Attorneys representing a group of landowners who oppose the West Hills township are asking Summit County Third District Court Judge Matthew Bates to decide whether the incorporation process violated the state Constitution before the proposal appears on the Election Day ballot.
The 10 plaintiffs are a mixed group of longtime residents in unincorporated Summit County, near the proposed West Hills boundaries, and second-home owners frustrated with the state’s incorporation procedures. The lawsuit, filed in May, names Salt Lake real estate attorney and town sponsor Derek Anderson and Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson as defendants.
Only the 47 registered voters living within the proposed boundaries will have the opportunity to vote on incorporation, preventing second-home owners registered to vote in other states from participating in the decision this November.
The original West Hills map Anderson created was submitted to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office in 2023, but it failed to meet state requirements for incorporation after multiple property owners opted to be excluded from the township. Anderson then submitted a second, revised map, which did meet the requirements.
However, property owners included in the revised boundaries did not have the chance to opt out because the law governing incorporations states that the exemption window ends after the proposal’s first public hearing.
In West Hills’ case, the first public hearing was held on Feb. 12, 2024, before Anderson submitted the revised map.
Janet Conway, one of the residents’ attorneys, argued during a September hearing that the Utah Constitution, which states that “all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation,” mandates everyone be treated equally unless the legislation in question explicitly applies to a particular subsection of the population.
Specifically, she said the incorporation process violates the Constitution’s uniform operations clause by inadvertently separating landowners into categories and treating them differently based on when Anderson included their properties in the proposal. If the first group of landowners was able to exclude themselves from the township, then the same option should be given to landowners included in the revised boundaries, Conway said.
Bates ultimately declined to issue a ruling last month. Instead, he said he preferred to wait until voters have a chance to decide West Hills’ future, especially considering the case is likely irrelevant if the incorporation fails.
But approximately 10 days later, Conway and fellow attorney Michael Judd filed a brief requesting Bates to reconsider his position and issue a ruling before Election Day.
“Allowing an election to proceed on a measure — when there is a legitimate challenge to the constitutionality of that measure — goes against judicial policies to expedite consideration and resolve elections disputes prior to elections whenever possible to reduce uncertainty, will harm Plaintiffs and the local community and create practical problems for a community at a crossroads,” the brief said.
The document additionally claimed that voiding an “unconstitutional ballot measure” before the election is both “legally preferred” and less likely to interfere with other election deadlines.
“A decision after an election may thus have an ‘extremely disruptive effect’ and the courts must consider ‘the havoc it wreaks upon the local political continuity,’” the brief stated. “A ruling — at any level — will have meaningful practical consequences. But a pre-election ruling will help mitigate those practical consequences.”
Judd and Conway said they plan to seek expedited relief from the Utah Supreme Court if Bates does not decide to rule on the matter before Election Day.
Meanwhile, Anderson’s legal counsel argued against a pre-Election Day ruling in a separate brief, emphasizing a judge’s right to handle their docket at their discretion and pointing out that absentee ballots have already been mailed overseas.
“Whatever ruling the Court might make now would surely be subject to an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by one side or the other,” the brief added. “There are less than 30 days before the election. By the time the Supreme Court could rule on the appeal, the election would very likely be over. Because the final outcome of this case will not be determined until after the election, there is no urgency for this Court to rule now.”
Bates has not yet indicated whether he will hold another hearing or make a decision regarding West Hills and the constitutionality of the state’s incorporation process before Election Day.
West Hills is a proposed township covering 3,600 acres along S.R. 248 near Kamas. It has been largely opposed since its creation two years ago, with community members citing concerns over property rights, economic viability and the sponsor’s motives.
Meanwhile, West Hills supporters said they believe the incorporation will give residents more flexibility with their property, help control expected growth in the area and encourage open land preservation.