H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments

What this bill does

The bill would bar people from attaching objects or stickers to political signs in ways that cover or change the sign's message, and would let cities and counties remove noncompliant signs. It would also require larger political signs to carry a paid-for disclosure and require signs to be removed within 14 days after an election, with city storage rules for collected signs.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 11 yes, 0 no, 1 absentHouse Government Operations Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 21, 2026Who voted how
• 72 yes, 0 no, 3 absentFinal House vote · Jan 23, 2026Who voted how
• 7 yes, 0 noSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 28, 2026Who voted how
• 27 yes, 0 no, 2 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 4, 2026Who voted how
• 27 yes, 0 no, 2 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 12, 2026Who voted how
• 69 yes, 1 no, 5 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Feb 13, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 21, 2026 House Government Operations Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (41 turns)

  1. Committee chair (presiding)32:45

     you may be here a lot longer than we might be today. But, uh, item number one, Representative Teuscher, please come on forward, sir, and anybody you have with you. Um, we'll turn on your mic and, uh, the time is yours, sir, to present, uh, HB 33.

  2. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher33:03

     Can you hear me? Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I do have a flyer that, uh, my intern Molly has. Do you mind if she distributes that? Please do. Great. I, I've had a a couple of you come up to me and, and say, what, I'm trying to understand this bill, didn't we pass this last year? And, uh, the answer is yes, this committee did, uh, favorably recommend this bill and, uh, recommended it, uh, through the house. Um, unfortunately, it's one of those bills that, uh, just didn't make it to the Senate board. And, uh, so first up here, um, it's also a bill that you heard, I think, uh, two or three times in interim. So I thought rather than maybe give a normal presentation, I might just quiz the committee on what the bill is to see if you, uh, actually were paying attention during the interim. Um, but, uh, I know, uh, Representative Burton wouldn't go for that. So I will, uh, present the bill like normal. Um, this is a bill that really came out of what we saw in some shenanigans, uh, in the last, uh, uh, general election that we had for partisan candidates where, um, there were some things that maybe other states had dealt with in the past in terms of how signs were being used and, and appropriated, uh, that we hadn't really seen in Utah. And so kind of dug into the issue, worked with, uh, cities and counties and, uh, many of you with insight into, you know, what we could do to make this a strong bill. And then as it's moved along the process, there's been a lot of, well, while you're tackling that issue, could you throw this in and can you throw that in? And so there's a few of those in this bill. So I'm just gonna quickly walk through, uh, the major changes in the bill and then we'd be happy to answer any of your questions. The first change you'll see, um, is on lines 1 0 7 to 1 0 9, that just make sure that, um, any political sign that's larger than 24 by 18 does include a disclosure, um, of who paid for that sign. Um, we did clarify, uh, in, in response to this committee's, uh, questions and concerns with that, that, um, as you'll see there, that that, uh, sign, uh, in lines 1 0 2 through 1 0 5, um, if it's not a billboard or an outdoor advertising facility, the text just has to be reasonably legible to someone that's standing by the sign. And that that text can be in small type and can be on the back of the sign. So it doesn't have to be that you can read it as you're driving past at 60 miles an hour. Um, but really if you walked up to the sign that somehow you could identify which, uh, campaign, um, or issue, uh, committee paid for that sign. Um, the next, uh, change that you'll see is down on lines 180 5, uh, through 180 9. That, uh, talks about that if you attach or fix an object to a political sign, including another political sign. And then that object hides blocks, obscures or otherwise conceals from view the message or maybe changes or misrepresents the intent of the message on the sign, um, that that would be, uh, prohibited under this, and that a person would be guilty of a class B misdemeanor, just like any other of the violations of this code. Um, we gave some examples of that, that, uh, Molly was able to pull together of signs around the country where people have done that sort of thing. Um, I'll note then on lines, um, 2 0 9 through, uh, 2 22, it talks about that if someone then does that, that any person, any member of the public can come and just remove that sign. If it's a sticker, if it's another political sign that's right on top of someone else's, it can be removed then in lines, uh, one 90 through 1 92. It clarifies that if you put, attach a sign to a utility pole, light pole, an electric utility box, um, a traffic light or any other railroad sign or signal, uh, that that's prohibited. Um, and this is something that is, um, consistent across all of the municipal codes, but it is included in the state code. And, uh, we did get some comments from people saying that candidates that are new, they come to the state code looking to understand what the rules are, doesn't say anything about that. They think it's okay, and then they get in trouble with their, their city code. So we threw it into the, the state statute, um, on lines, uh, 2 0 5 to 2 0 7. I think something that universally everyone's happy to see is that there's now, um, uh, a requirement that no later than 14 calendar days after the election, you have to remove your signs. If you don't remove your sign, then anyone can go ahead and just remove your sign and, uh, dispose of it. Um, and then the rest of the bill lines, um, kind of 2 65 through three or through 3 25, really just talk about a process that if a city for whatever reason, confiscates your sign for violating one of their ordinances or one of state code, or in a couple cases that we've talked about before, someone else takes the code that a city or a county has to have a space where they can deposit those signs and let the campaign know that they picked up those signs so the campaign can come and get those. Those signs are really expensive. You have candidates that maybe, uh, through no fault of their own, put it in a place that they didn't know was unreasonable. This allows them to kind of get that. But it also has some language that if that becomes abusive, uh, three times or more in election cycle, then the city may begin to charge a fine for, for picking up and storing those signs. And that is the bill, Mr. Chair, happy to answer any questions.

  3. Committee chair (presiding)38:32

     Alright, thank you, uh, for that. And I think it, like you say, it is familiar to most of the members of the committee, but we will, uh, look for any questions from committee members. We'll start with, uh, Representative Romero and then we'll jump over to Representative Maloy. So representative. Oh, alright. We'll fix that, that little error there. So Representative Stoddard, please?

  4. Rep. Andrew Stoddard38:56

     Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I have a question. You handed out this lovely flyer here. Um, the picture you have of Jeff Farnberg Uhhuh, would Those googly eyes be prohibited under your bill? It,

  5. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher39:07

     They would. So, because that obscures the intent to message of the sign that would be prohibited, Even if they're funny.

  6. Rep. Andrew Stoddard39:14

     Even if they're funny. Thank you. Now, it wouldn't prevent you from printing your own sign that looks just like that and putting it right next to it. That's your first amendment right?

  7. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher39:21

     But you cannot alter his sign.

  8. Committee chair (presiding)39:24

     Thank you. Okay, thank you, uh, Representative Maloy.

  9. Rep. A. Cory Maloy39:30

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. Uh, the first one is on your flyer you say, ensures transparency requires financial disclosure and signs are 18 by 24 inches or larger. Why is that in there? Are people not declaring their campaign costs, including signs? So

  10. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher39:52

      It's, it's not declaring the cost of signs, it's saying that there has to be a paid for disclosure on the sign itself.

  11. Rep. A. Cory Maloy39:58

      Oh, gotcha. Okay. So I thought you were requiring a financial disclosure. Okay. Yeah, sorry about that. No, No problem. Could be Clear. Then the, uh, the next question I have is, um, what does your bill cover? Anything like, uh, someone util u stealing your logo or your look and using it? Sorry, they're just jealous over there. But, but, uh, uh, uh, so select trade trademark or copier doesn't cover anything like that?

  12. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher40:35

      No, I think that would be covered by just standard, uh, trademark copyright law.

