Utah Republican Party v. Cox

• Decision Date: 06 April 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:16-cv-00038-DN
• Citation: 177 F.Supp.3d 1343
• Parties: Utah Republican Party, Plaintiff, Utah Democratic Party, Intervenor Plaintiff, v. Spencer J. Cox, in his Official Capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Utah, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

177 F.Supp.3d 1343

Utah Republican Party, Plaintiff,

Utah Democratic Party, Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.Spencer J. Cox, in his Official Capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Utah, Defendant.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00038-DN

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

Signed April 6, 2016

Christ T. Troupis, Troupis Law Office PA, Eagle, ID, Marcus R. Mumford, Mumford PC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff.

Charles A. Stormont, David P. Billings, Stormont Billings PLLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Intervenor Plaintiff.

David N. Wolf, Parker Douglas, Litigation Unit, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

DENYING IN PART [37] MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS;

DENYING IN PART [38] MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS;

DENYING [39] MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 56(F) FOR THE LG AND AGAINST THE URP; AND

GRANTING LEAVE TO THE UDP TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

David Nuffer

, United States District Judge

The following motions are currently pending: (1) Utah Democratic Party's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum in Support Thereof (“37 UDP MJP”);¹ (2) Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum in Support (“38 LG MJP”);² (3) Utah Republican Party's Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Subparagraphs 73(a), (i) and (j) (“39 URP MPSJ”);³ and (4) Utah Republican Party's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Subparagraphs 73(b)-(g) (“41 URP MPSJ”).⁴ This Memorandum Decision and Order deals only with the first three motions listed above. No decision is rendered as to the 41 URP MPSJ because it raises issues that must await answers to questions certified to the Utah Supreme Court.⁵

For the reasons set forth below, the 37 UDP MJP is DENIED IN PART, the 38 LG MJP is DENIED IN PART, and the 39 URP MPSJ is DENIED. Summary judgment is GRANTED for the LG under Rule 56(f) with respect to the judicial estoppel and “onerous” signature arguments raised in the 39 URP MPSJ. Additionally, leave is granted for the Utah Democratic Party to file an amended complaint.

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ... 1347

STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ... 1347

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ... 1348

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ... 1348

The First Lawsuit ... 1348

URP and LG Communication Following the First Lawsuit ... 1353

The Current Lawsuit ... 1354

URP and SB54 ... 1355

DISCUSSION ... 1356

Claim Preclusion Does Not Bar Subparagraphs 73(i) and (j) ... 1356

Issue Preclusion Does Not Bar Subparagraphs 73(i) and (j) ... 1359

Claim Splitting Does Not Bar URP's Claims ... 1360

Waiver Does Not Bar URP's Claims ... 1361

Judicial Estoppel Does Not Apply ... 1362

Constitutionality of the QPP Path's “Onerous” Signature Gathering Requirements ... 1364

Standard for Determining Constitutionality of Ballot Access Laws ... 1364

If Analyzed without the Convention Path, Subsections (8)(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Signature Gathering Provision Are Likely Unconstitutional ... 1366

The Convention Route Is Constitutional ... 1368

Subsections (8)(b)(iii) and (iv) Are Not “Wholly Irrational” ... 1369

Subsections (8)(b)(iii) and (iv) Are Constitutional When Viewed in Totality ... 1370

Rule 56(f) Judgment Independent of the Motion ... 1371

The UDP's Third Cause of Action ... 1371

CONCLUSION ... 1372

ORDER ... 1373

STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

is evaluated by the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.⁶ The factual record for such a motion is the text of the challenged pleading. The factual details supporting a claim must be great enough to make the claim plausible, rather than merely possible; i.e., “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. ...”⁷ It must be reasonable for a court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable, based on the facts stated.⁸ Recitations of elements of a claim and conclusory statements lack sufficient detail, and cannot trigger a court's assumption that all of the statements made in the pleading are true.⁹

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”¹⁰ A factual dispute is genuine when “there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.”¹¹ In determining whether there is a genuine dispute as to material fact, the court should “view the factual record and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom most favorably to the nonmovant.”¹²

