Brown v. Cox
| Decision Date | 11 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 20160669,20160669 |
| Parties | Melvin R. BROWN, Petitioner, v. Spencer COX, Utah Lieutenant Governor, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
387 P.3d 1040
2017 UT 3
Melvin R. BROWN, Petitioner,
v.
Spencer COX, Utah Lieutenant Governor, et al.1 , Respondents.
No. 20160669
Supreme Court of Utah.
Filed January 11, 2017
Duane L. Ostler, Keven J. Stratton, Scott O. Stratton, Orem, for petitioner.
Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Thom D. Roberts, Asst. Att'y Gen., Stanford E. Purser, Deputy Solic. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent Spencer Cox.
Robert K. Hilder, David L. Thomas, Jami R. Brackin, Coalville, for respondent Kent Jones.
David R. Irvine, Janet I. Jenson, Salt Lake City, for respondent Logan Wilde.
Justice Pearce authored the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Lee, Justice Durham, and Justice Himonas joined.
Justice Pearce, opinion of the Court:
INTRODUCTION
¶1 Petitioner Melvin Brown lost his Republican Primary election for the Utah House of Representatives by nine votes. He challenges that result under Utah's election contest statute, Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2). Brown argues that he would have prevailed if a number of disqualified ballots had been counted. Brown filed a verified complaint in this court under Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2). Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2)(a) instructs a registered voter to file a petition in the district court where the petitioner resides if the election involves voters from a single county and to file in the Utah Supreme Court when the voter contests a multi-county election.
¶2 We hold that Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2)(a)(ii), which purports to provide this court with original jurisdiction over multi-county election contests, is an unconstitutional expansion of this court's original jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
¶3 The primary election for Utah House District 53 was held on June 28, 2016. District 53 includes the north of Duchesne County and all of Daggett, Morgan, Rich, and Summit Counties. Approximately 95 percent of voters cast their ballots by mail. Because the difference between votes cast for Logan Wilde and votes cast for Brown equaled less than 0.25 percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates, the county clerks recounted the ballots. See UTAH CODE § 20A-4-401(1)(a). Election officials disqualified thirty-two ballots under Utah Code section 20A-3-302(5) because the signatures on the ballots did not match the voters' signatures maintained on file. Election officers rejected another seventy ballots because the ballots had not been postmarked or "otherwise clearly marked by the post office as received by the post office before election day," as Utah Code section 20A-3-306(2)(b) mandates. Brown requested that the Lieutenant Governor recount the ballots in accordance with Utah Code section 20A-4-401(1).
¶4 With respect to the thirty-two ballots disqualified for unverified signatures, Brown asked the Lieutenant Governor to verify that election officials followed the process Utah Code section 20A-3-302(5)(b) requires: to "immediately contact the voter to verify the signature" before disqualification. With respect to the seventy ballots postmarked on election day, Brown asserted that although many rural voters placed their ballots in the mail on the day before the election, their ballots were not postmarked until the day of
the election. After investigation, the Lieutenant Governor expressed sympathy to Brown but concluded that the statute did not allow the contested votes to count. Following an official canvass, the Lieutenant Governor certified Wilde as the winner of the primary election by nine votes.
¶5 On August 12, 2016, Brown filed a verified complaint in this court contesting the results of the primary election under Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2). Brown names as respondents the Lieutenant Governor, the Utah State Board of Canvassers, the county clerks of the affected counties, and government official "John Does 1–10 ... who are or may be responsible for multi-county elections in the State of Utah."2 The Complaint raises two causes of action that track the two issues Brown raised in his letter to the Lieutenant Governor. First, Brown asks us to "open the ballots" and to obtain "further evidence ... from the 70 voters as to when and where they mailed their ballots." Brown argues that those seventy voters substantially complied with the election statute by placing their ballots in the mail prior to election day and should not be disenfranchised by having their votes disqualified. He further contends that if we determine that Brown received at least ten additional votes, we should issue a Writ of Mandamus to respondents and order them to count the seventy votes that were not postmarked before election day. Second, with regard to the remaining thirty-two ballots disqualified for unverified voter signatures, Brown hypothesizes that respondents "may not have fully complied" with statutory requirements laid out in Utah Code section 20A-3-302(5) because respondents "may not have individually contacted the voters ... to verify the signature as required by ... statute." With regard to his second cause of action, Brown requests that this court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to recognize all ballots that were improperly disqualified.
¶6 This court held a scheduling conference on August 23, 2016. We invited the parties to brief whether Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2)(a)(ii) unconstitutionally expanded this court's jurisdiction.3 Both Brown and the Lieutenant Governor argue that Utah's Election Code is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. Brown argues that the jurisdiction conferred by section 20A-4-403(2)(a) is constitutional because "it does nothing more than specify Supreme Court jurisdiction in multi-county elections ... for pursuit of an extraordinary writ in an election contest." Furthermore, Brown argues that we cannot limit the Legislature's power to expand this court's jurisdiction.
