Will there be any veto overrides from 2025? Here's what Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz said about it
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — It's still unclear whether any of the six vetoes from the 2025 legislative session will be overridden, but Utah's House Speaker Mike Schultz is not completely closing the door on it.
According to Utah's Constitution, lawmakers have until May 6 — or 60 days after the last day of the legislative session — to reconvene for an override session. It also lays out that two-thirds of the members in both chambers must agree in order to hold that session.
Both the House and Senate are currently polling their members, but majority leaders won't elaborate on where those votes lie.
But, House Speaker Mike Schultz joined Inside Utah Politics with Lindsay Aerts for an episode set to air Sunday, April 13.
'Well, we'll see what happens,' he said. 'We're in the process of continuing to have the dialog with our members. … We respect the governor's vetoes. Some of them I agree with, some of them I don't agree with. And so, as we go through the process, we work with the House, we work with the Senate to see where the members are at.'
The Speaker was asked to clarify which vetos he disagreed with, but he wouldn't elaborate.
'You can look at the ones I voted against,' he said.
The Speaker originally supported four of the six bills Cox vetoed. Those include the bill to reroute local property taxes for education funding to the state, a bill on using , , and the bill giving the Governor and Senate the power to appoint Utah's chief justice.
When asked specifically about a veto of the chief justice bill, Schultz said that Cox's reasoning for the veto included some support for picking the justice despite being a power he did not want. Cox mainly took issue with the fact that the bill also required appointment and reconfirmation by the Senate every four years.
'So we'll continue to have those discussions,' Shutlz said. 'If it doesn't get overridden and worked out this year, (it's) something we'll have discussions around next year,' he said.
The Governor has said that a special session to fix some bills from the 2025 session will be needed. That would be separate from the veto override session, and the Governor would set the agenda for that.
So, it's possible that negotiations between Cox and legislative leaders also include adding a compromised version of appointing the chief justice, or any other veto, to stave off an override.
Cox wants to fix H.B. 263 – Election Amendments, which would allow some sensitive election returns to be made public. Cox said he agrees with the transparency aspect of this bill, so he signed it, but said the sponsor and county clerks who largely opposed it had agreed to fix 'important changes.' He didn't elaborate on what those were.
H.B. 356 – County Government Amendments will change how smaller county and city councils are elected. Instead of each member being elected 'at large' or by the entire county, this bill dictates that members are elected by districts. Large counties, like Salt Lake, already do this. Cox said this bill needs fixing because of some 'unintended consequences.'
Cox also wants the legislature to reappropriate $3.5 million that was supposed to go to Sundance but won't now that they've decided to leave Utah for Boulder, Colorado.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
Watch CNBC's full interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson
House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the public feud between President Trump and Elon Musk, Musk's criticism of the GOP reconciliation package, fate of the bill in the Senate, cutting government spending, and more.
Chicago Tribune
20 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' Elon Musk's threat to withdraw Dragon capsule would leave NASA with 1 option: RussiaIf the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Problems proliferate in Senate for Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Problems are multiplying for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and other Senate negotiators in their bid to pass legislation to enact President Trump's agenda by July 4. Some Republican senators are barraging leadership with concerns about spending cuts for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), while budget hawks are demanding more deficit reduction and railing against a House compromise to lift the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. The latest headache for Thune and other Senate negotiators is a proposal being pushed by fiscal conservatives to root out more than $200 billion in what they're calling waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare — a controversial prospect giving the program's popularity. There are also differences between senators and the Trump White House about making permanent corporate tax cuts, such as 100 percent bonus depreciation for short-term investments and immediate expensing for research and development. Senate Republicans control 53 seats and can only afford three defections on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will vote 'no' because it includes language to raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. And Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) says he's a 'hard no' on the House-passed bill because it doesn't do enough to bring the nation back to a pre-pandemic level of spending. Here are the issues that threaten to derail the Senate bill. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are threatening to vote against the bill if it reduces Medicaid benefits to constituents, and they have yet to see what language the Senate Finance Committee will roll out on the issue. Senate and House GOP leaders insist the legislation won't cut Medicaid benefits, but the Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday projecting 10.9 million Americans will lose health insurance if the bill passes due to changes to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. 