County invalidates 3,000 signatures, halting referendum—for now

A pile of referendum packets at the county clerk's office on Monday, March 3, 2025. Photo: Protect Summit County

Over 6,000 signatures were submitted, but only 3,214 will count, according to Summit County Clerk Eve Furse. Furse stands by her determination that nearly 50% of the signatures were invalidated due to improper binding.

SUMMIT COUNTY, Utah — Summit County Clerk Eve Furse announced Tuesday that the referendum petition aiming to overturn a controversial development in Kimball Junction has fallen short of the required signatures — sponsors of the referendum said they will challenge the decision.

As of March 25, the clerk’s office verified 3,214 signatures, well below the 4,554 needed to force a countywide vote on Ordinance 987, which allows Dakota Pacific Real Estate to transform the area from a tech park into a high-density, mixed-use development. Referendum sponsors said that more than 6,000 signatures were gathered ahead of the March 3 deadline.

Furse cited 30 petition packets that failed to meet requirements outlined in Utah’s Election Code. She maintained that state law requires each packet to include the full 160-page referendum information packet, bound together before signatures are collected. This ensures voters have a chance to read what they’re signing — a safeguard meant to prevent misleading or rushed signature gathering, she said.

“The Clerk’s Office’s number one priority is to protect and implement the processes by which Summit County residents express their political will — regardless of the subject matter,” Furse said. “We can only verify signatures on petitions that comply with statutory packet requirements.”

The Utah Code does not include any language pertaining to the need for a packet to be permanently bound.

Sponsors and volunteers affirm that each packet—containing the complete law being referred and all required pages—is fully compliant with current code, which states packets must be bound “in a manner that the referendum packets may be conveniently opened for signing.”

“The political will of more than 6,000 Summit County residents has never been clearer—yet the Clerk seems determined to interfere with the process and contradict that will,” Referendum Sponsors said in a joint statement Tuesday afternoon.

Supporter of the referendum and political expert, Reed Galen, said Furse overstepped her duties as clerk in the referendum process with public comments made amid the signature gathering stage.

“Her job is not to speak publicly on anything related to a citizen’s effort to place a referendum on the ballot. Her job is ministerial. Her job is to take in the signatures for validation,” Galen said.

At a County Council meeting during the signature gathering stage, Furse spoke about allowing people to re-sign the petition and how she would not eliminate them for signing the petition twice. Confusion ensued about what supporters should in fact do and Protect Summit County and referendum sponsors encouraged people not to double sign.

“She’s further muddying the waters,” Galen said.

Furse said, beyond the invalid packets, individual signatures may also be ruled ineligible for several reasons, including signatures that didn’t match voter registration files, signers who weren’t registered voters in Summit County, missing dates and address or birthdate discrepancies.

Furse said the clerk’s office will continue reviewing all materials. The final determination is expected by June 23, as required by law.

What Happens Next?

The petition sponsors, may challenge the clerk’s decision in court. A formal injunction can not be filed until Furse makes a final determination, though Summit County Manager Shayne Scott said he expects a dispute over the rejected signatures.

“I think there will likely be some dispute, whether it be the packets and the numbers of signatures,” Scott said on KPCW’s ‘Local News Hour’.

Meanwhile, Dakota Pacific is pushing forward with plans to build an 850-unit neighborhood near Skullcandy’s headquarters, alongside county-owned affordable housing and an expanded transit center.

In a major twist during the petition process, Senate Bill 26, passed by state lawmakers and signed by Gov. Spencer Cox in March, granted the developer new legal footing. Under the law, Dakota Pacific now needs only administrative approval from county staff to proceed — bypassing the county council’s previous role in the decision-making process.

“Dakota Pacific’s application to become a town under SB 258 was filed after that referendum process was already underway. SB 26 wasn’t even signed into law by Governor Cox until this month,” sponsors said. “If state legislators, the Governor, and the Lieutenant Governor intend to use a disordered and hasty process to strip away local control and undermine rights guaranteed to voters under the Utah Constitution, those actions will ultimately be challenged before the Utah Supreme Court.”

Scott confirmed that the developer has already reached out to the planning department to discuss their next steps under the new law.

According to the county, the referendum process, including litigation, is independent of the incorporation and SB26. “It has no specific connection to those two processes,” Furse said.

The County Attorney’s office said as of today, no formal administrative application has been filed with the County by DPRE in relation to SB 26.