Cox signs 100 bills into Utah law ahead of looming deadline
SALT LAKE CITY () — Gov. Spencer Cox signed 100 bills in the latest legislative review session Wednesday, bringing the total to 476 bills signed with just over 100 left to act on before the upcoming deadline.
Cox has until tomorrow, March 27, to sign the remaining bills. According to Utah law, any bills that are not signed or vetoed by the deadline will still become law without the governor's review.
PREVIOUSLY — 'I must respectfully decline': Gov. Cox vetoes judicial reform bill, signs 200 other bills
The governor signed several notable bills into law this round, including ' which is a controversial bill changing Utah's mail-in voting system. This bill requires voters to opt in to the mail-in ballot system and changes the postmark deadline so only ballots that arrive by election day can be counted.
Cox also signed multiple tax bills, including H.B. 106, 'Income Tax Revisions,' which will reduce the income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.5%, and ' which makes it so seniors making $90,000 a year or less won't have to pay income tax on their social security.
Another notable bill signed in the latest review is S.B. 203, 'Judicial Standing Amendments,' which is a bill that limits who can have third-party standing in court and adds requirements for associations bringing a case on behalf of its members. Critics of the bill previously argued that this would make it harder for 'everyday Utahns' to challenge laws.
Here's what the Utah legislature did with tax cuts in 2025
While the majority of the bills passed during the 2025 Utah Legislative Session have been reviewed by the governor, there are still a few controversial bills that have yet to be signed or vetoed.
— a bill that would ban flags representing the LGBTQ+ community in schools and other government buildings — has yet to be addressed by Cox. A bill that would make Utah the first state to remove fluoride from its water — ' — is also awaiting the governor's review.
H.B. 265, 'Higher Education Strategic Reinvestment,' has also yet to be reviewed. The bill could lead to greater budget cuts for universities, specifically for programs that do not align with the Utah State Board of Education's vision and requirements.
Cox has one day left to review the remaining 105 bills before they become law — with or without his approval.
Read the full list of newly signed bills below:
H.B. 26 Road Jurisdiction Amendments
Utah Housing Amendments
School Safety Amendments
English Learner Amendments
H.B. 51 Higher Education Reporting Amendments
H.B. 53 Litter Cleanup Amendments
H.B. 76 Public Education Revisions
Vaccine Amendments
H.B. 91 Technical College Amendments
H.B. 106 Income Tax Revisions
H.B. 124 Education Industry Employee Privacy
H.B. 127 Sexual Crime Amendments
H.B. 131 Talent Ready Utah Program Amendments
H.B. 142 Service Member and Veteran Amendments
School District Contracting Amendments
H.B. 184 School Trust Land Amendments
H.B. 191 High School Credit Amendments
H.B. 195 Firearm Retention Amendments
Vehicle Traction Amendments
Highway Expansion Impacts on Signage Amendments
Stipends for Future Educators Grant Program Amendments
H.B. 209 Homeschool Amendments
H.B. 219 Charter School Funding Revisions
H.B. 222 Access to Traffic Accident Evidence
H.B. 228 Public Education Immunization Amendments
Transportation Funds Amendments
H.B. 233 School Curriculum Amendments
Nuclear Power Amendments
Medicare Supplement Insurance Amendments
First Credential Program
H.B. 261 Towing Modifications
H.B. 265 Higher Education Strategic Reinvestment
H.B. 281 Health Curriculum and Procedures Amendments
H.B. 300 Amendments to Election Law
Disability Coverage Amendments
Higher Education Revisions
H.B. 344 School Fees Amendments
H.B. 345 State Park Road Amendments
H.B. 355 Mining and Critical Infrastructure Materials Amendments
H.B. 357 Medical Cannabis Modifications
H.B. 360 Housing Attainability Amendments
Drug Overdose Training Amendments
Maternal and Infant Amendments
H.B. 365 Mental Health Care Study Amendments
H.B. 368 Local Land Use Amendments
H.B. 379 Population Data Amendments
H.B. 380 Presumption of State Jurisdiction Amendments
H.B. 390 Religious Expression in Higher Education
H.B. 404 Government Employment Amendments
H.B. 410 Child Care Amendments
Municipality Regulation of Open House Amendments
H.B. 424 School Activity Eligibility Commission Amendments
H.B. 428 Property Tax Changes
Rural School Funding Amendments
S.B. 9 Revenue Bond and Capital Facilities Amendments
S.B. 13 Property Tax Reimbursement Amendments
Property Tax Notice Amendments
Services for Department of Defense Civilian Employees
S.B. 23 First Home Investment Zone Amendments
Refugee Services Amendments
S.B. 42 Consumer Protection Amendments
S.B. 44 Professional Licensure Amendments
S.B. 45 Juvenile Court Procedures Amendments
Youth Electronic Cigarette, Marijuana, and Other Drug Prevention Program Sunset Extension
Behavioral Health Amendments
S.B. 49 Insurance Investment Amendments
Newborn Relinquishment Amendments
S.B. 64 Medical Cannabis Amendments
S.B. 65 Medication Assisted Treatment Amendments
S.B. 70 Consumer Reporting Amendments
S.B. 71 Social Security Tax Revisions
S.B. 78 Homeless Individuals Protection Amendments
Autopsy Photo Amendments
S.B. 86 Workplace Protection Amendments
S.B. 96 Advanced Air Mobility Amendments
S.B. 115 Substance Use Disorder Revisions
Domestic Relations Recodification
S.B. 120 Controlled Substances Modifications
