Agreement reached for Clerk Furse to tally disputed signatures; Summit County referendum advances

Karen Tarufi volunteers gathering signatures for the referendum in Kamas in February 2025. Photo: TownLift file

PARK CITY, Utah — A referendum effort to challenge Summit County’s approval of the high-profile Dakota Pacific development in Kimball Junction has regained momentum after petitioners and the Summit County Clerk’s Office reached an agreement Friday to proceed with reviewing previously rejected signatures.

The agreement, formalized through a stipulated order between the petitioners and the Clerk’s Office—represented by outside legal counsel—directs Clerk Eve Furse to resume verifying thousands of voter signatures that were initially tossed out during the certification process. The outcome could pave the way for the referendum to appear on the November 2025 ballot.

“We are pleased to have at least one less hurdle as we work towards reinstatement of the rejected packets and validation for the 2,687 Summit County voters who signed them. While we still face an uphill battle over the next month in terms of legal process and fees, today we are very grateful to Clerk Furse for agreeing to count packets 1-30 and share verified names with our Lieutenant Governor to post to the website,” a statement from the petitioners said Friday.

Similar Reads On TownLift

At issue are 30 packets containing signatures rendered by local voters submitted in support of the Dakota Pacific amended development agreement being put on November ballots. Petitioners gathered more than 6,000 signatures total during a 45-day petition window once the issue was deemed referable to voters in January. But in March, Clerk Furse deemed that nearly half of those packets were invalid due to what she said were issues with how packets were assembled and circulated. That decision left the referendum short of the required signature threshold.

Now, under the agreement finalized Friday, the Clerk’s Office will proceed with verifying the contested signatures and forwarding that list to the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office by July 14, enabling the state to publicly post the names by July 15.

What this means for voters

The timeline is critical. Once the signatures are posted on the Lieutenant Governor’s website, state law requires a 45-day period during which signers may request to have their names removed from the petition. If a sufficient number of valid signatures remain at the end of that period — and if a judge rules in favor of reinstating the packets — the referendum could qualify for the November general election ballot.

Petitioners say the agreement is key to making the ballot timeline, and it helps them avoid far more expensive  and complicated measures. This step avoids further delays and reduces the need for costly and prolonged litigation.

Without the mutually stipulated order, petitioners would have waited on a third district court ruling anticipated in August, but that would mean being left off November ballots. Petitioners explain their only other option would have been something more forceful such as a temporary restraining order, underscoring their gratitude for the Clerk’s cooperation.

They said they would have had to wait for a judge to rule on a lawsuit filed earlier this week. If the ruling took too long and they won that legal battle, petitioners said they would have to start the 45-day signature removal window too late to make the deadline of getting the decision on ballots, which need to go to press at the end of August.

Still, the court must ultimately decide whether the disputed packets will be validated. If that happens, the referendum can only proceed if enough verified signatures remain after the 45-day removal window.

Background on the dispute

In March, Summit County Clerk Eve Furse determined that the signature-gathering window began one day earlier than petitioners believed—January 16 rather than January 17. That interpretation led her office to reject approximately half of the signatures submitted, putting the referendum effort in jeopardy.

The petitioners disagreed, arguing that the official referendum agreement was not finalized until January 17 and that the clock should have started then. The matter seemed destined for the courts until the recent agreement offered a path forward.

This referendum development arrives amid news this week that the Summit County Planning Commission has forwarded a recommendation to County Manager Shayne Scott to approve the Dakota Pacific Project under a new law, SB 26, which strips local authority from land use decisions. It is not yet clear how or if SB 26 impacts the referendum and the future Dakota Pacific project.

Next steps

The Lieutenant Governor’s Office is expected to post the signature names by July 15, triggering the 45-day review window. During that time, residents who signed the petition will have the opportunity to remove their names if they choose.

If the signature threshold is still met after that period and a judge rules in the petitioners’ favor, the referendum would likely be included on the November ballot.

Petitioners urged residents to stay engaged but respectful, emphasizing that cooperation between the parties has allowed the process to move forward. “This is a positive development,” one petitioner said. “It’s a big step, and we’re hopeful the community will have the chance to vote.”

Editor’s note: TownLift has also reached out to the county and to the clerk’s office for a statement. This article will be updated.