  13. Rep. A. Cory Maloy40:39

      Gotcha. Thank you. Alright,

  14. Committee chair (presiding)40:41

      thank you Representative Malloy. Uh, we had another light come on, Representative MacPherson. Lemme get you. There you

  15. Rep. Matt MacPherson40:47

      Go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, um, thank you Representative Teuscher for this. Again, I'm very happy to see this bill again. Uh, but I do have a quick question on the criminal penalty aspect of this. So, um, I'm just curious, uh, if the, the, the penalty is assigned obviously to the individual that deface this, uh, directly. Um, so there wouldn't, there's no, there's no indication here that somehow, for example, a candidate or a campaign would face some sort of criminal penalties because a sign was found to be defaced or a certain group of people?

  16. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher41:23

      No, they, they would have to prove it was an individual on that campaign that did the, the descent. And, and like I said, I, I think I mentioned this in interim, as I've talked to cities about this, they, they like to stay a mile away from any of these issues because if you were to prosecute one candidate for something, or you were to take away one candidate signs, then it may look like you're favoring one or the other. And so, um, the, there really are not. There has to be a very egregious case for them to bring a criminal prosecution in, in a, for any of these, this section of code.

  17. Rep. Matt MacPherson41:55

      And, and thank you for that. And my, and my second question was along the same lines kind of is, um, so in circumstances where there's kind of a, for lack of a better term, he said, she said on, let's say a sign was placed in one location and uh, someone else removed that sign and put up someone else's sign in that location, and then someone were to claim, well, they covered up my sign, or they, they took my spot, so to speak, and they cut down their sign and put their sign up because, you know, potentially would this apply in this section by saying, well, you, you materially covered my sign with your sign, so I just took your sign down and I replaced it with mine. And now they're saying, well, you now covered up my sign, so I'm gonna take yours down, replace it with mine. Do you see what I'm saying? Does this create any of that that you're aware of or any concern with that?

  18. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher42:48

      Yeah, it, it's a good question because, you know, when we originally were looking into the, the bill, we were looking at kind of sign placement. You know, so what happens if I put my sign up and then an inch in front of it, you put your sign, so now you can't see my sign. Um, and is there a way that we could regulate that? And based on, um, you know, the research that O-R-R-G-C had done and, and the case law on this, there really isn't a way for states to regulate that. The, the remedy is for you to pick up your sign behind it and then put it back in front of their sign. Um, and so certainly there's in, in any campaign, there's, there's going to be, he said, she said type situations, I'm not sure that this makes it any worse. The, the current code that says you can't remove a sign is, is in the code. And that's where you have a lot of the, the debate back and forth. Um, I guess the only difference here is we say if it is directly on the sign, attached affixed, that sort of thing, that can be removed. And so you may get more, he said, she said, well, it was attached, wasn't attached. It doesn't just have to be attached, but it has to, uh, substantially conceal the message of your sign. And so in those cases, if I were to remove it, or I would have instruct someone to remove it because they did that, I certainly would take evidence, you know, take a picture, here's exactly what I saw, something were to come up. Then you could show what the, what, uh, had happened in that case.

  19. Rep. Matt MacPherson44:06

      Mr. Chair, could I ask you one more follow up on that?

  20. Committee chair (presiding)44:09

      Yeah, go ahead. You may. Thank you.

  21. Rep. Matt MacPherson44:10

      And so to give a a real world example, so for example, if I had a sign that was on, let's say the side of a road and it was attached via, um, uh, zip ties in the four corners, and then I came back one day and the two bottom corners had been cut, and then the sign had been flipped up and over the vent, uh, fence so that it was no longer visible and then someone else's sign was put in that place. Would this, uh, would this be a situation where, for example, under this language, would I, would I be a able to remove that sign and replace my sign? Or would this not change that?

  22. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher44:53

      Uh, that's a good question because certainly that conduct that you're calling for would violate the current code so that this, this code wouldn't change that at all. So I guess the question would come down to whether or not, um, the language in, um, uh, let's see here. It's lines 2 0 8 through, uh, 2 22. So, um, let's see here. And it's in one B, so I would say no. So essentially you're only allowed to remove the sign if it still is physically affixed or attached hides blocks obscures your sign is what I would say. Okay, thank you. But again, it, you know, that's where maybe you'd hire a lawyer or something or just kind of work it out. It's, it is a tricky, of course, a tricky lawyer Situation, I would say that. But thank you. Yeah.

  23. Committee chair (presiding)45:47

      Alright, thanks. Uh, Representative MacPherson, um, we have another question. Representative Cutler, go ahead.

  24. Rep. Paul A. Cutler45:52

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the good sponsor for all the work on this over the, uh, many months to years in the, if someone fails to put a disclosure, let's say they have an existing campaign sign, they fail to put a disclosure on that. What, what is the penalty and, and what is the, is it a complaint based who enforces

  25. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher46:15

      This? Yeah, great question. And I have a follow up after that. So there is, um, um, I believe so. So I'm just looking here. So, um, on the sign itself, I was just checking to see if there is a criminal penalty associated with it. And I, I don't think there's any criminal penalty associated with it. The remedy is, um, if you go to lines, um, two 16 through 2 22, so it says that a person can remove a political sign if it's the size where you're supposed to have the, the statement. And it doesn't include that statement. But then it says that, that a person that removes that sign, this is in 2 23 through 2 24, has to then deposit it at the place where the city, uh, designates has designated. So essentially you, you can't just take it and throw it in the trash can. That would be just removing a sign. But if you take it and take it over to the city place, then a campaign can remedy the situation, put the sign back and have a put a sticker on it.

  26. Rep. Paul A. Cutler47:19

      Thank you. That's very helpful. I was thinking of this scenario where you have someone like Representative Loubet, very popular people like his signs, they may take his sign and put it in their garage after an election and keep it, and then two years later they may put it back out again when he's running again. And he may not have had the opportunity to put the sticker on his sign. So that sign would be in violation of, of the new law.

  27. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher47:44

      That's true. Will he be penalized with that? Yeah, He wouldn't be penalized, but he'd probably have to go collect that sign and put a sticker on it.

  28. Rep. Paul A. Cutler47:53speaker not certain

      Oh, thank you. I don't, I don't have that problem. I'm not as popular as representative of today. But, uh,

  29. Committee chair (presiding)48:00

      Alright. I appreciate the energy we're feeling here today. Uh, I'm gonna check your energy levels in about two weeks. Uh, but, but thank, but thank you for the questions. I, I think they were good questions and we appreciate what you're trying to accomplish here. Uh, seeing no further questions, it's time for public comments. So raise your hand if you wanna talk about this bill. Okay, we have one online, we have one here and one online. So sir, come on up and we'll let you go first. Are you Trevor Lee's cousin? I'm not. Okay. Uh, we just wanna make sure. Alright. Um, sir, go ahead. Uh, state who you are, who you represent, and uh, thank you Mr.

  30. Justin Lee, Utah League of Cities and Towns48:36

      Chair. Justin Lee, I can tell you a story about that later. Okay. We're back on Justin Lee, deputy Director Utah League, cities and towns. Uh, just wanna get up and thank Representative Teuscher for working with us on this during the interim. We had some concerns about earlier iterations, but are very comfortable with where the bill has landed now. And just wanna thank him for that work and thank you for taking the time on it.

