Latest news with #HB563
Yahoo
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah lawmakers passed 582 bills this year. Here's what they didn't do
Utah lawmakers came close to matching last year's record of 591 bills passed during the recent legislative session, but nearly just as many proposals didn't make it across the finish line before time expired Friday night. Some high-profile bills to eliminate daylight saving time, allow 18-year-olds to openly carry loaded weapons in public and increase the number of businesses required to use the E-Verify system were voted down during the 45-day session. Many others simply ran out of time to pass both the Senate and House, even if they received votes of support from lawmakers. Here are some of the issues that were hung out to dry as the Legislature adjourned last week — which could serve as a way-too-early preview of the 2026 legislative session: Rep. Jordan Teuscher, a Republican from South Jordan, floated a proposal late in the session to make it easier for several municipalities to break off from Salt Lake County and form a new county. The bill would let cities with about a third of the total population of the state's largest county band together and propose a split. The question would then go to voters across the county. Teuscher said his bill, HB533, was proposed to start a conversation around splitting the state's largest county but was never meant to move forward this year. 'We'll probably have several committees over the interim before this comes back next session,' he told Counties have been split before, but the most recent change occurred over 100 years ago. Teuscher argued Salt Lake County is growing too big, and said splitting it could potentially bring constituents closer to their local government. HB533 would impact any county with more than 1 million residents, meaning it could also pave the way for a split of Utah County when its population reaches that threshold. Even if the bill passes next year, cities would be hard-pressed to put a proposal to split the county on the 2026 ballot, which would be the earliest possible option. Top House and Senate leaders rarely sponsor bills of their own, but when they do, they are generally seen as priorities that are all but guaranteed to pass. Not so for HB563, one of two bills introduced by House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and the only bill with Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, as the floor sponsor. The bill was meant to reverse a change made last year, when lawmakers empowered the speaker and president to write the ballot question language for proposed constitutional amendments instead of legislative attorneys. That policy quickly blew up in lawmakers' faces, when the state Supreme Court invalidated Amendment D in part because it said the question written by Schultz and Adams 'does not accurately reflect the substance of the amendment.' Speaking to reporters after winning reelection last fall, Schultz said he 'probably (has) a regret' in using the word 'strengthen' in the ballot question, and said 'we could have been a little more clear' on what it meant. He said last month lawmakers 'made a mistake' in changing who writes ballot questions last year and said HB563 would return the power to legislative attorneys. Adams appeared to agree, telling reporters the bill 'may be a better way to go.' HB563 passed the House with near-unanimous support and was introduced in the Senate at the start of the last week in session, where it never came up for a vote. Because lawmakers can only put proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot in even years, the proposal could resurface next year ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Here are other proposals that failed to get a final vote before the session ended: HB292 aimed to crack down on the vandalizing of political signs by making it a class B misdemeanor to attach an object to a political sign that changes the message or obscures it from view. Teuscher, the bill's sponsor, had 'vote out' signs attached to his campaign signs during his reelection campaign last year. HB292 passed the House unanimously and got full support from a Senate committee but was never put up for discussion on the Senate floor. SB155 would have reduced the amount of time — from 20 years to 12 — a person must wait after being released from prison to ask to be removed from the state's Sex, Kidnap and Child Abuse Offender Registry. The proposal quickly turned controversial for sponsor Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, who told a Senate committee of the 'texts and the emails and the screaming phone calls that I've received' in response to the bill. While the senator was clear that many people on the registry committed 'reprehensible' crimes and deserve to remain registered, he said he heard from wives and mothers of constituents who remain on the list despite being rehabilitated after making 'a mistake' decades ago. Marlesse Jones, the head of the Victims Services Commission, opposed the bill in committee, saying: 'The commission cannot support a bill that lessens the time on the registry for someone who's been convicted of a sex offender offense.' SB155 passed the committee 5-3 in January but was never voted on by the full Senate. Finally, SJR8 would have made previous allegations of sex crimes admissible in sexual assault cases, whether those allegations resulted in charges and a conviction or not. Although defense attorneys argued the resolution would make it much easier for prosecutors to submit evidence that wasn't fully vetted by a court, the proposal passed the Senate and was recommended by a House committee with little opposition. The measure was added to the House's calendar after 10:30 p.m. on the last night of the session and was only a few bills away from consideration when time ran out.
