Grant v. Herbert
| Decision Date | 06 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 20180997,20180997 |
| Citation | 449 P.3d 122 |
| Parties | Bart GRANT, Petitioners, v. Governor Gary R. HERBERT, Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox, Director of Elections Justin Lee, and Members of the 62nd Utah State Legislature, Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Bart Grant, Monroe, Steven G. Maxfield, Kanosh, Daniel Newby, Taylorsville, pro se petitioners
Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Tyler R. Green, Solic. Gen., Stanford E. Purser, Deputy Solic. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondents Governor Gary R. Herbert, Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox, and Director of Elections Justin Lee
Eric N. Weeks, Christine R. Gilbert, Lee A. Killian, Salt Lake City, for respondents Members of the 62nd Utah State Legislature
INTRODUCTION
¶1 In the 2018 general election, Utah voters approved a citizens' initiative that legalized medical cannabis. Before the law's effective date, Governor Gary R. Herbert called for a special session of the Utah Legislature. During the special session, the legislature replaced the initiative with its own statute: House Bill 3001. The day H.B. 3001 passed, some of the Petitioners in this case filed a referendum application with Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox. If successful, the application would have allowed H.B. 3001 to be put to a vote of the people. But the application was not successful. The Lieutenant Governor denied it because he determined one of the referendum sponsors did not meet the applicable statutory requirements, and because both the Utah House of Representatives and the Utah Senate passed H.B. 3001 by more than a two-thirds vote. Under the Utah Constitution, when both houses of the legislature pass a bill by a supermajority, it is referendum-proof.
¶2 Petitioners bypassed the district court and brought this petition for extraordinary relief directly to us. They argue that the actions of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and the Utah Legislature are unconstitutional in a number of ways. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss the petition.
¶3 The Utah Constitution gives the "legal voters of the State of Utah" the right to "initiate any desired legislation and cause it to be submitted to the people for adoption upon a majority vote of those voting on the legislation, as provided by statute." UTAH CONST. art. VI, § 1 (2)(a)(i).
¶4 The initiative at issue here is the Utah Medical Cannabis Act. After determining that the initiative had received a sufficient number of verified signatures, the Lieutenant Governor ordered that the Utah Medical Cannabis Act be placed on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 2. Utah voters passed Proposition 2, and it went into effect on December 1, 2018.
¶5 The day before Proposition 2's effective date, the Governor called for a special session of the Utah Legislature. The special session was convened on December 3, 2018, to consider, along with two other topics, "[a]mending the Utah Medical Cannabis Act and related provisions." During the one-day special session, H.B. 3001, also titled the Utah Medical Cannabis Act, was introduced. The bill amended many of the provisions of Proposition 2.2 When legislators voted on H.B. 3001, it passed by a two-thirds supermajority in both houses.
¶6 The Governor signed H.B. 3001 into law the same day. Immediately, Petitioners Steven G. Maxfield, Daniel Newby, Bart Grant, and Sharla Christie, as well as Lelia M. Grant, filed a referendum application with the Lieutenant Governor. While an initiative is the means by which voters can place voter-initiated legislation on the ballot, a referendum is the means by which voters can place a law passed by the legislature on the ballot for approval or rejection by the people. See id. art. VI, § 1 (2)(a)(i)(B). A referendum application begins this process.
¶7 Petitioners' referendum application sought to place H.B. 3001 on the ballot for voters to approve or reject.3 However, the Lieutenant Governor denied Petitioners' application because he found that Petitioner Newby did not meet the applicable statutory requirements, and because both houses of the legislature passed H.B. 3001 by a two-thirds supermajority.
¶8 Petitioners timely filed a petition for extraordinary relief with this court. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(2).
¶9 The decision to grant a petition for extraordinary relief "lies within the sound discretion of this court." Mawhinney v. City of Draper , 2014 UT 54, ¶ 5, 342 P.3d 262 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Krejci v. City of Saratoga Springs , 2013 UT 74, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 662 ().