  31. Committee chair (presiding)49:02

      Alright, thank you for your comments. Uh, we have somebody online. We will. Ricky Hatch is online. Oh, we know this individual. Ricky Hatch. Ricky turn on your camera. Um, and for those who may not know you, introduce yourself, who you represent, and let's keep the comments to about two minutes. Go ahead Ricky. I think He's getting promoted. Oh, there it goes.

  32. Ricky Hatch, County Clerks of Utah49:42

      Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, sorry it took a long time to rejoin. As a panelist. Um, my name is Ricky Hatch. I apologize, I can't be here for the My Favorite Committee. Um, I'm here representing the County Clerks of Utah. And while our standing policy generally is to oppose any bill, uh, sponsored by Representative Teuscher, uh, we have decided to wow. Uh, we're taking a, uh, neutral position on this bill. Um, we like the concept of the transparency and the accountability. Uh, there is some cost to counties as far as keeping what we call the signed jail, uh, for candidates, but it's not a significant cost to counties. And so, and we really appreciate the representative for working with us, um, and are happy to work with him in the future if there are any additional concerns, but right now we don't see any, uh, additional concerns that this bill provides to us.

  33. Committee chair (presiding)50:31

      Alright, thanks, uh, Ricky, appreciate your work as a, uh, in the election arena. You, you do great stuff. So thanks for being with us. Alright. Uh, we'll close public comment 'cause I don't see other hands out there. And we'll bring us back to the committee for, uh, further discussion and or action. Representative MacPherson,

  34. Rep. Matt MacPherson50:55

      Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we favorably recommend HB 33 to the, uh, house floor.

  35. Committee chair (presiding)51:02

      Okay. That, that, uh, is in, in order, uh, the motions to fa really recommended house bill 33. Um, I see another light if you wanna speak to this motion. Representative Hayes, is that you?

  36. Rep. Sahara Hayes51:15

      Uh, I just wanted to make the motion. Okay, thank you.

  37. Committee chair (presiding)51:20

      Alright. The motion before us is to fa really recommend this bill, any discussion to the motion? Okay. I don't see any And, and based on the new rule this morning, we're gonna go back to Representative MacPherson. I will defer to the, uh, sponsor on any summation, but, Alright. Thank you. Uh, sponsor of the bill. Do you want to, to make any comments or just a, a summation? I'll,

  38. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher51:47

      I'll just say I'm still a little shocked by Ricky's comments and, uh, I, I didn't know they, they couldn't not oppose a bill. So this is, this is great news for me. And I'm, I'm gonna have to work with that group a little closer now. But no, I, I appreciate your support of the bill and all the, the input that you guys have given, um, over the last couple years.

  39. Committee chair (presiding)52:08

      Alright, thanks Representative Teuscher. And so the motion before us is to favorably recommend, uh, house Bill 33. Uh, we'll just do a vo a voice vote. All in favor of that motion, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Congratulations representative. That is unanimous. Thank you. Alright, thank you. Alright, so we're gonna do something with the lights folks for just a second. Bear with us. We're trying to turn on, get the, the volume of the lights up a little bit. Alright, that's better, at least on us. Okay. We'll move ahead then to, uh, the item that you're all here for, I suppose item number two. And so, uh, representative, uh, when you're done with your discussion, come on down to the front. You're up. And Representative Malloy, do you have anybody presenting with you or is it just, uh, you,

  40. Rep. A. Cory Maloy53:09

      It'd just be Me. Okay. But I have People that might come up.

  41. Committee chair (presiding)53:12

      Alright. So, uh, we'll turn the time over to Representative Malloy to present his bill,

• Jan 23, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)26:29speaker not certain

     House Bill 33 Political Signs Amendments by Representative Teuscher. Representative Clancy.

  2. Rep. Clancy26:41

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro 10. Motion to circle.

  3. Speaker (presiding)26:43

     Motion is to circle. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. The bill is circle Madam Reading Clerk

• Jan 23, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (29 turns)

  1. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)54:19

     Uncircled, Representative Teuscher.

  2. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher54:22

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, colleagues, as you look at this bill, uh, a number of you have come to me and said, Hey, wait, wait a second. Didn't we already pass this bill? And we did pass this bill out of the house unanimously, but, uh, unfortunately it didn't make it to the end of the row in the Senate. Um, it is a great bill. It is a bill that came out of some of the complaints that we heard in the 2024, uh, election where there were some shenanigans with political signs that we hadn't really seen in the state before. And so this cleans up some of the language around political signs and what can happen. In particular, it talks about if a person puts another sign or a, a sticker or fixes something physically to another political sign, that then changes the message of the sign. Or, uh, substantially conceals, uh, the message of the sign that that would then violate a sign. Just like defacing is already in the code that violates a sign or removing a sign, um, violates the, the sign laws. So you can imagine a sign that says, uh, vote for, uh, you know, representative Smith and someone adds a sticker that says no. And so now the sign says vote no to Representative Smith. That would be illegal. And what the remedy here is, it allows for any person to remove the no off of the sign and not violate, uh, the, the provision that would be removing a political sign. And there was some question around cities of whether that could be done or not, because it, it is political speech in and of itself. It does not affect a situation where, let's say you put a sign in the ground and someone puts a sign a foot in front of that sign. Um, that is the ability for, for someone to do that. And, and apparently the best remedy is to pick up your own sign and put it back in front of their sign. But this only applies where it is physically attached or fixed, um, to the sign. As we were moving through with this issue, there were a number of, of other issues that that came up that people said, Hey, can, can we throw this in? Can we, can we address this issue? And so we've tried to take all of the consensus ideas that were there and put it in code. One of them is dealing with putting signs on utility poles, utility boxes on, uh, traffic lights, et cetera. Um, all of the municipal codes in the state do not allow for that type of placement of signs. Unfortunately, a lot of candidates will go to the state code. They don't see anything that prevents that, and so they'll think it's okay. And so what this does is it also puts it into state code that says you cannot place a sign, um, on a utility pole or a traffic light, um, or, or those types of, of things that are already prohibited under municipal code. Additionally, one of the things that you probably have heard a lot from constituents is, uh, after an election, there's all these signs and no one is cleaning up their signs. Um, currently in our code, no one can remove a sign except for the person that placed a sign or the owner of the sign. And so there's some question of, after an election, can anyone just remove a sign if they've just left it up there? What this says is, is it, it directs all campaigns to remove their signs within 14 days after the election. And if a sign is still up after 14 days, any member of the public can come and take care of that sign and put it away. Um, lastly, uh, this bill, um, one, one of the things that, that people brought up is sometimes they put out signs and they put it in places that they thought were legitimate. Um, but they didn't know. And the cities come and enforce the sign laws and they pick up a bunch of signs that are expensive for campaigns and they throw 'em away and they don't have any way to gather those signs. And so what we, we added in the code here is that if a city collects those signs, or in certain circumstances, an individual that collects those signs, there has to be a place in the city where the city safeguards those signs for five business days, notifies the campaign, and, uh, a can, a candidate can come and pick up those signs. It also provides that if a candidate starts to abuse that process, so they're picking up in three different occasions, signs, then the city has the right to start charging a fee for the storage of those signs. Um, uh, but again, they have to give notice of them. They have to give the space for the signs. So we've worked with the League of Cities in towns to ensure that they're comfortable with this. Um, they're, they're comfortable with this approach and, um, it should make the political science space a little clearer, more transparent. With that Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to answer any questions.