Axios
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Hill Highlights: Utah lawmakers seek fix after voided amendment question
There's one more week left in Utah's legislative session and lawmakers don't want a repeat of last year's constitutional amendment snafu. State of play: HB 563, sponsored by House Speaker Mike Schultz, would make legislative attorneys responsible for drafting proposed constitutional amendments that legislators plan to submit to voters. Currently, the senate president and the house speaker oversee those duties. Yes, but: Under the bill, the attorneys would perform the tasks "as counsel for the presiding officers," meaning legislative leaders will get to keep some say in the language. Catch up quick: Judge Dianne Gibson voided Constitutional Amendment D last September, which sought to allow lawmakers to alter or repeal voter-led initiatives, ruling the ballot language written by the legislature contained "glaring" omissions. "While the legislature has every right to request the amendment," she wrote, "it has the duty and obligation to accurately communicate the 'subject matter' of the proposed amendment to voters." What we're watching: SB 336, sponsored by Sen. Scott Sandall (R-Tremonton), would open the door for building more sports venues in the Fairpark Area Investment and Restoration District, the site of a planned MLB stadium, per Building Salt Lake. The new proposal has been assigned to the Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee. 💬 Hill Highlights is a weekly feature to recap what's going on during Utah's legislative session.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah GOP leaders backtrack on who should write constitutional amendment ballot questions
When the Utah Supreme Court scrapped the proposed constitutional Amendment D last fall, it did so in part by ruling that top Republican leaders in the Utah Legislature misled voters with the text of the question they were asked. It was the first year the House speaker and Senate president wrote the ballot question instead of legislative attorneys after lawmakers made the seemingly unimportant change earlier in the year. Now, House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, is planning to roll back that change and hand the responsibility back to legislative attorneys. The speaker admitted that the change last year may not have been the best move, and his bill, HB563, aims to return the process to the way it was. "We made a mistake in changing that last year," he told reporters Thursday. "Again, 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. ... I feel like we want to take it back to the way it was before, based on the way it played out over the past year." Asked if his bill will give top lawmakers any say in how the ballot question reads, Schultz said: "No, we're not going to be able to control what is said, so it just takes it back to the way it was before." HB563 is poised to fly through the Legislature before lawmakers adjourn at midnight on March 7, and a House committee unanimously voted to advance the proposal Friday, sending it to the full chamber for a further vote. House Minority Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, said during the hearing that the bill is the same as one introduced last year by herself and the top Democrat in the Senate, signaling broad, bipartisan support for the measure. "As you all know, I'm the minority leader, and myself and the speaker and the (Senate) president and the other minority leader in the Senate have to write a response to any amendment we have on the ballot," she told the House Government Operations Committee. "I think it's really important that it's a neutral person drafting the language for that so we can address our concerns through our response." Two members of the public spoke in favor of the bill during the short hearing, including Kael Weston, a former diplomat and Democratic congressional and Senate candidate. Weston said he volunteered as a poll worker during the recent election and encountered voters who were "very confused and perhaps misled by the prior language" on Amendment D — which appeared on the ballot even though the Supreme Court ordered that votes for it would not count. "Thank you, Speaker Schultz, for what I think this is a very important bill and reestablishing what is critical in our government trust," Weston said. Adams was asked about the proposal Thursday and said he and Schultz "have the ability to write with valid language, and maybe we could have done a better job last time." Schultz's proposal 'may be a better way to go,' the president added.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah House speaker proposes bill to change authors of ballot questions, but may maintain influence
Ballots await processing at the Davis County Administrative Building in Farmington on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) After being the author of the controversial language of Amendment D last year, Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, is pushing to change who gets to write the initiative questions appearing in ballots — however, he and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, may still have influence on it. Currently, the task of preparing ballot titles and analysis belongs to the House speaker and the Senate president, a change made by the legislature last year. But, if the Legislature approves HB563, sponsored by Schultz, the job would move back to a more neutral party — legislative attorneys, part of a nonpartisan body. But, they would perform that duty 'as counsel for the presiding officers.' Utah Legislature could explore switching authors of ballot initiatives The bill was introduced on Wednesday afternoon and is waiting for a committee assignment. Two Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, and House Minority Whip Jennifer Dailey-Provost, introduced similar bills this session without that provision. However, none of them ever left the rules committee. Democratic representatives hadn't reviewed the bill when it went public on Wednesday, but when Rep. Andrew Stoddard, D-Sandy, was asked about that part of the bill, he said, 'anything handing it back to the (Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel) is better than what we have.' The change comes after the anti-gerrymandering group Better Boundaries filed a successful legal challenge against Amendment D, a constitutional amendment proposition that would have allowed the Legislature to repeal or substantially modify approved ballot initiatives. However, the language printed on ballots didn't reflect that, detractors said. The ballot language for Amendment D read: Should the Utah Constitution be changed to strengthen the initiative process by: Prohibiting foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums. Clarifying the voters and legislative bodies' ability to amend laws. If approved, state law would also be changed to: Allow Utah citizens 50% more time to gather signatures for a statewide referendum. Establish requirements for the legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative. Ultimately, what rendered the question void by the courts was the state's failure to comply with constitutional publication requirements. But, later, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the language was misleading. 'Amendment D would alter that balance and give the Legislature unfettered constitutional authority to amend or repeal any initiative, including those that reform the government. But the ballot title does not disclose this fundamental change,' Justice Diana Hagen wrote in the unanimous opinion posted last October. After that decision was published, Schultz and Adams, expressed regret over the vague language of Amendment D in November, acknowledging mistakes and vowing 'to work together to find better ways.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
