This opinion is subject to revision before final

Publication in the Pacific Reporter

2016 UT 17

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY, and

UTAH DEMOCRATIC PARTY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LT. GOVERNOR SPENCER J. COX,

Defendant.

No. 20160077

Filed April 8, 2016

On Certification from the

United States District Court for the District of Utah

The Honorable David Nuffer 

Case No. 2:16-cv-00038

Attorneys:

Marcus R. Mumford, Salt Lake City,

Christ Troupis, Eagle, Idaho,

for plaintiff Utah Republican Party,

Troy L. Booher, Charles A. Stormont, David Billings,

Salt Lake City, for plaintiff Utah Democratic Party,

Sean D. Reyes, Att’y Gen., David N. Wolf, Asst. Att’y Gen.,

T. Parker Douglas, Asst. Att’y Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(1), this court has 

accepted the following certified questions of law from the United 

States District Court for the District of Utah:

1. In interpreting Utah Code § 20A-9-101(12)(d), § 20A-9-406(3) 

and § 20A-9-406(4), does Utah law require that a Qualified 

Political Party (QPP) permit its members to seek its 

nomination by “either” or “both” of the methods set forth in 

§ 20A-9-407 and § 20A-9-408, or may a QPP preclude a 

member from seeking the party’s nomination by gathering 

signatures under § 20A-9-408?
UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY v. LT. GOVERNOR COX

Opinion of the Court

2

2. If a registered political party (RPP) that has selected to be 

designated as a Qualified Political Party (QPP) fails to satisfy 

the requirements of a QPP, must the Lieutenant Governor 

treat that political party as a RPP under Utah law?

We address the first question, but have determined that the second is 

not ripe and therefore decline to respond, as explained below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶2 “‘When a federal court certifies a question of law to this 

court, we are not presented with a decision to affirm or reverse 

. . . [and thus] traditional standards of review do not apply.’ Rather, 

‘we answer the legal questions presented without resolving the 

underlying dispute.’” Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015 UT 83, ¶ 8, 

359 P.3d 614 (alterations in original) (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

I. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 20A-9-101 REQUIRES 

THAT QPP PARTY MEMBERS MAY CHOOSE THE METHOD OF 

CANDIDACY QUALIFICATION

¶3 Section 20A-9-101(12)(d) of the Utah Code reads as follows:

(12) “Qualified political party” means a registered 

political party that:

. . .

(d) permits a member of the registered political party 

to seek the registered political party’s nomination for 

any elective office by the member choosing to seek the 

nomination by either or both of the following methods:

(i) seeking the nomination through the 

registered political party’s convention process, in 

accordance with the provisions of Section 20A-9-407; or

(ii) seeking the nomination by collecting 

signatures, in accordance with the provisions of Section 

20A-9-408 . . . .

¶4 We begin our construction of this portion of the statute by 

examining its plain language. We conclude that its contents, 

including its grammatical structure, clearly evince the legislature’s 

meaning: to meet the definitional requirements of a QPP, a political 

party must permit its members to seek its nomination by “choosing 

to seek the nomination by either or both” the convention and the 

signature process. The Utah Republican Party has offered two basic 

arguments in opposition to this interpretation of the statute’s plain 
Cite as: 2016 UT 17

Opinion of the Court

3

language: (1) the language actually permits the party, not the 

member, to choose either or both of the methods; and (2) a contrary 

interpretation is inconsistent with Utah Code section 20A-9-401(2) 

and the canon of constitutional avoidance.

¶5 We cannot accept the Republican Party’s first assertion—it 

simply ignores the structure of the statutory language “permits a 

member” and “by the member choosing to seek the nomination 

by . . . .” Our reading is also consistent with the language of Utah 

Code section 20A-9-406(3), which provides that “[t]he following 

provisions apply to a qualified political party: . . . an individual may 

only seek the nomination of the qualified political party by using a 

method described in Section 20A-9-407, Section 20A-9-408, or both.” 

Utah Code section 20A-9-406(4) further provides that “the qualified 

political party shall comply with the provisions of Sections 

20A-9-407, 20A-9-408, and 20A-9-409.” The Republican Party’s 

position is not consistent with this language.

¶6 Utah Code section 20A-9-401, on which the Republican 

Party also relies, contains two provisions:

(1) This part shall be construed liberally so as to ensure 

full opportunity for persons to become candidates and 

for voters to express their choice.

(2) This part may not be construed to govern or 

regulate the internal procedures of a registered political 

party.