  3. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)58:54

     Thank you, Representative Teuscher. Representative fia.

  4. Rep. Doug Fiefia59:01

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I rise in support of this bill and I think, uh, the bill sponsor from South Jordan on his good work and his willingness to listen to all the stakeholders. Now, if you lived in our part of the state, you would have seen a lot of political signs last election cycle, deface, including mine. And so I appreciate the good work that the sponsor has done and support this legislation.

  5. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)59:26

     Thank you. Further discussion to the bill Representative Shepherd.

  6. Rep. Lisa Shepherd59:33

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question?

  7. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)59:36

     Will the sponsor yield? Yes, go ahead.

  8. Rep. Lisa Shepherd59:38

     Thank you. In the bill, could you tell me which line number it is, where it specifies about the size of a political sign where you have to put a disclosure of who the signs pay for by?

  9. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher59:49

     Yeah, that's on line 1 0 7 through 1 0 9.

  10. Rep. Lisa Shepherd59:52

      Thank you, appreciate that. I also rise in support of this bill. Uh, Representative Teuscher was very good with a small working group on this and taking all of the input. We talked about this for several months during this last year, and he really did work extremely hard to make sure that all points were covered. And while I didn't necessarily agree with going to the size of sign where it is, I understand the purposes and therefore I support this bill. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

  11. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)1:00:21

      Thank you. Further discussion to the bill Representative Chevrier,

  12. Rep. Rob Bishop1:00:25speaker not certain

      Will the sponsor yield to a question?

  13. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)1:00:27

      The sponsor yield? Yes, go ahead.

  14. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez1:00:30speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro tem. Um, I am just wondering, I think I heard you say that the cities cannot throw away the signs and having done some dumpster diving in my day, um, I just wanted to clarify, do they have to keep the signs and notify the candidates?

  15. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:00:50

      That is correct. So if, if you go to, um, lines 2 64 through the, really the end of the bill in, in 3 25, it outlines that process, but it, it says quite clearly that, uh, a county or municipality, uh, that gathers the, the signs has to keep them again, safe for five business days and give notice to the campaign, um, either to the phone number that the candidate has provided or if there's not a phone number to try to reasonably contact the campaign.

  16. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)1:01:18

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Representative Shipp.

  17. Rep. Rex P. Shipp1:01:24

      Yeah, thank you. Mr. Speaker. Uh, would the sponsor yield to a question

  18. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)1:01:27

      Sponsor yield? Yes.

  19. Rep. Rex P. Shipp1:01:29

      Uh, my question, Mr. Speaker pro tem is we have talked, you talked about cities, uh, within a municipality, but, uh, if you have signs that are in the county that are not within a municipality, does this apply to that as well?

  20. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:01:43

      That's, that's a great question Mr. Speaker. It does. So, uh, like I just said, it, uh, it applies to counties and municipalities.

  21. Rep. Rex P. Shipp1:01:52

      Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro

  22. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)1:01:54

      Tem. Thank you. Further discussion to the bill Representative Strong.

  23. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:01:59speaker not certain

      Thank you. Uh, Mr. Speaker Pro tem, would the sponsor yield to a question Sponsor yield?

  24. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)1:02:04

      Yes, go ahead.

  25. Rep. Mark A. Strong1:02:06

      Thank you. Um, there was, there has been a little bit of discussion about Park Strip. Can you tell me if this affects or how this would affect park strips?

  26. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:02:15

      Yeah, great question Mr. Speaker. Um, we did hear that feedback of people wanting to clarify the question of whether or not you can place political signs in a park strip. And, uh, an earlier version of the bill, um, said that a municipality cannot prohibit a candidate from placing the park strip. However, as we worked with the cities back and forth, they had some serious concerns about that and to continue to make this a consensus bill, we decided to pull out that language and just move forward with the con the, uh, the parts that were consensus.

  27. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)1:02:46

      Thank you. Thank you Representative. Strong Representative Teuscher. I see no further lights to you for summation.

  28. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:02:53

      Uh, like I said, this is a, a great bill for transparency. Makes a lot of sense to get in place for this upcoming, uh, year. And we hope that it will decrease the number of shenanigans that we saw in the last election. I urge your support. Thank you.

  29. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)1:03:06

      Thank you. Representative Teuscher. Voting is open house, house bill. Three political amendments. Seeing all president having voted voting will be closed house Bill 33 having received 72 yay votes, zero nay votes passes a house will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration Matter. Clerk for a rules report.

• Jan 28, 2026 Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (23 turns)

  1. Committee chair (presiding)1:12:24

     we may as well jump down to House Bill 33 Political Signs and amendments, representative ser.

  2. Unknown speaker1:12:31speaker not certain

     Oh, um, we have hand. Okay. We're submitted, But I won. Oh, wait, we do have have handouts, so it will, do you wanna Yeah, let's just pass 'em out. Committee members.

