logo
No veto override session this year, Utah legislative leaders say

No veto override session this year, Utah legislative leaders say

Yahoo01-05-2025
House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, prepare to gavel in a joint session to hear from Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew Durrant at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on the first day of the legislative session, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Utah's top Republican legislative leaders have announced that lawmakers will not be convening a veto override session this year after Gov. Spencer Cox stopped six bills from becoming law.
'Even when our perspectives differ, we appreciate the governor's willingness to find common ground as we build an even brighter future for our great state,' Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said in a prepared statement issued Thursday.
'After careful consideration, the Legislature has decided not to convene a veto override session,' they said. 'We will focus on constructive dialogue and thoughtful policymaking during the interim to find the best path forward that benefits all Utahns.'
Among the most controversial bills Cox vetoed — and was perhaps one that could have had the best chance of a veto override — was SB296, a bill that would have given the governor and the Legislature the power to appoint the Utah Supreme Court's next chief justice every four years.
Currently, the state's highest court's five justices elect their own leader.
'A broad attack': Utah's judiciary fights bills threatening its independence
It was one of a handful of bills seeking changes to the state's judiciary, which has clashed with Utah lawmakers. Republicans' have expressed frustration with recent court rulings and they want to have more legislative influence over how the state's top court functions.
Along with SB296, there were several other bills that legal professionals across the state decried as threatening the judiciary's 'independence and integrity.' But after Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant met with lawmakers during the 2025 session, legislative leaders announced a deal with the judiciary that they would abandon three controversial bills — including one that would give legislators a say in judicial retention elections — and instead only proceed with passing SB296.
However, despite that deal, Cox decided to veto SB296, saying it went too far by requiring the state's chief justice to be reappointed every four years. He wrote in his veto letter that the decision was 'mine and mine alone,' and that no one from the judicial branch asked him for the veto.
'I admit it is very tempting to sign this bill and assure that the Chief Justice would need to stay in my good graces to retain his or her position,' Cox wrote. 'Knowing the head magistrate of our state's highest court would have to think twice before ruling against me or checking my power is difficult to reject. I also recognize that refusing power is not en vogue these days and may be seen as weakness. But just because I can, doesn't mean I should.'
Cox vetoes bill that would have given governor power over appointing Utah chief justice
At the time of Cox's veto, Schultz and Adams said the move 'undermines that good-faith compromise' between the Legislature and judiciary that ultimately led to lawmakers abandoning the other bills, and the Judicial Council and Utah State Bar taking a neutral position. They promised to 'work with our chambers to determine the best path forward.'
Ultimately, however, they opted not to override.
Another controversial bill that Cox vetoed was SB37, which would have rerouted property tax revenue for schools into the state's general fund. Education leaders opposed the bill, arguing it would be a form of 'money laundering' that could divert money away from education.
Cox, at the time of his veto, said it was a matter of 'public trust,' accounting problems, legal issues and sending the wrong message to educators about Utah's commitment to public education.
Then, on the last night he had to either sign or veto bills passed during the legislative session, Cox vetoed four more bills, including:
SB197, a bill that would have phased out the state's Circuit Breaker property tax relief program for low-income seniors and indigent residents. Cox argued that the bill, while having 'well-intentioned goals of reforming and streamlining property tax relief programs,' would risk 'cutting off the most vulnerable of Utah's' growing senior population while saddling counties with administrative burdens.
HB306, a bill that would have made Utah the first state in the country to allow vendors to receive payment in gold or silver from the state. Cox expressed concerns that the bill faced problems that made it 'operationally impracticable.' Plus, he worried that a 'specific entity offered to fund the bill, which could jeopardize the required competitive process in the bill.' Cox didn't name the entity in his veto letter, but The Salt Lake Tribune reported that in order to get the state's new transaction system up and running, about $147,000 would be paid for by private donors, and Ivory said the money would come from Kevin Freeman, who was a member of the state's gold working group and author of the 2023 book 'Pirate Money.'
HB315, a bill that would have allowed breaking a tie among three or more candidates in elections for midterm vacancies in municipal offices through a 'game of chance.' Cox pointed to language in the Utah Constitution that explicitly prohibits the Legislature from authorizing 'any game of chance.' Cox said he vetoed the bill 'out of an abundance of caution to avoid creating potential legal issues.'
SB106, a bill to appropriate $10,000 to create a trade commission between Utah and Ireland composed of six legislators and five appointees from the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity. Cox said he was wary of creating more boards and commissions in statute, urging lawmakers to 'not go backward' on their efforts to reduce the number of boards and commissions below 400. He also expressed concerns about creating a trade commission for a specific country when others, which are more significant trade partners for the state, don't receive the same treatment.
Though legislative leaders announced they won't be convening a veto override session, there's still a likelihood that the Legislature will convene a special session in coming weeks.
Utah Gov. Cox vetoes bill to reroute property tax revenue for schools into state general fund
Cox has indicated that he intends to call a special session sometime in May. In his veto letter, he said he'd signed several bills 'with the understanding that they will be amended in a special session.'
Those included HB263, a bill focused on election transparency that county clerks had urged Cox to veto, but the governor wrote the bill's sponsor, Rep. Norm Thurston, R-Provo, had 'reached an agreement' with election officials to make some 'important changes.'
Cox also agreed to sign HB356, a bill requiring some counties to elect district-based council members rather than at-large members, but with the expectation that lawmakers would make changes in a special session to avoid 'unintended consequences,' although he did not specify what those might be.
During that special session, Cox also said he wants the Legislature to repurpose $3.5 million it had set aside as part of Utah's bid to keep the Sundance Film Festival, which opted instead to move to Colorado.
'Again, more to come soon in a special session,' Cox wrote.
That special session call, however, has not yet been announced. A request for comment to the governor's office was not immediately returned Thursday afternoon.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump target on mail-in ballots stokes controversy in Nevada, nationwide
Trump target on mail-in ballots stokes controversy in Nevada, nationwide