¶7 The Lieutenant Governor suggests that we interpret the Verified Complaint as a petition for extraordinary writ. The Lieutenant Governor argues that, though the requirements found in section 20A-4-403(2)(a)(ii) do not overlap precisely with the court rules that govern petitions for extraordinary writ, we should hold that the statute "fill[s] the gaps" in our rules of procedure for special statutory proceedings such as election contests.
¶8 Wilde disagrees with Brown and the Lieutenant Governor. Wilde argues that the election contest statute is an unconstitutional expansion of this court's original jurisdiction. Wilde identifies two problems this court would face if the statute conferred jurisdiction: (1) the Utah Supreme Court would be required to act as a finder of fact and (2) the floodgates of litigation would be opened by forcing this court to address every disputed election in multi-county legislative districts.
¶9 On August 26, 2016, we issued a per curiam order holding Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2)(a)(ii) unconstitutional. We recognized that the Legislature cannot expand this court's constitutionally established original jurisdiction. We also rejected the invitation to interpret the Election Code as an amendment to the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The order provided that we would
interpret Brown's original Complaint as a petition for extraordinary writ but noted technical deficiencies with that pleading. We thus afforded Brown the opportunity to amend his Complaint and set a briefing schedule to permit the matter to be briefed, heard, and decided before the deadline for printing ballots for the general election passed. Rather than amend, Brown moved to dismiss his Complaint.
¶10 We issue this opinion to more fully explain the basis for the August 26 order holding section 20A-4-403(2)(a)(ii) of Utah's Election Code unconstitutional.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶11 Whether a statute is constitutional presents a question of law. See State v. Drej , 2010 UT 35, ¶ 9, 233 P.3d 476. We presume the statute is constitutional, and we "resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality." Id . (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
I. The Utah Supreme Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Brown's Verified Complaint as an Original Proceeding
¶12 Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2)(a) provides that "[i]n contesting the results of a primary election, ... a registered voter shall contest the right of any person declared nominated to any office by filing a verified written complaint ... with ... the Utah Supreme Court, if he is contesting a nomination made by voters in more than one county." This section of the Election Code requires a registered voter to file a complaint directly with the Utah Supreme Court to challenge a multi-county primary election. In other words, this section purports to extend this court's original jurisdiction to include multi-county election contests.
¶13 Brown encourages us to take "a liberal view of the Legislature's power to grant Supreme Court jurisdiction" and cites State v. Taylor for support. 664 P.2d 439 (Utah 1983). In Taylor , this court affirmed that "the Legislature clearly has the power to create...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. State
...is outdated, we have reaffirmed it in two more recent cases: Petersen v. Utah Bd. of Pardons , 907 P.2d 1148, 1152 (Utah 1995), and Brown v. Cox , 2017 UT 3, ¶ 14, 387 P.3d 1040.¶153 In Petersen , a parolee appealed the decision of the Utah Board of Pardons to revoke his parole. Petersen , ......
-
S. Salt Lake City v. Maese
...Constitution. "We presume the statute is constitutional, and we ‘resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality.’ " Brown v. Cox , 2017 UT 3, ¶ 11, 387 P.3d 1040 (citation omitted). "Whether a statute is constitutional presents a question of law," id. , that we review for corre......
-
In re N.T.B
...union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.").48 Brown v. Cox , 2017 UT 3, ¶ 15, 387 P.3d 1040 ("[W]e will endeavor to avoid constitutional issues by construing ‘a statute as constitutional wherever possible, resolv......
-
V.B. v. A.S.A. (In re K.T.B.)
...scrutiny under article VIII, section 4 of the Utah Constitution but declining to reach the question because it had not been raised); Brown v. Cox , 2017 UT 3, ¶¶ 17–18, 387 P.3d 1040 (identifying the process the legislature must follow to amend our rules). This court has not enacted any suc......
-
Chapter 14 - § 14.10 • CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTIONS
...fraud claims on behalf of unit owners), superseded by Constitutional amendment in part on other grounds as stated in Brown v. Cox, 387 P.3d 1040, 1044 n. 8 (Utah 2017); Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Ass'n v. Super. Ct., 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (noting association's sta......
-
Chapter 10 - § 10.3 • COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT
...fraud claims on behalf of unit owners), superseded by Constitutional amendment in parton other grounds as stated in Brown v. Cox, 387 P.3d 1040, 1044 n. 8 (Utah 2017); Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Ass'n v. Super. Ct., 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (noting association's stan......
-
Commentary
...rules of procedure and evidence;” rather, it can only under certain conditions “amend[] the rules the supreme court creates.” Brown v. Cox, 2017 UT 3, ¶ 17, 387 P.3d 1040. Now, before 1984, the judicial department’s authority to create rules of evidence was a legislatively delegated one. Bu......
-
Utah Law Developments
...suffered prejudice as a result of ReconTrust’s failure to have an in-state office, the trustee’s deed was valid, not voidable. Brown v. Cox 2017 UT 3, 387 P.3d 1040 (Jan. 11, 2017) In a dispute over election results, the Utah Supreme Court held that Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2)(a)(ii) unc......