Admitting ‘mistake,' lawmakers advance bill to switch authors of ballot questions
House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, is pictured at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
After the courts last year voided a proposed constitutional amendment written by Utah's top Republican legislative leaders — in part because the ballot language was misleading — lawmakers are advancing a bill to revert the duty back to legislative attorneys.
After less than five minutes of discussion, the House Government Operations Committee on Friday voted unanimously to advance HB563 to the House floor.
House Speaker MIke Schultz, R-Hooper, is running the bill himself. He and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, authored last year's controversial proposed ballot question known as Amendment D.
Amendment D ballot language was misleading to voters, Utah Supreme Court affirms
That proposed constitutional amendment would have enshrined in the Utah Constitution the Legislature's power to change all ballot initiatives, sidestepping a Utah Supreme Court decision last summer affirming that the Legislature's powers have limits when it comes to changing the substance of government reform initiatives.
However, in the question posed to voters on the Nov. 5 ballot, Schultz and Adams characterized Amendment D as one that would 'strengthen' and 'clarify' the ballot initiative process. That prompted critics to sue, claiming Amendment D's language was unconstitutional because it was 'false and misleading.' The courts agreed and voided the question from the ballot.
Last year's election was the first time the House speaker and Senate president wrote ballot language for proposed constitutional amendments, after the 2024 Utah Legislature passed SB37, a bill that took the duty away from legislative attorneys and gave it to the Legislature's 'presiding officers.'
'I'll own it. We made a mistake in changing that last year,' Schultz told reporters in a media availability Thursday, though he added, 'we changed it before we even knew about Amendment D. So it had nothing to do with any of that.'
'But going through that process, sometimes, you see that it might not have been the best idea,' Schultz said, adding that he wants to change the law 'back to the way it was before, based off of the way it played out over the past year.'
However, Schultz's bill doesn't exactly match previous Utah law, and it specifies that legislative attorneys would write the language 'as counsel for the presiding officers.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Schultz's bill is also crafted differently than other bills that were proposed far earlier in the 2025 session aiming to fix the problem. One bill by the House's top Democrat, House Minority Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, sought to ensure future ballot language is unbiased. While Schultz's bill received a committee hearing Friday, Romero's bill never made it out of the House Rules Committee.
Romero's bill, HB101, would have required legislative attorneys to write 'an impartial' ballot title and analysis for a proposed constitutional amendment. While Schultz's bill would revert the responsibility from the House speaker and Senate president back to 'legislative general counsel,' his bill also specifies the legislative attorneys write the language 'for the presiding officers.' Schultz's bill does not include a mandate for impartial language, like Romero's would.
Schultz, however, told reporters Thursday legislative leaders are not 'going to be able to control what's said.'
'It just takes it back to the way it was before,' he said.
Previous state code did not include the provision that explicitly states 'the legislative general counsel performs the duties in this section as counsel for the presiding officers.'
However, during Friday's committee hearing, Schultz only received praise and gratitude for sponsoring the bill.
'Thank you very much for closing the gap of trust in our state government,' said one public speaker, Kael Weston, a Democrat who ran for Utah's 2nd Congressional District in 2020.
Utah legislative leaders express regret over Amendment D's 'misleading' ballot language
Romero did make a note of pointing out it's similar to her bill that was never prioritized for consideration. However, she voted in favor of Schultz's bill.
'It's really important that it's a neutral person drafting the language,' she said.
Before Schultz's bill becomes law, it still needs to wind its way through the rest of the legislative process, and only one week remains of the 2025 session, which must adjourn before midnight on March 7.
When asked whether he's supportive of the way Schultz has drafted the bill, Adams told reporters Thursday, 'I am.'
But at the same time, Adams said he believes legislative leaders 'have the ability to write good ballot language.'
'Maybe we could have done a better job last time,' he said, adding 'I'm not sure what the word 'strengthen' was about, but we used that word last time. It may have been improper use of the word, but I actually think we can write good language. But I think the bill will probably allow, maybe, some attorneys to write it. I think that may be a better way to go.'
