Opinion ID: 1161597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Validity of Petition Language Under State Law

Text: ¶ 16 The first question is whether the Council properly deviated from the text of the initiative petition after voter approval of the initiative in a general election. Biddles argue, first, that the specific language of the initiative petition is the controlling law of Washington Terrace according to local initiative procedures outlined in section 20A-7-510(3) of the Utah Code (General Election Code) and, second, that to the extent that the Ordinance did not faithfully implement every aspect of the initiative petition as passed by the voters in the November 1998 election, the Ordinance is invalid. ¶ 17 While the General Election Code requires the local legislative body to declare the voter-approved initiative in full force and effect as the law of the local jurisdiction, Utah Code Ann. § 20A-7-510(3)(a)(ii) (1998), we do not agree with Biddles' argument that the Ordinance is invalid because it departed from the language of the initiative petition. [1] Section 20A-7-511 clearly contemplates granting municipal councils the power to amend laws recently approved by the electorate at any meeting after the law has taken effect. Id. § 20A-7-511. Further, we agree with the trial court's findings that the initiative petition must be reconciled with the Optional Forms Act, and to the extent that the initiative petition is inconsistent with it, the Optional Forms Act controls. The municipal council rightly concluded that the petition's provision allowing the mayor to continue in office was in direct conflict with the Optional Forms Act's transition provisions. Thus, in amending the provisions of the initiative petition, the Council correctly exercised its power to require procedures that would bring the petition within the legal limits prescribed by the governing Optional Forms Act. ¶ 18 While we do not believe that a deliberate misrepresentation was made in the petition (it appears more likely that the drafters of the petition did not understand that the mayoral process they desired was inconsistent with state law), it may well have been the case that some voters were led down the primrose path by the initiative petition's language. The drafters of the initiative petition outlined a transition procedure that was not legally sound under the Optional Forms Act, and perhaps some voters would not have signed the petition or voted for the change if they had known that the incumbent mayor could not legally continue in office. However, the voters were given warning that the invalidation of any part of the petition would not constitute invalidation of the whole, and were thus given fair notice of possible changes to the terms contemplated in the petition.