Lawsuit challenges clerk’s decision to block Dakota Pacific referendum

Dakota Pacific parcel behind the Skullcandy building taken June 15, 2025. Photo: Marina Knight // TownLift

PARK CITY, Utah — A group of Summit County residents is taking legal action against the County Clerk’s Office over its rejection of signature packets submitted in an effort to force a public vote on the controversial Dakota Pacific development. The lawsuit, filed in Third District Court, argues that County Clerk Eve Furse wrongly disqualified signatures and overstepped her authority, blocking a valid referendum from appearing on the November ballot.

The 82-page complaint was filed Thursday by five petitioners—Ruby Diaz, Reed Galen, Angela Moschetta, Dana Williams, and Brendan Weinstein—who say they followed all legal steps to challenge the approval of Ordinance 987, which greenlit a major expansion of the Dakota Pacific housing and mixed-use development in Kimball Junction. The development, approved by a 4-1 Summit County Council vote in December, includes 725 market-rate units, a public-private partnership for 165 affordable housing units, a new transit center, and other commercial amenities.

Petitioners argue that their efforts to overturn the decision through the referendum process were blocked not by voter disinterest, but by the Clerk’s misinterpretation of state law.

Dispute over binding and signature verification

Central to the dispute is Clerk Furse’s rejection of over 3,000 signatures inside 30 signature packets that she claimed did not meet Utah’s binding requirements under state election law. In February, Furse stated that because some packets showed evidence of three-hole punches, it was unclear whether the signature pages and full text of the referendum were bound together throughout the signature collection process.

Petitioners insist they complied with all legal requirements, initially using three-ring binders to collect signatures and later rebinding the packets with spiral binding before submission. They maintain that all packets were intact and legally valid when turned in.

According to the lawsuit, if the 30 rejected packets had been counted, the petition would have exceeded the threshold of 4,554 verified signatures required to place the issue on the November ballot. State law also requires the 16% threshold to be met in at least three of the county’s four voter participation areas—another condition petitioners claim to have satisfied.

Legal arguments and timeline confusion

In court filings, petitioners argue that the Summit County Clerk’s Office misapplied key deadlines by starting the 45-day signature-gathering window on Jan. 16—before the required referendum agreement with sponsors was fully executed on Jan. 17– starting one day before a required agreement with sponsors was finalized. That misstep, they contend, effectively shortened the legal window for gathering signatures.

More notably, petitioners say it was they—not county officials—who first flagged the omission of a key procedural requirement: an agreement that establishes the way packets are to be numbered and is required under Utah law before signature collection can begin.

According to internal communications reviewed by TownLift, referendum sponsors received the petition packet from the Clerk’s Office just before close of business on Jan. 16. In the early hours of Jan. 17, they emailed Clerk Eve Furse and Summit County Attorney Helen Strachan to point out that the numbering agreement had not been executed and to ask when the 45-day clock would officially begin. Despite the procedural gap, Furse responded that the clock had already started on Jan. 16 and that the agreement would be forthcoming.

Months later, on June 17, petition sponsors and their legal team met with Clerk Furse and outside counsel hired by the county to argue that 30 previously rejected signature packets should be counted. Furse declined to reverse her decision, reportedly citing staffing limitations and a lack of time to verify the disputed signatures before the June 23 statutory deadline. A follow-up legal brief submitted by the petitioners was also rejected.

Grassroots campaign to defend the referendum

Through the advocacy group Protect Summit County, petitioners have launched a GoFundMe campaign to cover legal costs. They argue that taxpayers are now footing the bill for outside counsel hired by the Clerk’s Office to fight what they describe as the “clear will of the people.”

“This is like paying someone to sabotage your own defense,” one petitioner said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the petitioners say they are paying out-of-pocket for attorneys simply to ensure that election laws are properly followed and interpreted.

What’s at stake

The lawsuit underscores growing frustration among residents who see the Clerk’s actions as part of a broader effort to stifle voter participation in land-use decisions. Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan previously determined that the referendum was legally referable, and petitioners argue that all statutory obligations were met on their end.

They say the legal battle isn’t just about one development project—it’s about whether citizens still have a valid and accessible path to challenge decisions made by their elected officials.

Summit County officials have not filed a response to the lawsuit – the deadline for response is within 21 days of receipt. County representatives declined to comment on the pending litigation.

It remains uncertain what impact, if any, the legal challenge could have on the future of the development because of a new state law, SB 26. County officials say the new legislation allows Dakota Pacific to proceed with the development regardless of the outcome of the referendum. On May 30, Dakota Pacific Real Estate officially submitted a new development application to Summit County.

“I don’t think there’s anything the referendum can do to hold up this process,” Summit County Manager Shayne Scott said in a previous interview.