Court Opinion

ID: 9795469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:29:36.759656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:08.113658
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Associate Chief Justice,
dissenting:
¶ 17 The essence of the majority opinion in this matter is that our common law rule awarding attorney fees to litigants who act in the public interest should be extended to those who successfully challenge a ballot initiative’s inclusion on the ballot. The fact that the litigant may do so for reasons other than the public interest falls out of the equation, as does the financial need of the litigant. My colleagues pronounce the role of preventing the public from voting on a dubious measure *1042proposed by initiative or referendum to be of such “sacrosanct and fundamental” importance that the court must act to encourage litigation against, in this case, the Davis County Clerk, for failing in his administrative duty.
¶ 18 I, on the other hand, would not.
¶ 19 I would certainly allow those who see unwarranted inclusion of a matter on the ballot to challenge its inclusion, and in instances of improper, unethical, or fraudulent behavior by government officials, encourage the additional incentive of requiring the government to defray the expenses of such an effort. I would reserve that additional incentive for only those few truly extraordinary occasions when a brave citizen takes on government and succeeds against corrupt or wrongful acts, and does so for altruistic reasons, at a personal financial sacrifice. In all other cases, I would let the people vote on the matter.
¶ 20 My colleagues, in this ease, elevate a corporate challenge to the flawed initiative petition to a level mandating the award of attorney fees, and do so in language one might reasonably interpret to mean that any such challenge in the future is also entitled to fees, so long as a referendum or initiative effort is successfully removed from the ballot. Such a position places both an unreasonable burden on state and local governments, and substitutes our views of the importance of an issue for the view of the voters on the merits of the issue. One might reasonably expect all such future petitions to be challenged in court, leaving the bill to be paid by the public treasury.
¶21 I disagree with my colleagues, and therefore dissent.