¶10 Petitioners have named the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Director of Elections, and each individual member of the 62nd Utah State Legislature as Respondents in their petition. Petitioners argue that: (1) the Governor exceeded his authority by convening a special session of the Utah Legislature without "exigent circumstances"; (2) the Governor effectively vetoed Proposition 2 in violation of Utah Code section 20A-7-212(3)(a), which prohibits the Governor from vetoing citizen initiatives; and (3) the Lieutenant Governor wrongly denied the referendum application because (a) the statutory requirements for a referendum sponsor are unconstitutional (as applied to Petitioner Newby), and (b) the constitutional and statutory provisions preventing referenda on laws passed by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature should not apply to legislation that originated from a citizen initiative. Petitioners also request a number of remedies that do not necessarily correlate with a specific legal claim.
¶11 Before we address Petitioners' arguments, however, we must resolve two issues raised by Respondents. First, the Legislators argue that some Petitioners lack standing. And second, Respondents argue that Petitioners have not met the requirements of rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs this petition.
¶12 Petitioners divide themselves into two classes: class one Petitioners are "legal voters who exercised their constitutional rights to enact public policy via the [i]nitiative process"; and class two Petitioners are "Maxfield, Newby, and Grant [who] filed a completed referendum application with the [Lieutenant Governor's] office that was subsequently denied." The Legislators argue that class one Petitioners lack standing.
¶13 However, we need not resolve whether some Petitioners lack standing because it is undisputed that class two Petitioners do have standing. And because at least some Petitioners have standing, this issue does not present an obstacle to reaching the merits of the petition. See Massachusetts v. E.P.A. , 549 U.S. 497, 518, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) (); Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. , 429 U.S. 252, 263–64, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) ();4 Snow v. Office of Legislative Research & Gen. Counsel , 2007 UT 63, ¶ 10, 167 P.3d 1051 ().
¶14 We must also address Respondents' argument that Petitioners have not met some of the requirements of Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 19, which governs this petition along with Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B.
¶15 As Respondents note, we typically limit ourselves to "addressing only those petitions that cannot be decided in another forum." Carpenter v. Riverton City , 2004 UT 68, ¶ 4, 103 P.3d 127 (per curiam). Rule 19 requires, among other things, that a petition filed directly in this court show that "no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy exists," and even then, "why it is impractical or inappropriate to file the petition for a writ in the district court." UTAH R. APP. P. 19(b)(4)–(5). A petition must also contain a "memorandum of points and authorities in support of the petition." Id. 19(b)(7).
¶16 Respondents argue that Petitioners have not met these requirements, and for the most part Respondents are correct. In their briefing and at oral argument, the only explanation Petitioners provided as to why they are entitled to proceed under rule 19 is that the referendum process is expedited: referendum sponsors have only five days to submit an application and forty days to gather signatures. See UTAH CODE §§ 20A-7-302(1), -306(1)(a). But this does not address why no other remedy exists or why Petitioners could not have filed in the district court. If Petitioners were to prevail in any court, the applicable timelines to proceed with the referendum would presumably start anew.
And Petitioners have not identified any other looming deadline they must meet.
¶17 Further, Petitioners have not attempted to explain why they could not initiate this petition in the district court. This is problematic for Petitioners. See Anderson v. City , 2016 UT 50, ¶ 6, 387 P.3d 1014 (per curiam) (); see also Zonts v. Pleasant Grove City , 2017 UT 71, ¶ 4, 416 P.3d 360 (per curiam) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Estate of Faucheaux v. City of Provo
-
JLPR LLC v. Procurement Policy Bd.
...few weeks after the election, the Utah Legislature "replaced the initiative with its own statute." See Grant v. Herbert , 2019 UT 42, ¶ 1, 449 P.3d 122. The new law, known as the Utah Medical Cannabis Act (the Act), included details for implementing a medical marijuana market in Utah. See A......