  3. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:12:44

     Great. Thank you Mr. Chair for handing that out. And so great to be in front of this committee again. Um, I know a few of you when you looked at this bill came and said, Hey, didn't we already pass this bill? And, uh, you did pass this bill out of your committee, but, uh, it didn't get to the, uh, the final board at the end of last session. And then we, um, had a couple, uh, interim committee meetings talking about that. And there's a, a couple, uh, additional things that we added. It was a good bill and now it's an even better bill. So happy to, to talk about HB 33. Let me just say that the background for this bill really comes out of the 2024, uh, elections in Utah, where we started to see some campaigns, uh, that were running some shenanigans with, uh, political signs that we really hadn't seen in the state before. In particular, uh, the idea that they were putting other signs or stickers on political signs that would change the message of the sign itself. So you can imagine for an example, uh, a sign that said, you know, Ron Winterton, and then someone put a sticker that said, vote no or something. So now your sign that you paid for and that you put up has a completely different message than it originally, um, had. And as we talked with the different, uh, municipalities about this, there was some concern that in putting a sticker on that sign, that that in and of itself was a political message and could that be removed. They didn't really wanna weigh into that at all. And so there was a need to clarify the code. And that's what started with this. And as we, um, were working on solving that issue, and, and through the committee process, there were a number of other sign issues that came up. And, and we started to include those that were consensus, uh, into this bill that was then, um, a voted for as a, uh, an interim committee bill. So let me just go through really quickly, uh, some of the main highlights in this bill. Um, the first thing you'll see, uh, on lines, uh, 1 0 7 to 1 0 9, is it talks about if you have a political sign currently, if it's, if it's four by eight or larger, then you have to put who paid for it. Unfortunately, we're starting to see a bunch of signs come up that are, you know, normal campaign signs that, uh, have, we have no idea where they came from and then have very derogatory messages. And so, uh, we don't know who's paying for what, where these signs are coming from. And so in consistent with the federal standard, um, we've just added that paid for by disclosure, that is required on all signs that are less, that are, um, that are greater than 24 by 18. And, uh, we did clarify, uh, in response to the committee's comments on this, that, uh, this is not something that needs to be prominent on the sign. It can be in small font, it can be on the back of the sign. It can be a sticker. Uh, it really is just, if you're right next to the sign and you want to know who paid for this, you'd be able to figure it out. Um, the next thing, uh, in the bill that you'll find is on lines, um, uh, 180 5 through 1 92. The first thing is, is solving the issue that I talked about at the beginning. That if you now attach or affix any object to the political sign, including another political sign that hides blocks, obscures or otherwise, uh, conceals from view the message or the image on the sign or change or misrepresent the intent of the sign that now violates, um, the, the sign statute. Um, there's also a remedy later on that allows for someone to just remove the, the offending sign, uh, on lines one 90 through 1 92. Uh, this is, uh, a section that talks about, um, prohibiting putting any political signs on utility poles, light poles, electrical utility boxes, traffic control lights, uh, railroads, railroad signs, uh, et cetera. This is consistent, uh, across municipal code. But a lot of, uh, campaigners, when they go to look at what the rules are, they come to the state code and they don't see that anywhere. And so they assume that it's okay and then the city ends up confiscating those signs. What About, uh, linear posts down the highway? Uh, is, I mean, this wouldn't, uh, affect it unless it was a utility pole, light pole. Okay. Uh, those are the only polls that are included here. Alright. Now, there may be a city ordinance or a county ordinance that would prohibit that as well, but it wouldn't be in the state code. Um, the next thing in the bill you'll find on lines, uh, 2 0 5 to 2 0 9. Um, this is something that I think a lot of your constituents will be happy to see. Um, but it sets up when political science need to be removed following the election. And, uh, the time that is established is 14 days. We looked across the country to see what the standard was, and that was about the standard. And essentially, if, if after that 14 day period, if you don't remove your sign, then any member of the public can just remove that sign and throw it away. Um, on, uh, on lines 2 0 8 through, uh, 2 27, this is the remedy, like I just talked about, the ability to remove that sign after 14 days or to remove a sticker that's put on someone's sign, um, or remove a sign that is attached to a utility pole. It really just, rather than making the city and county be the, the person that is policing all of that, it just allows any person to go and, and correct those, those problems. And then, um, on lines 2 23 through 2 24, um, and then subsequently on lines, um, Kind of the, the end of the section, it starts on two, uh, 2 66 to the end of the bill. It talks about a process when a, um, a municipality ends up coming to remove your sign because you're violating one of these bills or one of these, uh, prohibitions in the statute, that they have to have a spot, uh, somewhere that they've designated that they're gonna put those signs and then notify the campaign that they've confiscated that sign. So the campaign can come and pick up those signs. Um, if someone start to abuse that process, you know, the, the intent here is they probably didn't know that they were putting their sign in a place that they couldn't do that. If they start to abuse the process, so they've received, um, on three different occasions, your political signs, then the, uh, municipality or county can issue a small fine for, for collecting those. Um, but otherwise all they have to do is collect the sign, have a place for it, and then use reasonable efforts to contact the sign owner. And that is the bill. I'm happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chair.

  4. Committee chair (presiding)1:19:24

     Okay. Senator Sandall.

  5. Sen. Scott D. Sandall1:19:26

     Thank you. So I apologize, I was a, I was presenting in another committee, but I, I wanna make sure of something here at least clearly in my mind when we talk about, um, in line 93 through 1 0 5, clearly and suspiciously identify the reader, observer, listener, uh, who paid for the advertisement. So I've got four by eight signs already printed with my name, but that's never been a requirement to say paid for by on my sign. Do I need to reprint signs Now? Um, if you have four by eight signs under the current code, you should have already had a disclaimer. So the, the, I don't see where that is, It is it's line, um, 1 0 7. How big do they have to be? I mean, how big do the signs have to be before you have to put a disclaimer on? So, currently under the code it's four by eight. So anything under four by eight you don't need, Need disclaimer, I'll cut six inches off of one sign. I'm good. Okay. Um, my next question is, when you talk about putting a, a sticker on, uh, if, if for example, when we change districts now, rather than print new signs, I printed stickers to change my district number, that's allowable.

  6. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:20:42

     Yeah, it's absolutely allowable. That's it. It's, it's only if you're changing the message of the sign message.

  7. Sen. Scott D. Sandall1:20:47

     Well that does change the message though. I'm not running for district 17 anymore. I'm running for district one. Yeah. So the message is changing, I guess technically. Yeah. I, I don't, I don't think it meets the definition that you'd see there on Okay. Line 180 9. As Long as long as I get that, if I have to, I'll go back, I'll go back to this committee and, and I'll do legislative intent. How's that?

  8. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:21:07

     Yeah, and it says the intent of the message on the sign. Certainly the intent would be to reelect Scott Sandal.

  9. Committee chair (presiding)1:21:12

     Okay. Thank you. Alright. Any others? All right, let's, uh, go to the public for public comment on that. We've got one.

  10. Ricky Hatch, Weber County Clerk/Auditor1:21:29

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ricky Hatch, uh, Weber County Clerk auditor and representing the county clerks. Uh, we really try our hardest to oppose every bill that Representative Teuscher brings forward, but we just can't oppose this one. We, it does provide a present, a little bit of a administrative burden for the counties, but it's, uh, insignificant and so we don't have any opposition to this bill. Okay. Thank you.

  11. Committee chair (presiding)1:21:55

      Okay, so we'll close, uh, public comment and come back to the committee.

  12. Unknown speaker1:22:00speaker not certain

      I'm, I'm just wanting clarification 'cause I'm looking at line, uh, 1 0 7 and it goes back to what Senator Sandall was talking about. And we, we've cut out, lined out lawn signs that with dimensions of four by eight feet or smaller and we now just say political sign as a term with dimensions that are less than 24 by 18 and inches. So I read it that anything bigger than that would have to have disclaimer, disclaimer on there, right? That that is correct. Because he thought if he cut six inches off, it wouldn't be a four by eight anymore. Correct. And he'd be okay. So I just wanted that clarification 'cause I, I'm a little bit fuzzy there, so, okay.

  13. Committee chair (presiding)1:22:47

      Senator Vickers

  14. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:22:49

      And just a follow up question. I, I assume that you could, you could print off some type of attachment sticker to, to put on that said who was paid by That. That's exactly right. So if, if you look at line, um, uh, sorry, I'll, my pages have all moved around,

  15. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:23:06

      but we, yeah, right above that in line, um, 1 0 4, it says, the text described on that sign essentially may be printed in small type or affixed to the back of the advertisement. So you can put it on the back, you can put it on the front, it could be a sticker, whatever you want. It's just if someone is standing right next to the sign who they'd be able to figure out who paid for this sign.

  16. Unknown speaker1:23:27speaker not certain

      Okay. Thanks. Alright. Yeah, we're still good.

  17. Committee chair (presiding)1:23:33

      Okay. Well at this time then we'll consider some action or Senator Vickers.

  18. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:23:43

      Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chair. I would make a recommendation that we favor favorably, recommend HB 33

  19. Committee chair (presiding)1:23:49

      Discussion. See you none. Let's go back to Representative Teuscher for summation.

  20. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:23:54

      I'll waive. It's been long incoming. Alright.

  21. Committee chair (presiding)1:23:57

      Back to Senator Vickers. I'll waive as well. Okay. All those that to want to favorably recommend House Bill 85 or no, 33. 33 House bill 33 out favorably say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That is unanimous.

  22. Unknown speaker1:24:15speaker not certain

      Thank you Mr. Chair. Alright.

  23. Committee chair (presiding)1:24:19

      I think the next one, since the sponsors here,

• Feb 4, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (55 turns)

  1. Presiding officer32:49

     Senator Vickers, Tim.