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump target on mail-in ballots stokes controversy in Nevada, nationwide

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — President Donald Trump on Monday reignited controversy over how Americans vote, announcing plans on Truth Social to 'lead a movement' to eliminate mail-in ballots and certain voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Trump is preparing an executive order to mandate the change. However, legal experts warn he lacks the constitutional authority. 'Mail in ballots are corrupt you can never have a real democracy with mail in ballots,' Trump said. Trump said the voting machines that count those mail-in ballots are highly inaccurate. Democrats showed a stronger preference for mail ballots in the 2024 primary, with 79% of their votes cast via mail, compared to 60% of Republicans. 'We would get secure elections and much faster results. The machines say we will get the results in two weeks but with paper ballots you have the results that night,' Trump said. Statistics show 45% of the votes cast in the 2024 election in Nevada were mail ballots. Legal experts say any executive order Trump signs would almost certainly face lawsuits, and with primaries already on the horizon, it's unlikely states could overhaul their election systems in time, even if the courts allowed it. 'Nevadans have accepted and adopted mail in ballots, and the reason is Nevada is a 24/7 economy. We are a working community. We want to have as many people participate in the process as possible,' Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar said. Aguilar said when you take away the accessibility of mail-in ballots, it hurts the future of our state. 'Mail ballots are determined in Nevada by the legislature and the governor. Until they decide we're going to have a different process, we are going to continue with mail ballots,' Aguilar said. Trump's pledge to target mail-in ballots signals that election rules will remain a hot topic heading into next year's midterms. For now, though, the secretary of state said the chances of a nationwide ban appear slim. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