The Republican Party argues that our plain language construction of 

section 20A-9-101(12)(d) would violate paragraph (2) above by 

governing or regulating its internal procedures. We disagree. The 

statute does not require the Republican Party to seek certification as 

a qualified political party, and it does not purport to mandate the 

adoption of any provisions in its constitution, bylaws, rules, or other 

internal procedures. A registered political party that chooses to 

function as such incurs no obligation under subsection (12)(d). 

However, if a party seeks certification as a QPP, it must comply with 

the statute’s requirements. This does not amount to internal control 

or regulation of the party by the State. 

¶7 Finally, we reject the Republican Party’s argument that we 

should avoid an unconstitutional interpretation of section 

20A-9-101(12)(d) by adopting the Republican Party’s reading of the 

statute. As a preliminary matter, we harbor some doubt as to 

whether the Republican Party has raised any legitimate 

constitutional arguments that the State may not regulate the election 

process and favor particular measures to increase access to the ballot. 
UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY v. LT. GOVERNOR COX

Opinion of the Court

4

See Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 572 (2000) (“We have 

recognized, of course, that States have a major role to play in 

structuring and monitoring the election process, including 

primaries. . . . We have considered it ‘too plain for argument,’ for 

example, that a State may require parties to use the primary format 

for selecting their nominees, in order to assure that intraparty 

competition is resolved in a democratic fashion.” (citations omitted)). 

However, we need not address the merits of the Republican Party’s 

constitutional claims. “[F]or the constitutional avoidance canon to 

even apply, ‘the statute must be genuinely susceptible to two 

constructions’ . . . .” Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Carlson, 2014 UT 24, ¶ 24, 

332 P.3d 900 (citation omitted). As noted above, there is no 

ambiguity in section 20A-9-101(12)(d) that would trigger resort to 

the canon of constitutional avoidance. 

II. THE CERTIFIED QUESTION REGARDING THE LIEUTENANT 

GOVERNOR’S OBLIGATIONS IS HYPOTHETICAL AND NOT 

RIPE FOR DECISION

¶8 Notwithstanding our acceptance of the second certified 

question, our review of the record and the parties’ arguments in this 

matter persuades us that it is purely hypothetical and not ripe for 

review. Two of the parties—the Lieutenant Governor and the 

Republican Party—conceded this lack of ripeness at oral argument.

¶9 At present there are multiple options available to the 

Republican Party once this court’s interpretation of the QPP statute 

is published, and it is not clearly established in the record which of 

those the party will choose. According to the February 11, 2016 order 

of the federal district court, the Chairman of the Utah Republican 

Party sent a letter to the Lieutenant Governor in December 2015 

declaring that “it would restrict its candidate-selection procedures to 

the convention method, thereby prohibiting any URP candidate from 

gathering signatures.” The letter cited by the federal court does not 

refer to any process by which the Utah Republican Party could or 

would revoke the membership of a non-compliant candidate.

¶10 More recently, however, counsel for the Republican Party in 

this case made the following statement to the federal district court on 

February 24, 2016: “[I]f the state law says that we have to allow both 

routes and if that is what the Supreme Court decides and if we have 

elected to be a QPP, then we would have to figure a way how to 

change our constitution and by-laws to conform to the state law.” 

Thus at different times and through different representatives, the 

Republican Party has offered differing and hypothetical indications 

of its future behavior. We are disinclined to offer an advisory 

opinion on the future obligations of the Lieutenant Governor, where 
Cite as: 2016 UT 17

Opinion of the Court

5

such advice would have to account for predicted future behavior of 

the party. There is no certainty or even likelihood as to what that 

behavior will be.

¶11 We note further that in essence the Utah Democratic Party 

has asked us, on a certified question of law, for relief in the nature of 

an extraordinary writ—to order the Lieutenant Governor to take 

action based on ambiguous statements of intent by different 

representatives of the Republican Party. Such relief, premised on 

hypothetical future facts, is inappropriate in this procedural setting. 

If the Republican Party chooses to comply with the requirements of 

the QPP statute as confirmed in this opinion, the relief sought by the 

Democratic Party (i.e., to require the Lieutenant Governor to declare 

the Republican Party a “registered political party” ineligible for QPP 

status) will be moot. If the Republican Party chooses otherwise, 

perhaps by actually ejecting a member from the party, there may 

emerge an actual injury, conveying standing to seek relief in an 

appropriate forum. In the meantime there is no controversy ripe for 

resolution, and no basis for mandating future actions by the 

Lieutenant Governor.

CONCLUSION

¶12 Utah Code section 20A-9-101(12)(d) requires that, to be a 

QPP, a registered political party must permit its members to seek 

access to nomination for electoral office by either or both the 

signature-gathering method or the convention method. As to the 

Lieutenant Governor’s obligations should a political party fail to do 

so in the future, we decline to address that question for lack of 

ripeness.