Utah lawmakers move to set higher bar for ballot initiatives — but voters will have a say in 2026
The Capitol in Salt Lake City is pictured at dusk on the last night of the legislative session, Friday, March 7, 2025. (Photo by Alex Goodlett for Utah News Dispatch)
During a session underscored by efforts to assert legislative control, the 2025 Utah Legislature made moves to set new requirements on Utahns' ability to enact laws via ballot initiatives — but the most significant proposed change can't take effect without voter approval.
The Republican-controlled Utah legislature passed two pieces of legislation that would set new limits on ballot initiatives, but one will be going on the ballot in 2026 for voters to consider. The question? Should ballot initiatives to enact laws that would require tax increases be required to receive at least 60% of the vote, rather than a simple majority?
Here are two pieces of legislation impacting ballot initiatives that lawmakers passed:
SJR2 puts a question on the 2026 ballot for voters to either approve or reject: Should ballot initiatives that would require a new tax or a tax hike only be allowed to take effect if at least 60% of voters approve it? Currently, the Utah Constitution only requires a simple majority vote for ballot initiatives to be enacted as new laws.
SB73, if signed by Gov. Spencer Cox, sets new requirements for ballot initiative applications. It would require initiative backers to include in their application for the initiative a detailed description of how the proposed law would be funded and if it would require a tax increase. If they successfully get the initiative on the ballot, it would also require initiative backers to follow the same publication requirements that lawmakers do when they put proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot, which could increase the cost of ballot initiatives by an estimated $1.4 million — though that could change.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Currently, the Utah Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be published in newspapers statewide for 60 days before the next election. However, lawmakers want voters to consider changing that, which would impact not just proposed constitutional amendments, but also ballot initiatives. Here's why:
Utah lawmakers also passed a resolution and a companion bill that could remove that newspaper publication requirement from the Utah Constitution and leave it up to lawmakers to decide how voters should be notified before an election. They included:
HJR10 places this question on the November 2026 ballot for voters to consider: Should the Utah Constitution be changed to strike the language requiring that proposed constitutional amendments must be published 'in at least one newspaper in every county of the state where a newspaper is published, for two months' immediately preceding the election, and should the constitution instead say those proposed amendments be published 'in a manner provided by statute, for 60 calendar days' immediately preceding the next general election?
If voters approve the question from HJR10, then another bill — HB481 — would take effect, setting a state law that requires proposed constitutional amendments and ballot initiatives be published as a 'class A' notice on the Utah Public Notice website or a government's official website for '60 calendar days immediately preceding' the next general election.
Proponents of setting the new rules for ballot initiatives — including Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R-South Jordan, who sponsored SJR2 and SB73 — argued that Utah voters need to know the fiscal impact of proposed ballot initiatives, and that if they come with a price tag that would require a new tax, those initiatives should only be approved with 'broad' voter support.
'The question that (SJR2) will pose to the voters … is how easy do you want it to be for your neighbors to raise your taxes?' Fillmore said in a House committee on Feb. 26, during the resolution's second public hearing.
Fillmore added that 'citizen initiatives are an important part of Utah's government and Utah's constitution,' but he argued it should take more than 50.1% of the vote to raise taxes 'on the other 49.9%.'
'We really need to have a broad consensus for that kind of policy,' Fillmore argued.
As for SB73, Fillmore addressed criticisms that his bill will make running ballot initiatives in Utah unnecessarily harder — when it's already hard enough — head on.
'There is nothing in here that makes it more or less difficult to run a citizens initiative,' he said. 'However, it does recognize that Utah's constitution requires a balanced budget.'
Utah lawmaker wants to ask voters to set higher bar for ballot initiatives that raise taxes
He also argued that voters should change the constitution to take out newspaper publishing requirements because 'there's no need for either the Legislature using taxpayer money or taxpayer backers using donated money to pay to advertise in newspapers that nobody will read.' Digital publication requirements, he said, would be a 'more efficient way' that 'really can spread the word better and do it for far less money, in fact, for literally $0.'
However, groups including Better Boundaries (which successfully ran the 2018 ballot initiative that sought to enact an independent redistricting commission) and the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government (the plaintiffs that sued the Legislature after it repealed and replaced that initiative, turning that commission into an advisory role that lawmakers could — and did — ignore) spoke against the bills.
They argued that together, SB73 and SJR2 would set unnecessarily high and in some cases impossible thresholds for ballot initiatives to succeed.
Katie Wright, executive director of Better Boundaries, urged lawmakers to oppose SB73, saying it's part of a yearslong effort to tamp down on ballot initiatives.
