Summit County Clerk Eve Furse doubled down on her decision to reject 30 signature packets supporting the referendum petition to stop Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s mixed-use development in Kimball Junction.
Attorneys representing Furse responded to the citizen-filed lawsuit against her in Third District Court on Monday, defending her choice to invalidate dozens of packets and opposing the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The hearing could allow the judge to make a ruling without a full trial if certain facts of the case aren’t disputed; Furse’s court filing says they are.
Before Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik rules on whether the disassembled signature packets satisfy the binding requirements under state law, Furse asked the court to “answer whether the superseding state legislation renders the current county referendum moot.”
The clerk was referencing the Utah Legislature-backed Senate Bill 26, which allows for the same zoning change and use as Ordinance No. 987 — the Summit County Council’s December approval of the amended development agreement. The filing argues the state law supersedes the county’s legislative authority and that a successful referendum in November would not halt the project. Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved the Dakota Pacific project for the second time late last month.
Likely, a determination about whether the referendum complied with state law would only be made if the court determines the will of the voters has more authority than S.B. 26. The issue then becomes whether the separation of the initial packet pages before they were submitted to the Clerk’s Office is enough to invalidate them.
Furse argues it is. She referenced the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office vote.Utah.gov website, which includes information for local referenda and references sections of state code (Utah Code 20A-7-601, 603, 604, and 605), providing instructions for signature gathering.
Packets “cannot be taken apart or rearranged once they are bound. The packets will be rejected if this is done,” according to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. Furse rejected packets one through 29 and packet 39 for improper circulation.
Furse’s court filing says there was evidence indicating the signature packets were removed or added after the packets were prepared. Several had page numbers crossed out and renumbered. The initial packets didn’t appear to be uniformly prepared or correctly preserved, in contrast with the packets the Clerk’s Office did accept.
There were additional discrepancies in the petition declaration filled out by the circulators, such as the number of signatures reported versus what was actually inside the packet. The packets had other issues, such as unreadable, duplicative, undated and unmatching signatures, along with signers who were not registered to vote or lived outside of Summit County. Those signatures were not counted.
The complaint — filed by Summit County residents Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — said only a few packets were separated after preparation and alleged the Clerk’s Office universally rejected packets with three-hole punches without verifying if the pages had been removed. The group argues Furse erred in her judgment and that the referendum sponsors followed state law.
The clerk disagrees. Court documents say Furse has been the subject of the ire of frustrated citizens.
“It is easy, and perhaps natural, to shoot the messenger. But doing so will not produce the lasting change, or local control, these advocates desire,” the filing states.
Furse asserts she reached out to the referendum sponsors when the initial packets were rejected and offered ways for the group to overcome or resolve the issue. The court filing states that the sponsors did not reply. Moschetta emailed the clerk, saying all the packets were compliant. However, Moschetta is not a sponsor.
The court filing was critical of Moschetta’s involvement because it is unclear what role she had in the referendum effort, based on the court filings, other than being a concerned citizen volunteer. Furse also noted Utah Code declares “sponsors or an agent of the sponsors shall create referendum packets,” yet the petitioners do not identify who, what, when, where or how the initial packets were created.
The Clerk’s Office agreed to provisionally post the signatures, which total 2,454 and would be enough to put the referendum on the November ballot if the rejected packets are deemed valid. Furse questioned the integrity of the signatures in those packets, but she said she’ll follow whatever determination the Third District Court makes.
The summary judgment hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19.