Run-off primary elections could be mandated in Utah — What you should know
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — A bill that would mandate run-off primary elections has passed a committee vote and moves on for a vote on the House floor.
Passing a committee vote Thursday afternoon with 9-4, H.B. 231 would mandate that nominees that don't receive 50% of the vote in a primary race would have to compete again in a following run-off election with the candidate who received the second most votes.
The bill specifies that these run-off elections would only be applied to state and federal offices and would not affect county or municipal races. It would also require the run-off election to be ran 35 days after the initial primary election.
Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R- District 44), the sponsor of the bill, says that this bill will make it fairer to go back to voters to make sure they want someone to represent them on the general ballot.
'I think it's fair to go back to the voters and make sure that a majority of those within the party that they want [a candidate] to represent them on the general ballot,' Teuscher began. 'I think that is more representative, more Hippocratic in the process and its good policy.'
During discussion of the bill, several legislators brought up funding concerns. Rep. Paul Cutler (R- District 18) said that though he loved the idea of run-offs, though he had concerns of how it would be paid for.
'I love the idea. It's great, I would like to do it, the challenge is the money,' Cutler began. 'I look at this over 20 years, this is a 27-[million]-dollar property tax increase. Thats how counties pay for things. If we can figure out how to pay for it, I am all for it.'
Turnout was also brought up as a possible issue. Representatives sharing concerns that a run-off election wouldn't share the same turnout as the initial primary. Rep. Douglas R. Welton shared concerns that multiple rounds of voting could defeat the purpose of the second round by not getting the same turnout as the initial primary.
During public comment of the bill, current and former county clerks came to oppose the legislation, along with a representative from Lt. Governor's office to express concerns about the bill. Ricky Hatch, current Weber County clerk, expressed concerns over the timing, funding, and turnout.
'The timing is so tight that it leaves no room if there is a contest, if there is a recount, it really is problematic,' Hatch told members of the committee. 'From a clerks' … perspective it really concerns us.'
'I love our clerks, I love working with them,' Tuescher began as the committee was set to vote on the measure. 'Though they can really be a bit of a stick in the mud. Every time we bring a challenge to them; they don't want to do anything. Change is very hard, and I get that, but we can figure this out.'
With its passage in committee the bill will go to the House floor for a vote and will then have to move through the senate before it can become law.
For more coverage on the 2025 General Session, visit Inside Utah Politics!
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
Lawmakers push forward on 'aspirational' bill with major repercussions for businesses: 'It looks to reach for the future'
Connecticut just passed a new bill that could change how the state tackles harmful pollution and advance its environmental goals. The Senate approved House Bill 5004 on June 4, the last day of the state's legislative session, just over a month after the House passed the bill, The News-Times reported. HB 5004 aims to protect the environment while enabling the development of less expensive energy sources and related jobs. The bill awaits Governor Ned Lamont's signature. Once implemented, it will push initiatives that can help Connecticut achieve its target of reducing harmful pollution by 2050. Among the key provisions under this bill are: 1. Prioritizing businesses with eco-friendly practices when granting rebates 2. Establishing the Clean Economy Council as an advisory board for climate concerns and green energy programs 3. Repurposing open spaces for urban agriculture use 4. Developing plans for energy efficiency in residential, school, and government buildings State Senator Rick Lopes, in support of the bill, said via The News-Times: "We are aware it is an aspirational bill, but it looks to reach for the future of our environment and what we want in the state of Connecticut." Across the U.S., more transformative policies are emerging, like the Fusion Energy Act and the proposed Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act that would bring lasting benefits to the planet. Do you think America has a plastic waste problem? Definitely Only in some areas Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Government incentives, such as Inflation Reduction Act tax breaks and credits, also encourage more people to use more affordable energy and be more intentional with their use of resources. But the road isn't always smooth. Pro-environment bills often spark debate over how much authority certain officials should have or how far policy should go. In the case of HB 5004, it raised concerns over giving too much power to unelected officials. Still, these debates are part of the process. They spark discussion, build awareness, and help shape better policies. Reflecting on the bill's passage, Governor Lamont said in a press release, "Connecticut is proud to be a climate leader and this legislation helps keep our state on track to improve our air quality and meet our climate goals." And while lawmakers do their part, citizens can also drive change by voting for pro-climate candidates and supporting efforts that protect the environment for generations to come. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Outraged Democrats handcuffed in ability to do much about Padilla treatment