'Control' center stage as 2025 Utah Legislature comes to a close
'We have seen over the past decade a concerted effort to make our constitutional right to ballot initiative near impossible to exercise,' she said. 'This bill is just one more roadblock in people's ability to exercise that right that's in our constitution and constitutionally protected.'
While speaking against SJR2, Katherine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, told lawmakers that voters are 'much smarter than you think,' and they already place enough scrutiny on ballot initiatives, especially costly ones. Additionally, she said lawmakers still have the power to change ballot initiatives.
'You are able to revise any initiative that passes, as you have in the past many times,' she said.
Dallin Robinson, while arguing against SJR2, said young voters are 'furious' about recent ballot initiatives in Utah. He didn't name them specifically, but after three ballot initiatives were approved in 2018 — one for full Medicaid expansion, one to legalize medical marijuana, and one to create Better Boundaries' redistricting commission — lawmakers repealed and replaced all of them.
Both the Medicaid expansion and medical marijuana initiatives included tax increases. So if they had been subject to the new thresholds outlined in SJR2, neither would have passed.
'This is an undemocratic bill,' Robinson said about SJR2. 'This bill silences the people of Utah. And the people of Utah are not as dumb as you think. We understand tax policy, and we are absolutely confident enough to speak and vote on our own tax policy.'
In that House committee, Rep. Jason Thompson, R-River Heights, argued in favor of SJR2, saying it's a question that voters should have a chance to weigh in on.
'I too find it ironic that where this Legislature is trying to give the people of this state the opportunity to have their voice heard by having this put on the ballot, that the Legislature could be attacked in the way that it's being attacked, saying that it's wanting to quiet the voice of the people of this state,' he said. 'I reject that notion.'
However, Rep. Andrew Stoddard, D-Sandy, argued against SJR2, saying it would place higher requirements on ballot initiatives than the Legislature when it comes to passing laws that would come with a price tag.
'It's unfair for us to say, 'Hey citizens, you require a higher threshold when you're raising taxes. We're not imposing the same requirement on us as legislators,' Stoddard said.
Both SJR2 and SB73 passed the House and Senate along mostly party line votes, with Democrats voting against.
The other proposals (HB481 and HJR10) to change publication requirements, however, passed with unanimous support from both bodies.
Both SB73 and HB481 now go to the governor for his signature or veto. Cox, however, does not need to weigh in on resolutions, so SJR2 and HJR10 will be enacted without his signature.
Lawmakers' had their crosshairs on ballot initiatives during the 2025 session that ended at midnight on Friday as part of the ongoing fallout from a Utah Supreme Court decision over the summer in the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government's redistricting lawsuit. The ruling asserted the Legislature does not have unfettered power when it comes to altering 'government reform' ballot initiatives.
That unanimous July 11 opinion explicitly said 'this does not mean that the Legislature cannot amend a government-reform initiative at all,' but rather it made clear that lawmakers' power to amend certain initiatives has limits and that the Utah Constitution protects 'government reform' initiatives from being overridden by lawmakers without a compelling government interest.
Amendment D ballot language was misleading to voters, Utah Supreme Court affirms
And yet, fearing that ruling will turn ballot initiatives into 'super laws' that lawmakers can't change and that it will open the floodgates to 'outside money' and California-style lawmaking in Utah, Republican legislative leaders set out to do something about it — after their first plan of action, Amendment D, crashed and burned.
The courts voided Amendment D — which would have enshrined the Legislature's power to alter any type of voter-approved ballot initiative — after lawmakers both failed to follow newspaper publication requirements in the Utah Constitution and after characterizing the proposed constitutional amendment's effect in a misleading way on the November ballot.
Now, until voters potentially change those publication requirements, Utah lawmakers want ballot initiative backers to adhere to the same constitutional requirements they face for proposed constitutional amendments.
Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, has repeatedly characterized unchecked ballot initiatives as a threat to Utah's future. He has argued that the current balance of Utah's democratic republic form of government has served the state well and that the Utah Supreme Court's ruling upset that balance.
Utah Supreme Court's 'watershed' redistricting ruling has major implications. Now what?
In his opening speech on the first day of the 45-day session, Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, urged lawmakers to act to preserve the state's 'republic,' while promising 'I will do everything I can to keep it.'
'We cannot let unelected special interest groups outside of Utah run initiatives and override our republic, destroy our businesses, demean, impugn and cast aside those who are duly elected to represent their neighbors and friends in Utah,' Adams said. 'We cannot let the Utah Dream die. We will not let initiatives driven by out-of-state money turn Utah into California.'
Citizen initiative backers, however, argue that setting higher bars for ballot initiatives will have the opposite effect by making it impossible for every-day citizens to exercise their power, leaving only well-resourced groups to have any chance of success.
