Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2015 UT 86
IN THE
GRICIUS v. COX
Opinion of the Court
3
GRICIUS v. COX
Opinion of the Court
6 But even if we accepted the petitions factual allegations, we
would not be persuaded that it has established a constitutional
violation because it has not described any circumstances that
actually prevented the sponsors from filing their application within
the specified deadline. In that regard, it appears the petition
depends on the assumption that the use of the term law within
section 20A-7-302 cannot be deemed to refer to a bill passed by the
Legislature, or that the term is so ambiguous as to preclude
compliance. While it is true that the term law employed in
isolation ordinarily may refer to a presently effective legal mandate,
such a definition clearly is inapplicable when the context provided
by other text within section 20A-7-302 is considered. The reference
to a law within the provision establishing the five-day deadline
cannot be interpreted to mean a legislative edict that is presently
effective or that has been approved or not vetoed by the Governor
because the deadline also clearly and explicitly references the end of
the legislative session as the starting point for calculating the
deadline. Thus, there is no reasonable interpretation of the term
law that could mean anything other than a bill passed by the
Legislature in whatever form it exists at the time the legislative
session ends. And, even assuming a reasonable person could be
confused by the use of the term law, the specification of the
deadline at a minimum should prompt that person to inquire about
available means of compliance before the expiration of that
deadline.5 Yet, in this case, there is no allegation that any inquiry
was directed to the Lieutenant Governors office prior to March 27,
2015, fifteen days after the end of the legislative session.
7 Additionally, we can discern no basis for perceiving an
infringement of constitutional rights arising from the possibility that
the sponsors initial efforts would be rendered moot by a veto that
would have provided them with the same outcome they intended to
seek through the referendum. The remedies of a veto and a
referendum are independent and complementary in nature.
Opponents of a bill passed by the Legislature are free to lobby the
Governor at the same time they embark on the path of seeking
repeal through the voice of the people, and we cannot see how they
could claim any disappointment, let alone any violation of their
A statutory amendment to clarify the manner in which referenda sponsors may satisfy the statutory requirement to attach a copy
of the law might be appropriate, but we leave that to the judgment
of the Legislature.
5
GRICIUS v. COX
Opinion of the Court
sufficiently alleged. Accordingly, we decline to grant the relief they
request.