Democrats loudly condemned the forcible removal and handcuffing of California Sen. Alex Padilla when he tried to question U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday, but lack the power to do much beyond decrying the situation. The altercation occurred when Padilla tried to ask a question at a news conference Noem was holding about the ongoing military deployment in Los Angeles, where people have been protesting the Trump administration's aggressive immigration raids. Several men grabbed him and pulled him out of the room. He was pushed to the ground and handcuffed in an outside hallway, videos show. 'What we're really talking about here is a Trump administration that just wants to shut down the ordinary functions of government,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachussetts, in a hastily shot video she filmed on her phone as she raced to the Senate floor to denounce the administration's treatment of Padilla. 'That's how it works in a democracy: We use our words to hold people accountable.' As a member of the minority party in Congress, words are about the only ammunition at Warren disposal as she responds to the situation. Were Democrats in the majority, they would have more power to haul officials like Noem in to be questioned before a committee and to issue subpoenas for more information. Without that power, Democrats are imploring their Republican colleagues to help them. 'Are you going to condemn this?' Gov. Gavin Newsom tweeted at House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso. 'Have a spine.' The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the political arm of congressional Democrats, released a statement pressuring three Republicans representing California in Congress — Ken Calvert, David Valadao, and Young Kim — to demand answers from the Trump administration. Democrats in Congress held a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to denounce the way Padilla was treated. Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Florida, tweeted a video showing a group of them walking through the Capitol. 'We are marching to Senator Thune's office,' he wrote. 'There must be accountability for the detainment of a Senator. This is not normal.' But so far, Republicans have not responded as their Democratic colleagues are requesting. Johnson said Padilla, not Republicans, should be censured. 'At a minimum, it rises to the level of a censure,' he told reporters at the Capitol in Washington. 'I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole that that is not what we're going to do… We're not going to have senators charging cabinet secretaries.' Noem also criticized Padilla's actions. 'If he had requested a meeting I would have loved to have sat down and had a conversation with him,' Noem said on Fox News. 'Coming into a press conference like this is political theater.' Padilla entered the room, began walking toward the podium as Noem was speaking and interrupted her to ask a question, but did not immediately identify himself, according to a reporter at the press conference who asked not to be named because they did not have authorization from their network to speak. A video shows the senator attempting to push back against agents removing him from the room, repeating 'hands off, hands off' as individuals grab at his clothing and force him backward toward the room's doors. 'I am Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,' Padilla can be heard saying. Once in the hallway, Padilla was pushed facedown on the ground by three officers who then handcuff him behind his back, according to a video shared on social media by Padilla's staff. Padilla was later released; he was not arrested. Edgar Rodriguez, a spokesperson for Padilla, confirmed that after Padilla was released, he met with Noem and raised concerns about the deployment of military service members in Los Angeles. 'It was a civil, brief meeting, but the Secretary did not provide any meaningful answers,' according to a statement from Padilla's office. Local and state officials have also forcefully spoken out against Padilla's handcuffing. 'When a sitting Senator is manhandled, pushed, shoved, and handcuffed for simply asking a question at a press conference, something is gravely wrong,' San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu wrote in a statement. 'These are the actions of an authoritarian dictatorship crushing lawful dissent through force.' State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, also criticized Padilla's treatment. 