Lea este artículo en español aquí.
In another reversal, the West Hills election is back on — for now.
Friday afternoon, the Utah Supreme Court hit pause on a lower court ruling that deemed the proposed town between Kamas and Hideout unconstitutional.
The Summit County Clerk’s Office had said it wouldn’t report the results of the incorporation election, but now it will count the votes as normal. Click here for more information.
The West Hills question is the only item on the ballot for voters within its proposed 3,600 acres.
For residents that threw out their ballot and didn’t return it, Clerk Eve Furse said they can still vote in person. But that’s not the case for residents who sent ballots back in.
“If [a voter] turned in a blank ballot, they will not be able to vote again, because that is considered their submission, and there's nothing we can do about that,” Furse said Oct. 27.
Jeramy Bristol, a member of the anti-West Hills group Kamas Valley Preservation Association, said he’s heard of at least one person who threw their ballot away.
“Every day I've been talking with voters who are in the area, and there's a lot of confusion,” he said.
That’s one point he and town sponsor Derek Anderson agree on.
“It would have been simpler to proceed with the vote and announce the results after the supreme court made its decision,” Anderson told KPCW in a statement. “Nevertheless, we hope there is enough time to resolve this issue.”
The justices haven’t ruled on the proposed town’s constitutionality, and still may do so before Election Day Nov. 4.
The Utah Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, Oct. 28.
The plaintiffs suing to stop the West Hills election are 10 area landowners who say they were treated differently and unfairly during the incorporation process.
The defendants are Utah Lt. Gov. Diedre Henderson — whose attorneys haven’t taken a position on whether the process was constitutional — and Anderson, who is also a real estate attorney. He maintains the process has been constitutional.
At the heart of the dispute is the possibility that the new town government will allow development.
Anderson has said opponents of West Hills and members of KVPA are anti-property rights. Those groups, however, claim they’re trying to protect the area’s rural character and don’t think West Hills is feasible.
Only people within the West Hills’ proposed boundaries can vote on incorporation.
According to the clerk’s office, there are 96 registered voters within the boundaries. In January, there were just 47.
One of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Michael Judd, is a shareholder at Parsons, Behle & Lattimer, which is a financial supporter of KPCW.
