Opinion ID: 2548863
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Signature Removal Provision

Text: ¶ 44 Safe Havens contends that the burdens imposed by the Senate District Requirement are magnified when viewed in conjunction with the Signature Removal Provision[ ]. The initiative statute provides that [a]ny voter who has signed an initiative petition may have his signature removed from the petition by submitting a notarized statement to that effect to the county clerk. Utah Code Ann. § 20A 7 205(3)(a)(i). Safe Havens does not challenge the right of a voter to remove his signature, but rather the time period in which a signature may be removed. ¶ 45 The initiative statute provides that initiative sponsors must submit all of the gathered signatures to the county clerks by June 1, at which point the county clerks must verify that all the names are of persons who are over eighteen years old, are residents of Utah, and are registered voters. Id. § 20A-7-206(1) to -206(3). The county clerks must deliver the signatures to the lieutenant governor by July 1, whereupon, the lieutenant governor will declare whether the initiative petition is sufficient. Id. §§ 20A-7-201(2)(b),-206(3)(c). Any voter who has signed the petition is allowed to remove his or her signature up until the time that the petition is submitted to the lieutenant governor. See id. § 20A-7-205(3)(c). ¶ 46 Safe Havens argues that the timing of this provision unduly burdens the initiative right, with no legitimate legislative justification, because it allows initiative opponents unfettered access to petition signers during the month of June (after sponsors are prohibited from submitting additional replacement signatures), during which time signers may remove their names from the petition. Thus, Safe Havens asserts, initiative opponents may defeat an initiative by focusing on one or two (or at most, four) [s]enate districts in which sponsors have cleared the 10 [percent] hurdle by the narrowest margin. ¶ 47 In Halgren v. Welling, this court recognized the right of a petitioner to withdraw his signature, stating that `[n]o authority has been found which denies to a petitioner the right to withdraw his name while the petition is being circulated and before it has been presented to the person or body with whom it is required to be filed.' 91 Utah 16, 29, 63 P.2d 550, 556 (1936) (quoting In re Initiative Petition No. 2, City of Chandler, 170 Okla. 507, 41 P.2d 101, 102 (1935)) (further citations omitted). The court continued, Neither do any of the authorities recognize the right of a petitioner to withdraw his name from a petition after it has been finally acted upon and the prayer thereof has been granted by the person or body who is required to act upon it. Id. (quotation omitted). ¶ 48 Safe Havens suggests that it would be completely in keeping with this [c]ourt's pronouncement in Halgren  if this court were to institute a scheme, similar to that followed in some other states, in which signers could remove their names up until the petitions are submitted to the county clerks. See e.g., Rekart v. Kirkpatrick, 639 S.W.2d 606, 607 n. 1 (Mo.1982) (quoting Mo.Rev.Stat. § 116.110 (Supp.1981)) (holding that signatures may be withdrawn only up until the time that the initiative petition is completed and filed). However, in Halgren, this court considered and rejected that type of scheme, stating that [t]he weight of authority is that the withdrawal may be made at any time before the petition has been acted upon. 91 Utah at 30, 63 P.2d at 556. Further, this court is committed to the doctrine, in the absence of statute, which permits withdrawal after filing a petition and before action thereon is taken. 91 Utah at 29, 63 P.2d at 556 (internal quotation omitted). In Halgren, we clearly intended to allow the right to withdraw one's signature after the initiative petition was submitted to the county clerks, and before the county clerks delivered the petition to the lieutenant governor for final action. ¶ 49 Although we recognize the potential difficulty this provision may cause to initiative sponsors, such a regulation is reasonable in light of the importance of protecting the right of a voter to withdraw his signature, which, in the absence of a contrary statutory provision, continues up until the petition is finally acted upon by the lieutenant governor. Utah voters have the ability to decide whether or not to support a particular initiative, and [t]here is no substantial reason why a person who has once signed a petition may not, at any time before the petition has been acted upon, withdraw his name, and if timely done, his name should not be counted. Halgren, 91 Utah at 30, 63 P.2d at 556.