  2. Sen. Evan J. Vickers32:53

     Um, as every year it seems like we have, whenever there's an election, there's always, uh, conflicts over signs. Uh, this bill is one of those that didn't quite make it to the finish line last year, but some examples, uh, people putting stickers on top of other Canada's signs, they're placing signs on top of others, blocking them. Everyone here I think knows, you know, some of those challenges. Uh, municipalities worry about, you know, the, the whole deal, uh, the kind of the consensus is we need to probably make a few changes. So here's some. The key points of what we're doing here in this bill is it prohibits the obscuring the messaging of a political sign. So it prohibits attaching anything to another person's sign. Blocking, blocking what it says. Or anyone may remove these violation violations, not just the city or the police. So if something is put on a sign, then somebody can take it off. And, like, for example, if you, even if you weren't a candidate or if you were a candidate, saw somebody else's candidate signed that been defaced, you could go remove that. Um, prohibits placing signs on utility poles, light poles, and street, street lights and utility boxes. Now this, in most places, most municipal codes already prevent this. And just to be clear, uh, requires disclosure of who paid for the sign when the sign is 24 inches by 18 inches or larger. So for example, if you have a four by current law, it says four by eight sign. But if you have one larger than the 24 inches by eight 18 inches, then you do have to have something on there that says who paid for it. So that can be just a sticker, and it simply says that anyone by the sign has to be able to tell that. So you could put it on the back of the sign if you want, if you wanted, or the front. And it, you know, it doesn't have in a small font, it doesn't have to be large. And so that could be added on. If, you know, if you're reusing signs from a previous year that doesn't have that on, you could simply put a sticker on it. Uh, it requires removal of signs within 14 days of an election. Um, after that period, anyone may remove the signs that are in violation. Uh, this is, you know, in order to try to allow cities to stay clean and tidy, um, creates a way for candidates to collect signs that were accidentally in violation of the code. Municipalities and counties will collect and store signs that were in violation of the code, allowing candidates to retrieve them and not have to pay for more. If a person violates the code three or more times, the fee may be charged. The goal is not punishment, especially when violations are accidental. So the conclusion, um, we're just trying to create some clear standards, create some transparency and create tools to remedy some of the violations that are in code. With that, I'm open to any, any questions. Thank

  3. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)35:35

     You for the presentation discussion to the bill. Senator Kwan, President Pro tem. Will the sponsor yield? Will you yield Senator? I will, yes. Proceed.

  4. Sen. Karen Kwan35:44

     Thank you. I just want to make sure, um, I'm understanding there is a differentiation between a sign and an advertisement in terms of having the, um, disclosure on the back. Is that correct? That it can only be on an advertisement, but not a sign on the Back? So, I, I hope I understood the question.

  5. Sen. Evan J. Vickers36:05

     So if the way I understood the question, Senator, was that the question about the difference between a candidate sign and an advertisement or, but the, but the, the requirement to notify who paid for the sign could be on the front or the back of the sign. The stipulation is that someone standing next to the sign needs to be able to tell who paid for it. So therefore it could be on the back or the front. And it doesn't have to be large. It could, and it could be a sticker, it could be put on simply saying, paid for by candidate. They're friends of candidate X. Is that Juab your

  6. Sen. Karen Kwan36:42

     Question? Follow up, please. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President pro tem. So, just to make sure I understand, if it's on a sign and the sign and the, it's on the back of a sign and that sign is on a wall and you can't see the back, is that still permissible?

  7. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)37:02

     Senator Vickers,

  8. Sen. Evan J. Vickers37:04

     Thank you, Mr. President ProAm? No, Mr. President ProAm, in that case, it has to be clearly it be able to tell someone's standing next to the sign. That's the kind of, the parameter has to be able to tell who paid for the sign. So in a case like that, it would have to be on the front. It just has to be on the sign somewhere where someone can see it if they're standing there next to it.

  9. Sen. Karen Kwan37:24

     Senator Kwan, Thank you Mr. President Pro tem. So that makes sense to me, a whole lot of sense, but I don't see it in the bill and I'm maybe just missing it. Would the sponsor tell me what lines that clarifies that

  10. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)37:38

      Senator Vickers,

  11. Sen. Evan J. Vickers37:40

      You know, I'm happy to do a little more research on this, Mr. President pro tem and I don't have that particular thing. It does say, you know, you know, in a good point by the good Senator because on line 1 0 4 it says, may be printed in small type or affixed to the back of the advertisement. It just, you know, the, the clear language is that it, uh, has to be able to be determined. I'm happy to either circle right now, or I'm happy to address this, uh, uh, with, you know, with the, with the good Senator.

  12. Sen. Karen Kwan38:15

      Thank you, Mr. President pro tem. It's not, I don't think this is something that would make me, um, pause and, and vote, uh, um, vote it down, uh, on second, but I would like to have a conversation before, before third. Thanks.

  13. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)38:29

      Okay. Thank you. Senator Weiler, you,

  14. Sen. Todd Weiler38:33

      um, I'm Wondering if the good sponsor can tell us what the penalty is for this and my concern, um, I know we pass laws all the time and we just expect the public to know the laws, but my concern is we may have some well-intentioned first time candidates who aren't necessarily knowledgeable or sophisticated about campaign sign laws and maybe can't afford to hire a professional, um, campaign, uh, uh, manager. So I'm just wondering what the penalty is and what, and how a first time candidate would find out about this requirement. Senator

  15. Sen. Evan J. Vickers39:06

      Vickers. Thank you, Mr. President Proti, looking quickly to find that, um, it, it appears that in the language in the bill, that it, that would be specified by the county or municipality.

  16. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)39:22

      Okay. Thank you. Further discussion to the bill. Senator Riebe.

  17. Sen. Stephanie Riebe39:27

      Thank you, Mr. President Pro Tem. Um, regarding the line, uh, talking about, has to have the, uh, indication who paid for it. Would that have to be on the front of the sign? Or it could be in the back 'cause you would be close enough to read the back, but you know, when you're a first time candidate and money's tight, taking up that space would be, um, counterintuitive to somebody who is limited amount of money. So can it be on the back of a sign if it's a yard sign, or does it have to be on the front? Or is there any indication on how that has to be displayed?

  18. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)40:00

      Senator Vickers, thank

  19. Sen. Evan J. Vickers40:02

      You, Mr. President ProAm and Mr. President to Tim. Um, reading on lines 93, starting there, it says that it clearly and cons conspicuously identified for the reader, observer or listener, the person who paid for the advertisement and where required the authorization related to the advertisement. Turn over, you know, turn over to line 1 0 4 and says it can be affixed to the back of the advertisement. So, and also an answer to, uh, the previous question as, as, as way of stipulating the bill, that if someone's standing next to a sign, it just has to be clearly and conspicuously identified on the sign and it that, you know, who paid for it. It could be if it's a billboard or, or an outdoor advertising, it could be on, on that. Uh, it would have to be large enough to be easily read, readable, uh, on a sign. Same thing. It doesn't necessarily have to be in big font, but it could be on the back. If, if the back is visible, then it could be on the back. If it's back is not visible, then would need to be on the front.

  20. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)41:02

      Thank you. Senator Riebe.