'Together with SJR2, (SB73) really makes it nearly impossible for grassroots efforts to succeed while large, well-funded interests can still navigate the system,' said Helen Moser with League of Women Voters of Utah, in a House committee hearing.
Moser argued that Utah 'already has safeguards to ensure responsible initiatives.'
'These extra barriers,' she said, 'only silence the people.'
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
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will Musk unfollow Trump? Here are the 6 most intriguing wagers gathering steam on betting markets.
Online bettors are placing wagers on possible outcomes of the feud between Musk and Trump. The two have been embroiled in a public fight this week about the Republican tax bill. Bets on whether Musk will unfollow Trump or suspend his X account popped up on sites like Polymarket. Elon Musk's squabble with the US President has investors racing to place bets on potential outcomes. Online betting forums like Polymarket and Kalshi saw a flurry of wagers on Thursday and Friday revolving around the billionaire and President Donald Trump, who have been publicly sparring on social media over the Republican tax and spending bill. The feud, which started earlier this week after Musk called the sweeping GOP budget bill an "abomination"," and culminated with Musk amplifying calls for Trump's impeachment, represents a major turning point in their relationship — something that's alarmed Tesla investors. Here are some of the wildest wagers that have appeared on betting platforms this week: Investors think it's unlikely. The priced-in odds of the scenario hovered around 27% on Friday on Polymarket. The odds that Donald Trump's X account will be suspended were initially 7.5%, but they dropped to 1% on Friday. As their feud raged on Thursday, Musk created a poll on X asking if it was time to create a new political party in the US "that actually represents the 80% in the middle." By Friday, the poll had garnered more than 5 million responses, with more than 80% of users voting yes. Bettors on Polymarket think the odds that Musk will create a new political party by June are 7%, but higher as the year goes on, rising to 21% for him to form a new party by the end of 2025. Musk and Trump have each signaled some openness to making amends. On X, Musk replied to a post by Bill Ackman, which suggested that the two should "make peace." "You're not wrong," Musk said in a post. Speaking to Politico Thursday night, Trump downplayed the public conflict to reporters, adding that his relationship with Musk was "going very well, never done better." White House aides said that Trump and Musk had a call scheduled on Friday, Politico reported, but separate reports on Friday said that no such call had been scheduled and that Trump is "not interested" in speaking with Musk. On Kalshi, the odds that Trump and Elon will publicly reconcile by the end of next week dropped to 14% on Friday, down from 36% earlier in the day. The priced-in odds that Trump will end up suing Elon Musk this year hovered around 17% on the betting platform Kalshi. One of the wildest bets—that Trump would have Musk sent to jail—had surprisingly high odds on Polymarket as the fight between Trump and Musk dragged on. The percent chance of such an outcome dropped, however, from 10.5% to 4% on Friday. Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio


CNBC
32 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump says he has no plans to speak to Musk as feud persists
President Donald Trump said on Friday that he has no plans to speak with Elon Musk, signaling the president and his former ally might not resolve their feud over a sweeping tax-cut bill any time soon. Addressing reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said he wasn't "thinking about" the Tesla CEO. "I hope he does well with Tesla," Trump said. However, Trump said a review of Musk's extensive contracts with the federal government was in order. "We'll take look at everything," the president said. "It's a lot of money." Trump may get rid of the red Tesla Model S that he bought in March after showcasing Musk's electric cars on the White House lawn, a White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Musk, for his part, did not directly address Trump but kept up his criticism of the massive Republican tax and spending bill that contains much of Trump's domestic agenda. On his social-media platform X, Musk amplified remarks made by others that Trump's "big beautiful bill" would hurt Republicans politically and add to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. He replied "exactly" to a post by another X user that said Musk had criticized Congress and Trump had responded by criticizing Musk personally. Musk also declared it was time for a new political party in the United States "to represent the 80% in the middle!" People who have spoken to Musk said his anger has begun to recede and they think he will want to repair his relationship with Trump, according to one person who has spoken to Musk's entourage. The White House statements came one day after the two men battled openly in an extraordinary display of hostilities that marked a stark end to a close alliance. Tesla stock rose on Friday, clawing back some losses from Thursday's session, when it dropped 14% and lost $150 billion in value, the largest single-day decline in the company's history. Musk's high-profile allies have largely stayed silent during the feud. But one, investor James Fishback, called on Musk to apologize. "President Trump has shown grace and patience at a time when Elon's behavior is disappointing and frankly downright disturbing," Fishback said in a statement. Musk, the world's richest man, bankrolled a large part of Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. Trump named Musk to head a controversial effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash spending. Trump feted Musk at the White House a week ago as he wrapped up his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk cut only about half of 1% of total spending, far short of his brash plans to axe $2 trillion from the federal budget. Since then, Musk has denounced Trump's tax-cut and spending bill as a "disgusting abomination." His opposition is complicating efforts to pass the bill in Congress where Republicans hold a slim majority. Trump's bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month and is now before the Senate, where Republicans say they will make further changes. Nonpartisan analysts say the measure would add $2.4 trillion in debt over 10 years. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he has been texting with Musk and hopes the dispute is resolved quickly. "I don't argue with him about how to build rockets and I wish he wouldn't argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it," Johnson said on CNBC. Trump had initially stayed quiet while Musk campaigned to torpedo the bill, but broke his silence on Thursday, telling reporters he was "very disappointed" in Musk. Musk, who spent nearly $300 million in last year's elections, said Trump would have lost without his support and suggested he should be impeached. Trump suggested he would terminate government contracts with Musk's businesses, which include rocket company SpaceX and its satellite unit Starlink. The billionaire then threatened to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, the only U.S. spacecraft capable of sending astronauts to the International Space Station. Musk later backed off that threat. Musk had been angered when Trump over the weekend revoked his nomination of Musk ally Jared Isaacman to head the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Two sources with direct knowledge of the dispute said White House personnel director Sergio Gor had helped turn Trump against Isaacman by highlighting his past donations to Democrats. Musk and Gor had been at odds since the billionaire criticized Gor's pace of hiring at a March cabinet meeting, the two sources said. A White House spokesperson, Steven Cheung, praised Gor's efforts to staff the administration but did not address his relationship with Musk. A prolonged feud could make it harder for Republicans to keep control of Congress in next year's midterm elections if Musk withholds financial support or other major Silicon Valley business leaders distance themselves from Trump. Musk had already said he planned to curtail his political spending, and on Tuesday he called for "all politicians who betrayed the American people" to be fired next year. His involvement with the Trump administration has provoked widespread protests at Tesla sites, driving down sales while investors fretted that Musk's attention was too divided.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With $122M spent, the 2025 governor's race is already New Jersey's most expensive
Spending totals for this campaign have already more than doubled those in every gubernatorial primary since at least the turn of the millennium. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) Candidates and outside groups have spent more than $122.5 million on this year's gubernatorial primary, a total greater than any other in state history and one that stands to rise in the race's closing days, the New Jersey Election Law Commission said Friday. The spending total includes $54.9 million from the candidates themselves and $67.7 million from outside groups. Between them, $14 million remained unspent, and that number could swell from late-arriving donations to independent expenditure groups, which face no contribution limits. Voting is underway and ends Tuesday. Spending totals for this campaign have already more than doubled those in every gubernatorial primary since at least the turn of the millennium and have outpaced even the most expensive gubernatorial general election. That November 2005 race between Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Doug Forrester cost about $98 million after adjustments to inflation, the commission said. This year's 11 gubernatorial candidates had about $6.7 million left in reserves on May 27, the last date covered by regular pre-election campaign finance disclosures. The commission credited the number of candidacies and a larger gubernatorial fund match for the increase. Candidates who meet fundraising and spending thresholds can receive up to $5.5 million in matching public dollars for the primary in exchange for observing an $8.7 million primary spending cap and participating in debates hosted by the commission. Five of the eight candidates have maxed out or nearly maxed out their matching funds. Of the $54.9 million spent by the candidates, Democrats Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop and Rep. Mikie Sherrill lead the pack, with Fulop spending nearly $8.7 million and Sherrill shelling out $8.5 million as of May 27. Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2017 and 2021, spent $8 million, followed by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat, at $7.9 million. Spending by outside groups is dominated by Working New Jersey, a super PAC funded by an independent expenditure group linked to statewide teachers union the New Jersey Education Association. It is responsible for more than half of the outside spending in the race, with at least $37.5 million boosting Democrat Sean Spiller, the union's president. Spiller's own campaign has spent only $342,059. Spiller's Democratic rivals have seen less but still sizable support from independent expenditure groups. They have boosted Rep. Josh Gottheimer to the tune of $11.6 million; Fulop, $7.4 million; former state Sen. Steve Sweeney, $4.3 million; and Sherrill, $3.8 million. A group run in part by Trump ally Kellyanne Conway has spent $1.3 million supporting Ciattarelli's campaign. Gubernatorial totals far exceed fundraising and spending on this year's Assembly races (all 80 seats in the chamber are on the ballot this year). Not counting independent expenditures, Assembly candidates have raised nearly $26.3 million and spent about $15.4 million, the commission said. Most of that money, $20.8 million, has flowed to incumbents. Collectively, challengers have raised just under $5.5 million. The ratio is similarly split along party lines. Democratic candidates account for $21.6 million of the funds raised, while only $4.7 million went to Republicans. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX