In re UT Redistricting Stand. Comm'n Initiative

2009 UT 51
This opinion is subject to revision before final
publication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
In re Petition to Appeal 	No. 20090551
the Initial Fiscal Impact
Estimate to the Utah 	F I L E D
Redistricting Standards
Commission Initiative 	July 31, 2009
---
Original Proceedings in this Court
Attorneys: 	Lisa Watts Baskin, North Salt Lake, for petitioners
Merrill F. Nelson, Catherine Millicent Shaw Lewis,
Trent M. Alvord, Tania Knauer, and Mark R. Sage
Mark L. Shurtleff, Att’y Gen., Thom D. Roberts, Asst.
Att’y Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent Governor’s
Office of Planning and Budget
---
PER CURIAM:
¶1 	The petitioners are sponsors of an initiative petition
entitled “Utah Redistricting Standards Commission.” 	They have
sought relief from this court in the form of a declaration that
the Initial Fiscal Impact Estimate of the initiative’s cost,
prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB),
is inaccurate. 	This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the
provisions of Utah Code section 20A-7-202.5(4) (2007). 	That
statute provides in part that this court shall approve the Fiscal
Impact Estimate unless the petitioners “rebut the presumption by
clear and convincing evidence that establishes that the initial
fiscal estimate, taken as a whole, is an inaccurate statement of
the estimated fiscal impact of the initiative.” 	Id. § 20A-7-
202.5(4)(b)(ii).
¶2 	The parties submit this matter based on undisputed
facts, specifically the language of the Utah Constitution and the
proposed initiative, and the reliance by the GOPB on cost
estimates provided to it by the legislative fiscal analyst
regarding the costs of staffing the new redistricting commission
proposed by the initiative. 	The petitioners object to the
underlying assumption employed by the legislative fiscal analyst,

No. 20090551 	2
and reflected in the GOPB estimate, that the legislature would
undertake its own research and analysis process related to
redistricting in addition (and parallel in time) to the work of
the new commission, thus increasing potential costs. 	The
petitioners argue that the language of the initiative requires
the legislature to defer any such research and analysis until the
commission completes its work and submits its recommended plan to
the legislature for approval, rejection, or modification.
¶3 	We reject the petitioners’ arguments. 	We do not read
the plain language of the initiative to prohibit the legislature
from undertaking separate research and analysis of redistricting
issues at any time. 	The initiative does specifically require the
legislature to deal with the commission’s proposed plan when
completed, but it does not preclude it from other activities in
the meantime. 	Whether or not the legislature could be restricted
in the redistricting process by statute, given its sole
constitutional authority for redistricting, is an open question,
but this initiative does not accomplish such a restriction. 	The
petitioners’ best argument in this regard is that the initiative
does so by implication; we disagree.
¶4 	Finally, we include a comment on the statute pursuant
to which the petitioners have received review of this matter. 	It
provides, in subsection 20A-7-202.5(4)(c), that “[t]he Supreme
Court shall, within 30 calendar days of the date that the appeal
is filed, certify to the lieutenant governor a fiscal impact
estimate for the measure that meets the requirements of this
section.” 	In In re Anderson, 2004 UT 7, ¶ 64 n.16, 82 P.3d 1134,
we observed of a similar statutory time requirement that
the judicial power has been entirely vested
[by the Utah Constitution] in the supreme
court, the district court, and such other
courts as may be established by legislation.
There does not appear to be a reservation to
the legislative branch of any authority to
set rules of process or procedure for the
courts, particularly with respect to core
functions.
In this case, because the facts are undisputed and the legal
issues are straightforward, we have been able to decide the issue
within the deadline; and we would in general always attempt to
expedite matters where urgency has been identified by the
legislature or the parties. 	In other cases, we might be unable
to be so responsive, however, because this statute also, oddly,
directs this court to undertake fact-finding functions where

3 	No. 20090551
there is disputed evidence on the question of the accuracy of the
GOPB’s estimates. 	We have no resources for such a fact-finding
function and would likely need to appoint some sort of master or
commissioner to assist us, a process that could easily require
more than 30 days.
¶5 	Because the petitioners have failed to sustain their
burden of showing inaccuracy by clear and convincing evidence, we
hereby certify to the Lieutenant Governor that the Fiscal Impact
Estimate prepared by the Office of Planning and Budget meets the
requirements of section 20A-7-202.5.
---