US troops won't be sent to help defend Ukraine, Trump says

time31 minutes ago

US troops won't be sent to help defend Ukraine, Trump says

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump on Tuesday offered his assurances that U.S. troops would not be sent to help defend Ukraine against Russia after seeming to leave open the possibility the day before. Trump also said in a morning TV interview that Ukraine's hopes of joining NATO and regaining the Crimean Peninsula from Russia are 'impossible.' The Republican president, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders held hours of talks at the White House on Monday aimed at bringing an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. While answering questions from journalists, Trump did not rule out sending U.S. troops to participate in a European-led effort to defend Ukraine as part of security guarantees sought by Zelenskyy. Trump said after his meeting in Alaska last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Putin was open to the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine. But asked Tuesday on Fox News Channel's 'Fox & Friends' what assurances he could provide going forward and beyond his term that American troops would not be part of defending Ukraine's border, Trump said, 'Well, you have my assurance, and I'm president.' Trump would have no control over the U.S. military after his term ends in January 2029. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later on Tuesday emphasized that 'U.S. boots will not be on the ground' as part of any potential peacekeeping mission. The president also said in the interview that he is optimistic that a deal can be reached to end the Russian invasion, but he underscored that Ukraine will have to set aside its hope of getting back Crimea, which was seized by Russian forces in 2014, and its long-held aspirations of joining the NATO military alliance. 'Both of those things are impossible,' Trump said. Putin, as part of any potential deal to pull his forces out of Ukraine, is looking for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. Trump on Monday said that he was arranging for direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy. But the Kremlin has not yet said whether Putin, who has resisted previous calls by Trump and others for direct negotiations on ending the war, is committed to a face-to-face meeting with the Ukrainian leader. Asked whether Putin has promised Trump that he'll meet directly with the Ukrainian leader, Leavitt responded affirmatively. 'He has,' Leavitt said of Putin. Trump, early on Monday during talks with Zelenskyy and European leaders, said that he was pressing for three-way talks among Zelenskyy, Putin and himself. But after speaking to Putin later in the day, Trump said that he was arranging first for a face-to-face between Zelenskyy and Putin and that three-way talks would follow if necessary. 'It was an idea that evolved in the course of the president's conversations with both President Putin, President Zelensky and the European leaders yesterday,' Leavitt explained. But when discussing a phone call held after the meeting between Trump and the Russian leader, Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov gave no indication that either a bilateral or a trilateral meeting with Ukraine had been agreed. Trump said he believed Putin's course of action would become clear in the coming weeks. 'I think Putin is tired of it,' Trump said. 'I think they're all tired of it. But you never know. We're going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks. That I can tell you.'

Texas unveils state maps that could give Republicans 5 more US House seats
Texas unveils state maps that could give Republicans 5 more US House seats

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Texas unveils state maps that could give Republicans 5 more US House seats

WASHINGTON — Republicans could secure five more House seats in Texas after the state unveiled its proposed map for the 2026 midterm elections, following through with demands from President Donald Trump to find some cushion room protecting the party's slim majority. The Texas state legislature revealed the new boundaries on Wednesday, altering the map to create new districts in areas that Trump carried by more than 10 points in the 2024 election. Most of the new districts also reside in heavily Hispanic areas, a crucial demographic shift that helped secure Trump's victory in November — a risky gamble if Hispanic voters lean back toward Democratic candidates next year. The maps come as state lawmakers meet for an emergency session, which is scheduled to end on Aug. 19. However, Democrats in the legislature are considering whether to stage a walkout, denying Republicans the minimum attendance required to consider legislation. If the map is approved and no House members move districts, the new boundaries also set the stage for half a dozen incumbent-on-incumbent matchups next year. Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, a historically slim margin that has often made it difficult for the party to advance legislation even with a Republican trifecta. With control of the White House and Senate, Republicans have enjoyed total control of Washington — something that is at risk next November. Historical trends show that the party of the sitting president typically loses control of the House during midterm elections. If Democrats manage to flip the House, it would deal a massive blow to Trump and likely thwart his agenda for his final two years. But Democrats have made clear they won't just accept new maps without any defense mechanism of their own. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is expected to meet with Democratic state lawmakers on Wednesday to discuss a path forward as party leaders openly toy with the idea of revising other state maps in their favor. The top House Democrat said earlier this month he would engage in conversations with state delegations to 'explore what the opportunities and possibilities are in order to make sure that the congressional map in 2026 is as fair as possible.' Although Republicans may not face as many legal or political obstacles in Texas, they are likely to experience some voter backlash — potentially putting their majority at risk anyway. The state legislature sought to redraw the congressional map in 2011 to secure Republican-safe seats, only to watch those be flipped by Democrats in the so-called 'blue wave' of 2018. As a result, state Republicans were more careful when they adjusted the map in 2021 to preserve the GOP stronghold districts. Now, if Republicans attempt to drastically change the maps, they could face a similar defeat in 2026.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store