Utah law sets tight deadlines for people who want to make law through initiative petitions. Sponsors have only a year to qualify an issue for the general election ballot after they file an application, and within that time they must conduct seven hearings and gather 95,000 signatures statewide from 26 of the 29 state senate districts. No small task.

All those signatures have to be submitted by April 15 before a general election, and county clerks have only a month to verify which ones belong to registered voters.

Given this tight time frame, it's no wonder that the law also sets deadlines for the Utah Supreme Court to settle disputes that may arise during the process. For example, the high court must rule within 30 days when the petition sponsors dispute the cost estimate that the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget assigns to the proposed law.

A bill before the Legislature would eliminate those deadlines for the Supreme Court, and petition sponsors smell a rat. They argue that this is just another barrier that the Legislature wants to erect in an already cumbersome process.

We're not so sure. HB112, sponsored by Brad Dee, R-Ogden, arose from an actual protest. Last year, the sponsors of the Fair Boundaries petition to reform the state redistricting process challenged the cost estimate for their proposal. The high court ruled within the specified 30 days, and said that because no facts were in dispute and the legal issues were straightforward, it was able to do so. But it noted that in other circumstances, if there were disputed evidence about the accuracy of the estimate, it might not be able to be so responsive. That's because an appellate court has no resources for such fact-finding and might have to appoint a special master to do that job, which would take more time.

The court also noted that under the Utah Constitution, the Legislature can't set rules of procedure, presumably including deadlines, for the courts. It's that whole separation of powers thing.

We can see the court's point. That's a good constitutional argument for removing the court deadlines in current law, as HB112 would do.

Rep. Kay McIff, R-Richfield, himself a former judge, says that the Supreme Court is aware of the importance of timely decisions in cases such as these.

We hope he's right. Because the power to make law by initiative petition is a right reserved to the people by the Utah Constitution that is co-equal to the power of the Legislature to make law. The courts should take a dim view of any unreasonable delays in the process that hamper that right.