether an incumbent county clerk could place their official endorsement on every page of a ballot booklet. The case arose during the 1998 Salt Lake County election when incumbent Democratic clerk Sherrie Swensen was running for reelection against Republican challenger Arlene Ellis.

Background and Facts

As the elected county clerk and election officer, Swensen was responsible for preparing the ballot booklet under Utah Code section 20A-6-303. She placed her official endorsement—consisting of her name, facsimile signature, and official title—on all 39 pages of the multi-page ballot booklet. This meant Swensen’s name appeared 39 times throughout the ballot, including three times on the page listing candidates for county clerk. Ellis discovered this through the sample ballot distributed on September 25, 1998, but waited until October 22 to complain to the lieutenant governor’s office. On October 29, just two working days before the election, Ellis filed a verified petition for equitable relief under section 20A-1-404.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed several preliminary issues including mootness, timeliness of appeal, and preservation. The substantive issue centered on interpreting Utah Code section 20A-6-301, which governs ballot content and format. This statute requires specific endorsements to appear “immediately below the perforated ballot stub,” including the county name, election date, and “a facsimile of the signature of the county clerk and the words ‘county clerk.'”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying a correctness standard for statutory interpretation, the court examined the plain language of section 20A-6-301. The statute contemplates “a single one-inch ballot stub followed by a perforated line below which the county clerk endorses the ballot—once and in no other place.” The court emphasized that liberal construction of election laws under section 20A-1-401 must serve the Election Code’s purpose of ensuring fair elections. Swensen’s interpretation would allow only the incumbent county clerk to benefit from repeated name exposure at public expense, creating an unfair advantage no other candidate would enjoy.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies ballot endorsement requirements and demonstrates the court’s willingness to apply the public interest exception to mootness for recurring election issues. While Ellis waited until two days before the election to file her petition, the court noted that election challenges remain subject to laches defenses despite being filed within jurisdictional deadlines. The ruling ensures that ballot design cannot provide incumbents with unfair campaign advantages through official processes.