Both Schultz and Adams expressed regret over the misleading language of Amendment D in November, acknowledging mistakes and vowing 'to work together to find better ways.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tries to Humiliate GOP Senator by Claiming He ‘Snuck' Into White House Picnic
Donald Trump appeared to make a dig at Sen. Rand Paul by suggesting he 'snuck' into Thursday night's congressional picnic—despite having been invited after a war of words with the White House. Addressing the bipartisan crowd on the White House lawn, Trump seemed to allude to a recent dust-up between himself and Paul, who has vocally opposed the GOP's budget and the $45 million military parade for the Army's 250th anniversary on Saturday, which is also Trump's 79th birthday. 'We have so many of our congressmen, and we have some senators in here, I have to tell you,' Trump said from the balcony. 'They snuck in, but that's OK. They wanted to be here.' On Wednesday, Paul said Trump had revoked his family's invitation, and accused the president of being 'incredibly petty.' 'The level of immaturity is beyond words,' Paul said at the time, adding that the move had caused him to 'lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.' Yet the following morning, Trump took to Truth Social to say that 'of course' Paul and his family could come. 'He's the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn't he be?' Trump wrote. 'Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation ever put before our Senators & Congressmen/women. It will help to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! I look forward to seeing Rand. The Party will be Great!' Trump's aside Thursday may also have had to do with Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who has long been a thorn in Trump's side from the right, most recently with his vote against the GOP's budget which passed the House by a single vote. On Thursday morning, Massie claimed the White House had withheld his invitation. 'Incredibly petty & shortsighted of Trump's staff to exclude Republicans from the annual White House picnic while inviting Pelosi and every Democrat,' Massie posted on X, a few hours before Trump cleared the air regarding Paul. 'I always give my few tickets to my staff and their kids, but apparently this year my tickets have been withheld as well. Low class.' It wasn't immediately clear whether Massie ultimately attended the picnic. The White House did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast, nor did Massie's office.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
State legislators share Green Bay Correctional closure updates. Here are three takeaways.
As Wisconsin's 2025 state budget approaches its June 30 deadline, northeast Wisconsin legislators are fighting to get the closure of Green Bay Correctional Institution included. In Gov. Tony Evers budget proposal, he included $500 million intended to finance a series of changes to the state's prison system, which would allow for the closure of Green Bay Correctional by 2029. Advocates have been calling for the prison's closure for years, citing rodent infestations, prisoner deaths and homicides, and inhumane conditions. The Allouez Village Board held a special meeting June 12 to hear updates from state Reps. David Steffen, R-Howard; Benjamin Franklin, R-De Pere; and Sen. Jamie Wall, D-Green Bay, on the potential closure of the 127-year-old maximum security prison. Here are three key takeaways from the meeting. There is support throughout the state and on both sides of the aisle for closing Green Bay Correctional, Steffen said, "there's an understanding that this has to be done." If it isn't full bipartisan support, Franklin said, "it is very, very strong." The disagreement comes down to the details of how, Wall said. According to Wall, the Republican caucuses in the Senate and Assembly are interested in different elements of Evers' proposed plan, with senators interested in policy changes like increased vocational training programs and representatives more interested in the physical changes to the current prisons. The Republicans hold majorities in both the Senate and Assembly. A time for the Joint Finance Committee to meet on the Department of Corrections budget has yet to be scheduled, Wall said, which "may be a good sign" as it gives more time for conversations on how to move forward. "Everyone has told me that there has been good conversations that have been happening about this, it's just that they weren't the same good conversations," Wall said. "And whether we can square that circle or not is the challenge." Including a deadline for when Green Bay Correctional will be closed may be what the state needs to get the plans in motion, Steffen said. He and Franklin are fighting for a Dec. 31, 2029, deadline for the prison to be decommissioned to be included alongside funding allocation in the budget. "Every single one of you in here sets deadlines if you want to get things done, and we need one for this project," Steffen said. A 2029 deadline mirrors Evers' proposal, Franklin said, and it is a plausible timeline for the project to be completed. A deadline can "focus people's minds," Wall said, but for those in charge of running the prison adequately until the last inmate is escorted out, the "stakes are quite high" and setting a deadline to "figure it out later" isn't prudent. Budget negotiations between Evers and Republican legislators collapsed in early June, which Wall said has left the Joint Finance Committee "probably a month behind where they should be." As a result, he said, their attention and time is "at a real premium." "We're fighting a battle for the attention of the Republican majorities in the finance committee as well, given the situation that they put themselves in," Wall said. The committee is working hard, Franklin said, "burning the midnight oil" and working weekends. The committee's difficult job, Franklin said, has made getting additions like funding the prison closure challenging. Vivian Barrett is the public safety reporter for the Green Bay Press-Gazette. You can reach her at vmbarrett@ or (920) 431-8314. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, at @vivianbarrett_. This article originally appeared on Green Bay Press-Gazette: Wisconsin legislators see bipartisan support for closing Green Bay Correctional
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks
When money flowed more freely in television, public-service programming was seen as a means of giving back. From educational TV and supporting public broadcasting to cable operators providing C-SPAN, spaces existed where ratings weren't the yardstick — instead, this was TV intended to be good for you. On Thursday, Congress took a major step toward undermining all of that, as the House narrowly approved a rescission bill that would claw back $1.1 billion in funding to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which helps support PBS stations, in addition to cuts to other programs. The bill passed by the slimmest of margins, 214 to 212, with a few GOP legislators switching their votes to get it through. The funding was part of a larger $9.4 billion allocation that lawmakers had already approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Senate still has to weigh in on the matter, and has five weeks to decide. With PBS and NPR besieged by the political right, with C-SPAN's funding via cable and satellite fees strafed by cord cutting, higher-minded alternatives have been hit by hard times. The whole point of PBS and National Public Radio was that they would be unfettered by commercial demands, allowing them to offer programming — from children's programming like Mr. Rogers and 'Sesame Street,' devoid of toy commercials, to lower-key news, documentaries and public affairs — that didn't have to justify its existence on a balance sheet. Ditto for C-SPAN, which cable operators carried for a small licensing fee simply because of the perceived value in allowing subscribers to see what their elected representatives were doing and saying, unfiltered and unedited. Public broadcasting has found itself swept up in the Trump administration's war against the media, with the perception that any unflattering reporting about the president — whether from PBS' 'NewsHour' or 'Frontline' or NPR's 'All Things Considered' — reveals 'invidious' bias and a liberal agenda, to use FCC chairman Brendan Carr's favorite word. Conservatives have long argued that public broadcasting represents an unnecessary expense given the abundance of choices available to most consumers. But in its latest incarnation, 'Defund PBS' overtly translates into being less about fiscal responsibility than leveraging the government's underwriting role to silence otherwise-independent media voices by labeling them progressive propaganda. On the left, the response was unambiguous. The Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) condemned the House vote as 'a radical right-wing ideology that aims to destroy a non-partisan public service despite all evidence of its wide benefits.' The group quickly turned its attention to pleading with the Senate, which holds a GOP majority but has exhibited a bit more restraint than the House in prosecuting the MAGA agenda. The CEO of PBS, Paula Kerger, remained silent in the wake of Thursday's vote, but she has been lobbying intensively to save PBS, warning that Trump's push to defund public broadcasters would spell the end for a number of local stations, and the service they provide to their communities. In a recent interview with Katie Couric, Kerger contemplated the end of public funding for the network, which only relies on the government for a portion of its funds. 'I think we'll figure out a way, through digital, to make sure there is some PBS content,' she said. 'But there won't be anyone in the community creating local content. There won't be a place for people to come together.' Kerger was referring to the fact that the campaign against PBS and NPR disproportionally harms smaller and more rural communities that voted for Trump (even if many listeners and viewers didn't), which lack the same menu of local-media options as major markets. In a sense, Sesame Workshop — the entity behind 'Sesame Street' — has provided an unlikely poster child for the financial pressures on public TV, having undergone layoffs before losing its streaming deal with Warner Bros. Discovery's Max. Netflix has since stepped into the breach, joining with PBS Kids in providing access Elmo and his pals. As for C-SPAN, its challenges stem primarily from evolving technology, which has dramatically undercut the financial model upon which the network was founded in 1979. With viewers shifting to streaming and dropping cable and satellite subscriptions, the number of homes receiving C-SPAN has sharply dropped to a little over 50 million, meaning the nonprofit enterprise — which costs operators just $7.25 a month, a fraction of what they pay for channels like Fox News and CNN — is running at a significant deficit. One proposed solution would be for entities with streaming subscribers, like YouTube or Hulu's live-TV package, to carry C-SPAN. Indeed, YouTube's 8 to 10 million subscribers alone would provide enough income to offset most of the shortfall in its roughly $60 million annual operating expenses. Thus far, however, those companies have balked, prompting a rare bipartisan push in the Senate on C-SPAN's behalf, with Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Amy Klobuchar among those joining in a resolution calling upon streaming services to carry the network. 'For tens of millions of Americans who have cut the cord and get their content from streaming services, they should not be cut off from the civic content made available by C-SPAN,' the senators stated. It's a welcome development for C-SPAN CEO Sam Feist, who joined the network a little over a year ago from CNN. Feist noted that 'cord cutting' doesn't accurately characterize what's transpired — since old cable subscribers have generally moved to new delivery systems — meaning the case for carrying the network remains as simple as the public-service ideal that inspired its launch. 'We're the only network that provides what we provide, which is this unfiltered view of American government,' Feist told TheWrap, adding in regard to the streamers, 'It is good for the country for their customers to have access to our product.' The campaign regarding C-SPAN carriage has seemingly gained some momentum over the last year, with former Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler and the Washington Post's Karen Tumulty among those joining the aforementioned senators in taking up the cause. Wheeler called YouTube's decision not to carry C-SPAN 'baffling and anti-democratic,' writing in The Hill that the company is depriving viewers of 'an unfiltered window into the goings-on in Congress, the White House and other parts of the government.' As Sen. Ron Wyden told Tumulty, carrying the network would only cost YouTube about $6 million a year — 'crumbs,' he suggested, for a streamer that rakes in billions in ad revenue. YouTube has stated that its subscribers 'have not shown sufficient interest in adding C-SPAN to the YouTube TV lineup to justify the increased cost' to their monthly bills, although as Wyden noted, that would amount to a relative pittance of 87 cents a year per household. The two situations aren't completely analogous, especially with the fate of PBS and NPR having become embroiled in politics, as opposed to corporate stubbornness. More fundamentally, though, both situations speak to the question of civic responsibility, and whether the government and private interests acknowledge such obligations. Because even if C-SPAN and PBS reach smaller audiences in a fragmented world, certain things are worth keeping around not because everybody watches them, but rather for what they offer, symbolically as well as tangibly, thanks to the staid sobriety they provide by being available to the people that do. The post The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks appeared first on TheWrap.