'This is where we're at as a country: Federal thugs detaining & roughing up a United States Senator for trying to speak to a cabinet secretary & question administration policy,' he wrote on the social media website BlueSky. 'Anyone who continues to doubt whether this is fascism is living in an alternate reality.' Wiener and his Democratic colleagues in the state Legislature hold a supermajority, unlike their fellow Democrats in Congress. But they lack the same level of oversight over members of the Trump administration like Noem. U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, a Trump appointee who oversees federal prosecutions in Los Angeles, said Padilla did not behave appropriately. Essayli, who was at the news briefing with Noem, said Padilla 'stood up and started advancing' and that Padilla received 'standard operating procedure for the Secret Service.' Padilla argued that he was simply trying to ask a question after he and his Democratic colleagues had for months tried unsuccessfully to get answers from Noem's department on its immigration raids. Essayli has some experience with the frustration of being in the minority party. Essayli, who served in the state Legislature before Trump appointed him to be a federal prosecutor earlier this year, would at times yell obscenities and pound his fist on his desk on the Assembly floor in exasperation during floor debates when he was censured for speaking out of turn. Sometimes, he posted videos of those exchanges on his YouTube channel. 'He wasn't there looking to have a genuine dialog. He was there to cause a scene and go viral,' Essayli said of Padilla. 'I guess he got what he wanted.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iowa House Republicans, candidates describe Gov. Reynolds pipeline veto as 'betrayal'
DES MOINES, Iowa — It's been just over 24 hours since Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds announced she was vetoing a bill that would add restrictions around building pipelines in the state; but the gloves are already off for some elected lawmakers in the party. 'It's a betrayal of the Republican party platform, it's a betrayal of those landowners who fought for four years and she didn't even speak with them until recently,' said State Representative Steve Holt (R) District 12 from Denison, when discussing if Reynolds had talked with his constituents. 'So it was very, very unfortunate. Puts us in a very bad position and it, I think, it will forever tarnish her legacy.' House Republicans won't mince words with how they feel with the news about the veto. Rep. Holt said that he talked with Governor Reynolds after the session ended, urging her to sign the legislation, promising a bill to tighten language she thought was a concern. CIWW enacts ban on lawn watering as nitrate levels climb The author of the bill shared his colleague's concerns about the reason why the governor did not sign the legislation. 'To let Iowans down the way she has, it just, it kind of breaks your heart to see that,' said State Representative Charley Thomson (R) District 58 from Charles City when responding to Reynolds' concerns about insurance and voluntary easements. 'It's not credible for her to say that. And we all kind of get it, wink, wink, nod, nod, it's not about insurance, it's about sum.' Thomson outlined to WHO 13 News why he believes there needs to be insurance liabilities on a pipeline company, and protections for landowners. He compared it to an Iowan not being able to drive legally on the road without auto insurance. The pair do not have high hopes for a special session to be called, but they won't completely rule it out. Two gubernatorial candidates both say that this decision from Governor Reynolds was something they were disappointed in, but not surprised. 'I was not surprised by this. I had predicted that this would happen. And quite honestly, I'm deeply disappointed. I think this is a, it's a slap in the face at our property owners, who their only gripe, if you will, is that they just don't want to sell their property to someone for that other person's financial gain,' said State Representative Eddie Andrews, (R) District 43, candidate for governor. 'I was not surprised. Um, the timing is always a little bit of a surprise because you never know when it's going to happen. But I had a conversation with Governor Reynolds back in the early part of '23 when I first got to the statehouse. And, you know, some of the language in her statement was pretty similar to what, what her response was back then,' said Brad Sherman, a former state representative and candidate for governor. Both Sherman and Andrews told WHO 13 News that if they are elected they will sign a bill that bans the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines outright. Iowa News: Iowa House Republicans, candidates describe Gov. Reynolds pipeline veto as 'betrayal' WHO 13 Farm Report: Thursday, June 12th Deal's Orchard is a favorite Jefferson destination Des Moines man identified as body found in Newton home during search warrant execution Art scene thriving in Jefferson with more murals planned for downtown Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
