This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

A term-limits group may have shot itself in the foot with the Utah Supreme Court by abandoning a ballot initiative that it argues was improperly blocked by Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox.

If dropping the signature gathering is not enough to make the case moot, "then nothing is ever moot," Justice Thomas Lee said Tuesday during oral arguments in the case, a sentiment echoed by several other justices.

Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts made the same argument. "This case is moot, it is clearly moot. The remedy they seek is not available anymore," namely a court order for Cox, the state's chief elections officer, to allow signature gathering that could put on the 2016 ballot a proposal to limit terms of gubernatorial appointees to state boards.

Utah Term Limits NOW! announced last month that it was abandoning its petition drive, saying a series of delays by state officials prevented it from even beginning the process to gather more than 140,000 signatures needed by April 15 — and it was by then too late to gather them without spending more than $1 million.

Still, the group continued a lawsuit contending that those state delays had been illegal. The group's attorney, Stephen Clark, argued it is still important for justices to rule whether Cox had overstepped bounds because it could affect future initiatives.

But Lee said that courts don't decide hypothetical cases where plaintiffs say, "Oh never mind," and they issue rulings and orders only in cases that affect actual living controversies.

Justice Constandinos Himonas said if the group seeks to put term limits on the 2018 ballot, it could raise the elections-office procedural issues again in district court and have them decided in plenty of time.

The term-limits group had filed papers with Cox in June seeking permission to launch its petition drive. Cox blocked it the following month, ruling that the Utah Constitution gives the governor authority to appoint people to numerous boards and commissions, so "any change or limit to that authority requires a change to the Constitution."

Only the Legislature can initiate a constitutional amendment. Cox said the group's proposal for a mere statutory change was "patently unconstitutional" — and he refused to certify the petition.

Utah Term Limits NOW! filed a lawsuit in August — and asked for an expedited hearing and ruling by the Supreme Court — arguing Cox offered no precedent for his ruling and was stripping voters of their constitutionally guaranteed power to make changes through initiatives. The case was finally heard on Tuesday.

Lee said even though the case may now be moot, he asked some questions on the lawsuit's merits "since you're here anyway."

He and Justice Christine Durham questioned if the executive branch should have the right to declare a proposal "patently unconstitutional" before it is even considered by voters, and whether that is a decision reserved to the courts.

The lieutenant governor has no power to stop the Legislature from passing a bill he thinks is unconstitutional, Durham said, and questioned if he should have that authority as citizens try to pass a law by initiative.

Clark argued that Cox interfered with a fundamental right of voters to pass laws by initiative. Roberts, however, said previous court rulings have held that the lieutenant governor should not be compelled to allow initiatives to proceed that clearly would violate the constitution.

The court took the case under advisement, and said it will issue a ruling later.