2021 UT 10
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
KENT SMITH, CHANDRA SMITH, EDWARD M. DUKE,
SHARON P. DUKE, and TIMOTHY SYNDERGAARD,
Appellees,
0.
DAVID ZOOK, in his capacity as the
City Manager/Recorder/ Local Clerk of Nibley City,
Appellee,
and
RETURN DEVELOPMENT LLC,
Appellant/Intervenor.
No. 20200674
Heard February 17, 2020
Filed April 15, 2021
On Direct Appeal
First District, Cache County
The Honorable Brian G. Cannell
No. 200100186
Attorneys:
Daniel K. Dygert, Logan, for appellees
Eric Todd Johnson, Robert A. Patterson, Salt Lake City,
for appellee
David K. Broadbent, Christopher R. Hogle, Chelsea J. Davis,
Salt Lake City, for appellant/ intervenor
ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE LEE authored the opinion of the Court, in
which CHIEF JUSTICE DURRANT, JUSTICE HIMONAS, JUSTICE PEARCE,
and JUSTICE PETERSEN joined.
SMITH v. RETURN DEVELOPMENT
Opinion of the Court
ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE LEE, opinion of the Court:
{1 Nibley City enacted an ordinance approving a
development project on property owned by Return Development
LLC. Several citizens opposed the ordinance and _ collected
signatures in support of a referendum petition. Some of the
signatures were collected through paper “referendum packets”
presented to voters in person. Others were collected through a
process initiated by a document sent to voters by mail, which
directed them to an online version of the referendum packet.
{2 The Nibley City Recorder rejected the referendum
petition on the ground that the signatures collected in response to
the mailer were not valid, legal signatures. That decision was
overruled by the district court. We reverse. We conclude that the
signatures procured through the mailed document were not valid
because the sponsors failed to “create” a “referendum packet”
that provided “a copy of the referendum petition, a copy of the
law that is the subject of the referendum, and ... signature sheets”
that were bound “together ... in such a way that the packets may
be conveniently opened for signing.” See UTAH CODE § 20A-7-
604(4). And we hold that this statutory requirement was not
altered when the governor suspended enforcement of some
Election Code provisions in an executive order entered in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. See Utah Exec. Order 2020-
14 (April 3, 2020).
I
{3 The Utah Constitution guarantees the right of voters to
challenge a law by referendum “under the conditions [and] in the
manner ... provided by statute.” UTAH CONST. art. VI, § 1(2)(b).
Our Election Code, in turn, sets forth the conditions and manner
by which voters may initiate and pursue the process for getting a
referendum on the ballot. See UTAH CODE § 20A-7-101 et seq.
44 In the paragraphs below we first outline the statutory
referendum standards that form the background of the case before
us. Then we describe the process that was followed in this case,
culminating in the denial of the referendum petition at issue and
the district court’s decision to overrule that denial on a petition for
extraordinary writ.
A
{5