'I hope not benefit cuts, that's my bottom line,' Hawley said Thursday afternoon. GOP senators have raised concerns about proposals to limit states' ability to use health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding and to require people earning between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty level to pay higher co-pays for Medical services. Several Senate Republicans are also raising concerns over a projected $267 billion in spending cuts to the SNAP, including Collins and Moran. The Senate Agriculture Committee is hoping to roll out text for its portion of the budget reconciliation bill next week but Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) says the issue remains unresolved. 'We're still working on it,' Boozman told The Hill, adding, 'I wish it was' resolved.' Collins says she's concerned about language in the bill that would shift many of the burdens of administering the programs onto the states and penalize those states that have older systems for monitoring benefits. A growing number of Republicans are joining budget hawk Sen. Ron Johnson's (R-Wis.) call for more spending cuts in the bill, which Republicans project will reduce spending by roughly $1.6 trillion over the next decade. GOP senators, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Budget Committee, are calling for bigger cuts. 'I think the bill needs to be more fiscally responsible,' he told reporters Thursday afternoon. Some Republicans are now looking at a proposal to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the Medicare Advantage program and are rallying around a proposal sponsored by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to crack down on insurance companies 'upcoding' diagnoses to collect more Medicare reimbursement money. But the idea is dividing GOP senators. Hawley on Thursday said it would be 'insane' to start cutting Medicare, even though proponents of Cassidy's bill say it would be strictly targeted to waste, fraud and abuse and note that Democrats such as Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) support it. Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are digging in their heels over language in the House-passed bill to auction off government-owned spectrum, which they fear could impede the Defense Department's use of those frequencies for radar and communications. Rounds said the House language is a 'deal breaker' and urging that negotiators add language in the bill to protect spectrum frequencies used by the Pentagon for as long as the auction period lasts. 'It has to be modified,' he said. 'They've indicated that they would protect the spectrum [for defense] for the first round of auction items but one day after [the first round of auction] it's not protected,' he said. 'If they're serious about protecting that particular part of the spectrum, they just simply protect it until the auction authority expires in 2034,' he said. 'I've talked to the leadership here in the Senate.' The newest flashpoint in the negotiations is language in the bill that would restrict states' ability to regulate artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) says she would have voted against the House bill had she known that it 'strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years.' Other conservatives are flagging the provision as a major problem. 'I have a lot of concern about normal people who want to keep their job, want to protect their personal information. So we're just going to say for a decade that nobody can protect people? That's just nuts to me,' Hawley told reporters Thursday. Senate Republicans and Trump White House officials disagree over making corporate tax breaks, such as bonus depreciation and research and development expensing, permanent. The House bill phases out some of the most popular corporate tax cuts after 2029, and White House officials see an advantage in letting them expire after Trump's term in office, say GOP senators familiar with the negotiations. Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee made a pitch to Trump and his economic team at the White House Thursday to make the business tax proposals permanent, but the issue remains unresolved. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said that members of the Finance panel expressed their desire to make those tax provisions permanent, but he's not sure they moved the needle with Trump. 'I'm not convinced that we moved the needle. I think he certainly realizes how important it is to us, and I think he will go back and revisit it with his people,' he said. Republican senators say they're going to rewrite the deal Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reached with House Republicans from New York, New Jersey, and other high-cost Blue States to raise the cap on SALT deductions from $10,000 to $40,000 for households earning up to $500,000 a year. The House-crafted SALT deal is projected to cost $350 billion over 10 years, and Republican senators aren't happy about it. GOP senators believe they can lower the cap somewhere between $10,000 and $40,000 — or find another way to substantially reduce the cost of the provision — and still get the bill through the House. 'It is too high,' Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) of the $40,000 cap on SALT deductions. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is pushing for deficit reduction in the bill, called the SALT compromise a giveaway to 'an exceptionally wealthy, exceptionally small group of really high-income earners from a small handful of very highly taxed states.' 'We're subsidizing those states that impose high taxes,' he said. He said an 'overwhelming share of Republican senators' don't support the $40,000 cap level. 'There's a lot of support for setting that back down to some lower number, perhaps back down to $10,000,' Lee noted. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has warned Senate Republicans that they risk imperiling passage of the bill if they blow up the SALT deal. If the Senate modifies the legislation, it would need to pass the House again before heading to Trump's desk. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