  21. Sen. Stephanie Riebe41:04

      Thank you. I appreciate those answers. I think that there's, uh, a lot of good in this bill, but I think there's a, some nebulous, um, terms that might cause people to do things that not intended into the good Senator Weiler's point that we have. A lot of people who run for the first time, it might not, might fall into pitholes with this. So I'd love a little bit more clearer language so that we can make sure we're protecting anybody that made honest mistakes and not nefarious activities. Thank you.

  22. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)41:31

      Thank you Senator. Senator Brammer.

  23. Sen. Brammer41:35

      And, uh, will the sponsor yield?

  24. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)41:37

      Yes, he's agreed to yield. Go ahead.

  25. Sen. Brammer41:39

      Okay. Uh, one of the, uh, early on in this bill, uh, in the interim committee, there was discussion of, uh, some level of allowing landowners that their own park strips to be able to place signs, uh, on land that they maintain, even if it's owned by the city on a park strip. Do you know if that was maintained within the bill or was it stripped out?

  26. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)42:05

      Senator Vickers,

  27. Sen. Evan J. Vickers42:07

      Thank you, Mr. President Proti. I have to admit, I don't know, um, looking quickly, trying to find that, I don't see that in the bill, but I'm certainly hap happy to circle back with the, the good senator and we can figure that out.

  28. Sen. Brammer42:22

      Okay. And, and the only reason I bring that up is that's become one of the issues of IR that a lot of citizens have. They feel like, yes, the city may own the park strip, but the city required them to put in the park strip and the city requires them to maintain it. They bought the trees for the park strip, they maintain the grass, they cut the grass, and they wanna put a political sign in their yard. And that's the car, that's the area closest to the street, which the purpose of the political sign is to advertise. And so they wanna put it on their park strip, and then the city comes and takes their sign out of the land that they maintain and they're frustrated by it. And so that's, that's an issue that I'll, I'll, I'll speak with the, uh, with the bill sponsor on it that, uh, I think would be one that a lot of citizens in the state of Utah would appreciate.

  29. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)43:02

      Thank you. Thank You. Further discussion to the bill. Senator, Senator Mcca.

  30. Sen. Daniel McCay43:09

      Thank you. Sponsor. You do a question. I think he's already yielded, so I'll, I'll ask the question and if he doesn't wanna yield, he can tell me to go where it's warm. Um, is the purpose of this disclosure, like adding this, uh, this disclosure and making easily readable, is all of that to deal with if somebody puts up a, a campaign sign against somebody so that we know who the organization is that is, is making the negative statement about something or about a policy instead of it being an anonymous effort? Is that the question?

  31. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)43:53

      Senator Vickers,

  32. Sen. Evan J. Vickers43:54

      Uh, Mr. President pro tem, I am not aware of a narrative like that that led to this. My understanding of the way this came about is it just seemed to be fair that every candidate sign, whether for against or whoever that in there should be some indication of who is, is sponsoring that particular sign paying for it. And that's, and I guess that's the question for me, is I assume driving down the road that if there is a sign that says, uh, you know, for example, vote for Senator Bram Brammer, that, uh, that that's a sign that Senator Brammer, uh, supported. Right? And, and like that's a, a pro thing. Uh, and I would even, you know, if I went and stood next to it and saw the fine print, I wouldn't, it would be alien to me to expect that that was a, a sign that was, you know, paid for by somebody other than his campaign. But we've seen this before where somebody says instead another sign that says anyone but Senator Brammer right now, I haven't seen that sign. I've thought about printing it, but that's a different story.

  33. Sen. Daniel McCay45:10

      But, um, but, you know, if someone were to put anyone but Senator Brammer and on the back of the sign it's, it didn't have a name or anything else on it, what would then happen If it did not have, Yeah. Who paid for it? Thank you, Mr. President Pro tem. Go ahead.

  34. Sen. Evan J. Vickers45:30

      In that case, the sign would be in violation. It could be removed, uh, by anyone actually, uh, it's in violation. Most likely the municipality or the county would take that and collect the sign. And then, uh, if in, in the bill, it indicates that they would have a place for those signs to go and the candidate or the person responsible could go pick up the sign. But if it is in violation, if they find there's also could be a stipulation that the county municipality would have a, some type of a fee structure that would charge some camera a fee for that.

  35. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)46:04

      Okay. Senator McKay?

  36. Sen. Daniel McCay46:05

      Thanks. I wonder if the sponsor would, uh, would consider, uh, an amendment, um, for when we consider this on third, that has a presumption that a, a sign that is in favor of a candidate is, is, uh, is for, you know, a candidate or an issue, but a sign that is against a candidate or, you know, or an issue or whatever it may be, you know, where you might not know who's, who's paying for that sign. I'm wondering if there's not a, a presumption, at least for candidate sign, what I'd hate to see is somebody going around and they've done a bunch of work to get people's signs out. And, you know, if you put a sticker on the back of some of these signs, I know this, that, you know, having changed, uh, you know, signs in the past and try to put stickers over them, that, that those, those stickers fall off. Uh, and they're not foolproof in our, uh, in our summer weather or even in the, in the spring they get wet or they get, you know, sun faded or whatever. So I'm just wondering how you'd feel about a friendly amendment that it's a presumption that if it's a, if it's for a candidate, that the candidate paid for it, but if it's against a candidate or it is something other message wise, uh, political sign that the notice would need to apply to that.

  37. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)47:25

      Senator Vickers,

  38. Sen. Evan J. Vickers47:27

      Um, thank you Mr. President Pro Tem. I'm certainly willing to discuss that. I'm just thinking through kind of the scenarios that the good Senator Vickers brought up in the question. I think you're absolutely right. There are ca most cases the, when a sign is there advertising for a candidate, it's most likely, likely gonna be saved, say, paid for by friends of, you know, candidate X. Uh, it could, there could be situations where an individual, maybe a friend or someone just wanted to put up some signs for someone, but most likely that's not the case. I did see a situation in, in my own county, uh, not that long ago when there was a candidate for county commission that was running and there was some individuals that gathered together and put out a lot of, a lot of signs that, uh, were advertising, um, why you shouldn't vote for that candidate. Um, at that time, I was trying to remember back, most of those signs actually did say on them where they, who was doing it. But I can see that in that situation, you definitely want to be able to clearly identify who's, who's paying for those signs.

  39. Sen. Daniel McCay48:38

      Yeah. Okay. That, that answered my question. Just the idea of going back and adding a bunch of stickers and that kind of stuff to signs that are obvious who paid for them seemed less, uh, valuable than, you know, trying to figure out if anonymous groups go out there and, you know, participate in political speech and you don't know who they are. I think that'd probably be harder. So thanks.

  40. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)49:00

      Thank you. Further discussion of the Bill. Senator Bus.

  41. Sen. Jen Plumb49:05speaker not certain

      I I just had a question. Um, is this kind of in compliance with the, the paid mailing advertisements, the disclosures that are required on that? Senator,

  42. Sen. Emily Buss49:16

      Senator Vickers Apologize Judge.

  43. Sen. Evan J. Vickers49:18

      Mr. President pro tem, I didn't quite, uh, hear the question. Could you maybe repeat for Me? Okay. Would you restate the question please?

  44. Sen. Emily Buss49:23

      Yes. Um, so is this similar to how for paid, um, mailing advertisements we're supposed to have it, uh, the disclosure about who's sponsoring it, because those are much smaller. So to me this makes sense that something larger would require the same disclosure.

  45. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)49:39

      Senator Vickers.