Metal Purchase and Theft Amendments
Health Care Decisions Act Amendments
S.B. 139 Mineral Rights Amendments
S.B. 142 App Store Accountability Act
S.B. 146 Glucagon Amendments
S.B. 164 Modifications to Election Law
Child Welfare Amendments
Housing Affordability Amendments
Throughput Infrastructure Funding Amendments
S.B. 190 Workers' Compensation Modifications
S.B. 195 Transportation Amendments
S.B. 201 Real Estate Amendments
Judicial Standing Amendments
S.B. 204 Right to Appeal Amendments
S.B. 213 Sales and Use Tax Modifications
S.B. 217 Recycling Waste Amendments
Health Care Services Platforms
Abandoned Aircraft Amendments
S.B. 250 Community Development Modifications
Railroad and Transportation Amendments
S.B. 268 Rules Review and General Oversight Committee Amendments
S.B. 272 Micro-education Entity Amendments
Matthew Drachman contributed to this reporting.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judge sides with city of Austin in lawsuit involving former American-Statesman site
A judge this week ruled in favor of the city of Austin in a case involving the former American-Statesman site just south of downtown along Lady Bird Lake. The ruling denied a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental watchdog group. The lawsuit alleged that the Austin City Council violated key provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act in 2022 when it approved a special type of zoning known as a planned unit development, or PUD, for the former Statesman site. The lawsuit sought to void the council's Dec. 2, 2022 vote to approve the PUD, based on the alleged open meetings violations. The Statesman moved several years ago from the site at 305 S. Congress Ave. to a new location near the airport. In arguing their case before District Judge Jan Soifer on May 15, Save Our Springs attorneys Bobby Levinski and Bill Bunch contended that the council granted the PUD zoning in violation of two key mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act: proper public notice, and a reasonable opportunity for the public to speak before the vote was taken. Levinski said today that the Save Our Springs Alliance might appeal the ruling. "Given the importance of this case for governmental transparency and proper enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act, we'll be evaluating our options for appeal," Levinski said. "This case ultimately impacts the ability of residents to weigh in on important matters that affect their community, including the relocation of the Hike and Bike Trail and removal of the natural, tree-lined aesthetic of the Lady Bird Lake shoreline. Every case has its challenges, and we may need to work on it a little longer to ultimately prevail." More: Lawsuit seeks to halt planned redevelopment of former Statesman site on Lady Bird Lake Casey Dobson and Sara Wilder Clark represented the landowner, the Cox family of Atlanta, along with Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group. The Cox family hired Endeavor several years ago to create plans to redevelop the prime waterfront site. The site formerly housed the newspaper offices and printing plant. Cox sold the Statesman but retained ownership of the 18.9-acre site, a property many developers had long coveted and said was ripe for new development. Dobson did not immediately respond to an email for comment about the ruling and what it means for future plans to transform the property into a mixed-use project with high-rise buildings and other uses, which could include housing, office and retail development. Richard Suttle Jr., an Austin attorney and the spokesperson for the planned redevelopment, said he hasn't seen a final judgment yet in the case, so couldn't comment on what it might mean for the future planned redevelopment. Dan Richards represented the city in the lawsuit. Richards said Soifer's ruling, signed Monday, means "the trial court case is basically over." At last month's hearing, Richards told Soifer that voiding the PUD could jeopardize the developer's ability, in the current economic climate, to secure a new amendment offering the same level of community benefits — such as 6.5 acres of green space — at the site. At the same hearing, Dobson and Wilder Clark said the PUD zoning change was properly noticed, and the public was given sufficient opportunity to speak at nine different meetings. However, Levinski said that, while the PUD was listed on the council agenda as a zoning item, that posting was misleading because it failed to provide "full disclosure of the subjects to be discussed." The proposed PUD ordinance encompassed "numerous provisions that extend well beyond traditional zoning regulations," Levinski told Soifer. Those included "sweeping changes" to environmental protections and other city land-use codes, including a failure to disclose height limits, setbacks and the elimination of two restrictive covenants. "There are so many different parts of this (PUD) ordinance that are not zoning, yet it was sold to public as a rezoning," Levinski said. The zoning changes included modifications to the Lady Bird Lake shoreline; the relocation of the Ann and Roy Butler Hike and Bike Trail inland away from the lake; the removal of more than 90 mature trees; code waivers; and "amendments to almost every chapter of Austin's land development code," Levinski told Soifer. In arguing their case before Soifer, Leviniski and Bunch said that the Texas Open Meetings Act requires a