File No. 33815
This rule was published in the August 1, 2010, issue (Vol. 2010, No. 15) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Lieutenant Governor, Elections
Electronic Signatures in Initiatives and Referenda
Notice of 120-Day (Emergency) Rule
DAR File No.: 33815
Filed: 07/08/2010 05:31:32 PM
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
The purpose of this rule is to provide a framework by which those seeking to qualify a statewide initiative or referendum for the ballot may submit electronic signatures to comply with the signature requirements contained in the Elections Code. The intent of the rule is to maintain the statutory precautions and provisions in the initiative or referendum statutes protecting against fraud and mistake and providing for accountability in the use of electronic signatures.
Summary of the rule or change:
The rule will authorize the Lieutenant Governor to allow the use of electronic signatures in statewide initiatives and referenda petitions if the sponsors' process allows for accommodation of the statutory precautions to protect against fraud and mistake. (DAR NOTE: A corresponding proposed new rule is under DAR No. 33827 in this issue, August 1, 2010, of the Bulletin.)
Emergency rule reason and justification:
Regular rulemaking procedures would cause an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare; and place the agency in violation of federal or state law.
Justification: In the recent opinion by the Utah Supreme Court in the Anderson v. Bell case, the Court ruled that electronic signatures may be used in certificate of nomination petitions. The Court's decision highlights the need to develop rules to accommodate electronic signatures while still ensuring the integrity of the initiative and referendum process. There are three active initiatives currently collecting signatures with time-sensitive statutory deadlines.
State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
- Article VII Sections 1 and 14
- Sections 20A-7-201 through 20A-7-214
- Section 63G-3-201
- Section 46-4-102
- Anderson v. Bell 2010 UT 47
- Subsection 67-1a-2(2)(a)(i)
- Section 63G-3-304
- Section 46-4-501
This rule or change incorporates by reference the following material:
- Adds: ,
Anticipated cost or savings to:
the state budget:
It is anticipated to have no cost or savings to the state budget. There is no cost difference between electronic signatures and holographic signatures when processing them at state level.
Depending on how the sponsors meet the requirements and submit the completed petitions to the county clerks for certification, there could be either a cost or a savings.
It is anticipated to have no cost or savings to small businesses. The rule should not affect small businesses.
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:
It is anticipated to have cost savings to the sponsors of initiatives and referenda. Depending on how the requirements are met, electronic petitions may be more cost effective than paper petitions.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
The cost for compliance will vary depending on how the sponsors meet the requirements of the rule.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
It is anticipated there will be no fiscal impact on businesses.
Greg Bell, Lieutenant Governor
The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:Lieutenant Governor
ROOM 220 UTAH STATE CAPITOL
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114
Direct questions regarding this rule to:
- Mark Thomas at the above address, by phone at 801-538-1041, by FAX at 801-538-1133, or by Internet E-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org
This rule is effective on:
Greg Bell, Lieutenant Governor
R623. Lieutenant Governor, Elections.
The Portable Document Format (PDF) version of the Bulletin is the official version. The PDF version of this issue is available at https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bull-pdf/2010/b20100801.pdf. The HTML edition of the Bulletin is a convenience copy. Any discrepancy between the PDF version and HTML version is resolved in favor of the PDF version.
Text to be deleted is struck through and surrounded by brackets (e.g., [
example]). Text to be added is underlined (e.g., ). Older browsers may not depict some or any of these attributes on the screen or when the document is printed.
For questions regarding the content or application of this rule, please contact Mark Thomas at the above address, by phone at 801-538-1041, by FAX at 801-538-1133, or by Internet E-mail at email@example.com.