The moving party “bears the initial burden of making a prima facie demonstration of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”¹³ The factual record for a motion for summary judgment is the undisputed material facts derived from the parties' briefing. The following Undisputed Material Facts were derived from the 39 URP MPSJ and the LG's¹⁴ and the UDP's¹⁵ oppositions to that motion, and the portions of the record cited in that briefing. The UDP did not respond to any statements of fact in its reply.¹⁶

The Undisputed Material Facts which come from the First Lawsuit history, from the statutes, and from the Complaint in this lawsuit are considered in the motions for judgment on the pleadings.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

The First Lawsuit

In December 2014, the Utah Republican Party (“URP”) filed a lawsuit (the “First Lawsuit”) against the Governor and Lieutenant Governor (“LG”) of the State of Utah (collectively “State Defendants”).¹⁷

The First Lawsuit concerned the constitutionality of Senate Bill 54 (“SB54”). SB54 was enacted in 2014 by the Utah State Legislature to modify the Utah Election Code provisions about the nomination of candidates, primary and general elections, and ballots. Specifically, the URP asserted that it was entitled to a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments with respect to the manner in which the State, through SB54, has:

a. ... taken away and misappropriated the Party's right to certify and endorse its nominees for elected office;

b. ... taken away and misappropriated the Party's right to communicate its endorsement on the general election ballot and to control the use of its name and emblem on the ballot;

c. ... taken away and misappropriated the Party's right to determine for itself the candidate selection process that will produce a nominee who best represents the Party's political platform;

d. burdened the Party's associational rights by mandating changes to the Party's internal rules and procedures, at the threat of depriving the Party of its rights if it refuses to comply, that disadvantage the Party, and that the Party has rejected and that conflict with the rules the Party has determined for itself, as set forth in its Constitution and Bylaws, will produce a nominee who best represents the Party's political platform;

e. burdened the Party's associational rights, and the rights of disassociation, by imposing upon the Party a nominee who may not necessarily be a Party member and without guaranteeing that nominee has been selected by a majority of Party members participating in the primary election;

f. burdened the Party's associational rights and rights to free speech, by taking away the Party's right to have its nominees commit themselves to the Party Platform “as the standard by which my performance as a candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated,” and replacing it with a process that requires only that candidates gather signatures; and

g. burdened the Party's associational rights, and the rights of disassociation, by taking away the Party's convention system as its preferred way of selecting nominees and allowing a party to designate candidates in the primary election by convention only if it agrees to open that primary election, that the State now mandates, to persons unaffiliated with the Party; and

h. otherwise burden[ed] the Party's rights of association, or depriving it of its rights of disassociation, free speech and due process as set forth above.¹⁸

The Constitution Party of Utah (“CPU”) was permitted to intervene in the First Lawsuit and asserted similar claims against the State Defendants.¹⁹ CPU specifically challenged the constitutionality of the nominating petition signature gathering requirements set forth in Utah Code § 20A–9–408

(“Signature Gathering Provision”). ²⁰

CPU contended that SB54 was unconstitutional because the “signature gathering processes are a severe burden on CPU's associational rights.”²¹ The Signature Gathering Provision permits a candidate to appear on a party's primary ballot by gathering a specified percentage or number of signatures from persons who are qualified to vote in that party's primary.²²

URP sought a preliminary injunction in the First Lawsuit to stay the enforcement or implementation of SB54, but the preliminary injunction was denied.²³ The Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Preliminary Injunction noted that none of the burdens URP alleged were “severe,” except one, which was not ripe for a challenge:

[N]one of the asserted burdens are severe except one, which is not ripe for review since the evidence now presented by the Party cannot sustain an as-applied challenge to the QPP path of SB54.²⁴

The Order explained Utah Code § 20A–9–101(12)(a)

was potentially unconstitutional.²⁵ This subsection forced a political party to allow unaffiliated voters into the party's primary election in order to be considered a “qualified political party” (“QPP”). Subsection (12)(a) was referred to as the “Unaffiliated Voter Provision.” The Order explained that the unaffiliated voter issue was not ripe at the preliminary injunction stage because URP had not yet chosen to become a QPP.²⁶ All other asserted burdens were rejected. The Order made the following conclusions:

Requiring Primary Election

[T]he State can constitutionally require the Party to

...