public notice identifying these major changes to city standards and a public 'right to speak' on them before council granted the approvals. The Cox owners and Endeavor have the right to build high-rises — up to 725 feet tall — within 140 feet of Lady Bird Lake. The development would be "forever exempt from a plethora of water quality, parkland and lakeshore rules and regulations," according to the Save Our Springs Alliance. "The key here is the Statesman PUD went beyond zoning," Levinski said. "This didn't give sufficient notice to the public to say what is occurring with this zoning." Among other issues, he said the PUD included "non-zoning provisions, including items the council doesn't have authority over." There was a way the city could have described with greater detail what was occurring with the zoning case, "but they chose not to, and it's deceptive that they chose not to," Levinski said. The level of specificity "gets enhanced" when the issue involves matters of "significant public interest," Levinski said. "It's not enough to rely on the assumption that the general public may have knowledge of the subject matter." Dobson and Wilder Clark, however, told Soifer that the public notices complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act. The notices properly and adequately disclosed the subject of the PUD at various meetings on the council's printed public agenda, Dobson and Wilder Clark said. Moreover, all the details that Save Our Springs claims were lacking from the notice were available at "the click of a link" in backup materials on the council's online agenda, Wilder Clark said. "Not only did (the public) get to talk in meetings, but they got to submit written testimony," Wilder Clark said. She also noted that the council postponed meetings on the case. Showing slides of newspaper articles, Dobson said the proposed redevelopment of the Statesman site was front-page news. He said the case was "noticed out of the wazoo." "(Opponents) think this was done in the dark of night, with adequate notice to nobody," Dobson said. "In fact, the polar opposite happened." Dobson said no special notice was required, and opponents "didn't need it. They wrote letters, they spoke at length to (the city) Planning Commission and City Council. This did not take place under the shroud of secrecy," Dobson said. Countering the city's arguments, Bunch said the city "invented out of whole cloth" its position that it upheld the open meetings act, saying "there's no support for that in the entire body of open meetings cases." Early in the hearing, Dobson showed a photo of the current Statesman site "in all its glory," showing a low-slung building surrounded by a near vacant parking lot with lots of asphalt and concrete. Attorneys for the city and the developer stated that "virtually no one" opposes the proposed development, which may include condominiums, apartments, a hotel, office space and retail areas. Noting the site's popularity as a prime location for viewing the famed bat colony under the Ann Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, they emphasized the new development will enhance the bat viewing area. Additionally, they said the project has the support of bat conservation groups. Last year, the Save Our Springs Alliance won a lawsuit contesting the city's creation of a special financing district, a so-called tax increment reinvestment zone, to fund infrastructure improvements within the proposed Statesman redevelopment project. A judge ruled that financing method unlawful. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Judge rules for city in case involving former Statesman site
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘No-ICE,' ‘No Kings' protests set to take place in Utah this week amid Los Angeles unrest
SALT LAKE CITY () — Several protests against immigration enforcement raids and the Trump administration are set to take place this week all across Utah, including cities like Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, Moab and St. George. The first is an '' held in Salt Lake City on Thursday, June 12, in support of the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests. The Los Angeles protests started over the weekend and, according to Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell, have escalated into 'unlawful and dangerous behavior' since Saturday. Amid the unrest, police issued by LA Mayor Karen Bass, who said the curfew was to stop bad actors. The Associated Press reported that ahead of the curfew being put into place. More than , mostly on curfew violations. In response to the Los Angeles unrest, President Donald Trump mobilized roughly 2,000 National Guard soldiers and about 700 Marines, raising tensions in the downtown area of the city and . Those tensions have reached Salt Lake City as several Utah-based organizations, including and , have called for an emergency protest, criticizing Trump's National Guard response. 'We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags Several more protests were already planned in Salt Lake City and several other cities across Utah as part of the '' movement, a nationwide series of protests set to coincide with in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, June 14, that celebrates the Army's 250th birthday and Trump's 79th birthday. According to , there are 12 protests set to take place on Saturday, including two in Salt Lake City. Each has different start times, though the majority of protests are scheduled to start in the early morning and last into the afternoon. A No Kings protest led by Utah 50501 has the latest start time, scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at Pioneer Park in downtown Salt Lake City. During his monthly press conference with local reporters on Tuesday, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said that he wanted the Beehive State to be the best place in the United States to protest and that he was supportive of the planned protests. However, he sent a stark warning saying the type of rioting found in Los Angeles would not be tolerated in Salt Lake City or anywhere else in the state. 'The minute you start to spray paint the Capitol, the second you implement violence or property destruction, we will arrest you and we will hold you accountable and we will break up the disturbance that is happening,' Cox said. He later added, 'If you want to protest, this is a great place to protest. If you want to do that, go to California.' Gov. Cox said the state will be 'overprepared' for the No Kings protests planned for Saturday, June 14, but did not go into detail about what that preparation would look like. ABC4 reached out to the Salt Lake City Police Department to learn more. The Associated Press contributed to this report. VIDEO: Delta Center shows progress of arena renovations Beach Boys' Brian Wilson dies, family 'at a loss for words' 'No-ICE,' 'No Kings' protests set to take place in Utah this week amid Los Angeles unrest Thune threatens to nix July 4 recess to finish work on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' EXCLUSIVE: Utah man who underwent 120 surgeries advocates for rare disease awareness in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
As Cox advances nuclear agreements, he says the cost to develop technology is nothing so far
Gov. Spencer Cox answers questions from the media during his monthly PBS news conference in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (Pool photo by Bethany Baker/The Salt Lake Tribune) When thinking about Utah's nuclear future, Gov. Spencer Cox said he wants people to think less of the giant nuclear plant where Homer Simpson works, and visualize more a picture of dozens of small modular reactors, stacking in the state over time. While many Utahns are still trying to wrap their heads around the idea Cox is envisioning, he has already signed a couple of memorandums of understanding with companies to help it materialize — and, he said, he wants to go big. On May 23, Cox joined the founder of Valar Atomics, a California nuclear developer, in announcing their partnership to meet President Donald Trump's goal to have an operational advanced reactor on American soil by July 4, 2026, at the San Rafael Energy Research Center in Emery County. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX On Monday, he signed another agreement with another company for the nuclear efforts, Cox said during his monthly news conference broadcast by PBS Utah. A plan for Utah nuclear energy industry's foundation is taking shape 'We're going to be working with all of these companies. We want to find the best technology. We're not betting on any one technology or any one company. That doesn't make sense,' Cox said on Tuesday. 'We're betting on the idea that there is going to be a nuclear renaissance.' While research shows that nuclear developments usually go for a hefty price tag, Cox said that currently the initial plans won't cost anything to the state, since the state already acquired the San Rafael Energy Lab during the 2024 legislative session and that will be one of the state's main contributions in the agreement. 'We're just providing space for these companies to come in and run their new technology there to see if it actually works,' Cox said. 'And so that's not going to cost us anything. The hope is it will save us down the road.' Lawmakers did agree to fund $10 million for Cox's Operation Gigawatt nuclear initiative; the governor said that money is for siting. Utah has also sought to ease the regulations to make nuclear energy production a reality. First by suing the federal government in January — then still under the Biden administration — over its strict rules to permit the resource. Then, by passing big legislation to set the foundation for the state's nuclear energy future. Glowing pains: Developing nuclear power could cost Utah tens of billions The U.S. is lagging behind countries like China in the development of nuclear plants, Cox said. Now, with a new White House administration prioritizing a quicker licensing process for nuclear reactors and ordering a plan to add 300 gigawatts of nuclear energy capacity in the country by 2050, Cox believes Utah can lead the way. 'The market will decide how big that is,' Cox said, 'government is not going to decide that, but we're going to present opportunities.' Other agreements happening across the state have centered around the construction of power-hungry data and AI centers. While Cox says he remains 'fairly agnostic' on them, he believes they'll be built in many areas of the country either way, drawing a substantial amount of energy from states' shared grid. 'Even if we didn't have a single data center here, we would still need to significantly increase our power production,' Cox said. 'If we're going to significantly increase our power production, we might as well put them here.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