  46. Sen. Evan J. Vickers49:40

      Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem. Yeah, Mr. President Pro tem. The principle is the same, just trying to disclose who is paying for it and yes. Uh, the good Senator Vickers Correct in that, uh, when an advertisement goes out, a mailer or something they have to have on there, who's paying for it? Yes. That carrying that principle is carrying over now to, in this bill to political science? Yes.

  47. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)50:01

      Okay. Thank you. Further discussion. Senator Ipson?

  48. Sen. Scott Ipson50:05

      Thank you Mr. President ProAm, I'm concerned. Do I have to retrieve the ones I took to the landfill and put the stickers on em? Do I have to answer that? Thank you for that rhetorical question.

  49. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)50:23

      Further discussion to the bill. I seeing none. Senator Vickers back to you for summation or a motion.

  50. Sen. Evan J. Vickers50:30

      Thank you Mr. President Pro tem. Um, I'm certainly happy to answer a couple of questions and work on some things between now and third. Um, I think the, the principle is good and it's good and sound, you know, that we're trying to make it clear, you know, and have some transparency as we advertise for elections. And so with that, I would would ask the body support me and, and I would make a motion that House Bill 33 be read a third time.

  51. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)50:57

      And the question is, shall house bill 33 be read for a third time? Rule call vote.

  52. Unknown speaker51:02speaker not certain

      Senator Vickers Baldry Aye. Lewin Aye. Brammer bus Colmore Aye. Illa Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Aye. Hankins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Quan a McKay? Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner Aye. Musselman Aye. Owens pitcher a Lum Rebe Aye. Sandal Stevenson Aye. Stratton Aye. Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams

  53. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)52:02

      House Bill 33. Having received 27 a votes zero Novo na votes two being absent will be read for a third time.

  54. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)52:10

      Senator Musselman.

  55. Presiding officer (President Pro Tem)52:27

      Discussion. That motion. Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'll rule that passes. The bill is encircle and before us Senator Musselman.

• Feb 12, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (20 turns)

  1. Sen. Evan J. Vickers48:42

     last week and talking, uh, through there was really focused down on a couple of things. We, you know, the, the premise is to try to make sure that a sign is identified who owns a sign and talked about putting stickers on that We remember we had a lot of discussion about stickers and also, uh, you know, can you put a sign in a parking strip? Those, there were, those were kind of the two things that we really focused in on, uh, during the discussion.

  2. Sen. Evan J. Vickers49:08

     So I'd like to make a motion deleting title and Body House bill 33 and replace it with first substitute House bill 33. And the substitute addresses those two issues. And I wanna be transparent about this. So the first is that presumption of ownership. And, uh, we, if a sign is placed with the owner, you know, for a candidate, it's presumed that it's owned by that candidate or his, uh, the group that supports him. If it's anyone else, they do have to have a sticker on it to identify that's the case. And it can be on the front or the back. It just has to be identifiable to somebody standing there. Uh, the other, the other component that it changes, uh, in from the current, the original bill is allowing a sign to be placed in a parking and mowing strip if it's adjacent to a property. And the, and the property owner who typically takes care of that piece, gives permission to the candidate to put a sign there. And with that, I will tell you that that component is not universally appre appreciated. Uh, there is, you know, the League of Cities and towns does not support that. I wanna be transparent with the same token as in discussion with most of the body. You know, we do want to propose that in the sub. So with that, I would make that motion.

  3. President Adams (presiding)50:32

     Thank you. Do we have discussion on the motion to substitute Senator Sandall? Thank you. I I just want to applaud the sponsor. I think this, uh, these changes were talked about and, uh, I appreciate them listening to it and, uh, want to support the motion and the bill. Thank you. So further discussion seen on any summation before I place the motion, Senator Vickers, I waste, just call the motion. Okay. Thank you. I'm gonna go. Oh, Senator Riebe, I didn't see you up. Go ahead.

  4. Sen. Andrew Sandall50:41

     Thank you. I I just want to applaud the sponsor. I think this, uh, these changes were talked about and, uh, I appreciate them listening to it and, uh, want to support the motion and the bill.

  5. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe51:09

     We were still speaking to the motion. Uh, will the sponsor yield to questions?

  6. President Adams (presiding)51:13

     He will to the substitute motion. Go ahead, Senator. Thank you. You're on the substitute motion. Senator Vickers. Go ahead. Senator Riebe.

  7. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe51:20

     Uh, okay, this is to the bill. I, I apologize. Okay, that's not to the substitute motion. Yeah, the motion is to substitute. The motion is Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry.

  8. President Adams (presiding)51:29

     Okay, thank you. Seeing no further questions may open place the motion. The motion is to delete and title and Body House bill 33. And replace it with first substitute house bill 33. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes, the bill is substituted now to the bill.

  9. President Adams (presiding)51:49

     Any further presentations?

  10. Sen. Evan J. Vickers51:51

      No, those are the major changes in the bill. Just reminding people in the members of the body that, uh, we're trying to find a balance. And so we've had instances, every, every campaign, we have instances where people are, are altering other people's signs. They're destroying signs. This sets up a process where number one is we can identify a sign who's, whose ownership, who put it there. Even if it's a sign against a candidate, that sign would have to have some kind of an indication on it that who, who put that sign up, who owns that. Uh, also if signs get taken down from time to time, you'll find signs laying around. Sometimes it's people doing nefarious things. Other times it's just people doing funny things. Sometimes it's just the wind blowing 'em around. And a municipality can gather those signs and put 'em in a location, and then they, they can, they can contact the candidate, the individual whose name is on the sign, and they can come pick those up in the location. The two major points is just what I mentioned, the, uh, presumption of us that the sign that's up there for a individual candidate is owned by that candidate or the, the friends of, or the group, the committee to elect or whatever that group is that supporting that individual. And then the piece about putting it in a mow strip or a parking strip that is adjacent to a property that is maintained by that property owner. And that property owner has given that individual permission to put a sign in that, in that spot.

  11. President Adams (presiding)53:19

      Thank you, Senator Rebi of the bill.

  12. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe53:22

      Thank you, Mr. President. Um, the sponsors yield to questions.

  13. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe53:27

      My first question is on Line 201, making this a Class B misdemeanor. Um, I, I do believe that we should have responsibility over our signs, but a class B misdemeanor can be up to six months in jail or, um, I, I just don't think that six months in jail is a reasonable thing for just putting a sign in the wrong spot. I would prefer to see that these fines were greater. So if we could make it just a larger fine that was dedicated to the homeless school lunches and just have it be a really, uh, significant fine, I think that would be a much better deterrent for people to not put these signs, um, in the wrong places or not follow the rules. Uh, the other, uh, question I have is about line 2 25 with saying the bills need to, the sign needs to be removed in 14 days. I would also like to see that we are taking these signs down off of our overpasses. As someone who runs in Salt Lake County, I really try hard not to have my signs on overpasses. Sometimes I have very, uh, over zealous volunteers putting signs up in the wrong spots. But I think that this is something that we've talked about year after year, that people are constantly putting signs over overpasses. And if our communities and our cities are taking these signs down, I would prefer to see a huge fine that would be a more of a deterrent because it's not just once they're up there, they go, they get taken down and they get back up, they get taken down and they go back up. And the cities know who the nefarious characters are. And when I've spoken to my own city, they've said, oh, you know, this person does this all the time and we've only seen you've done it once or twice. And so, um, I I would like to see that a fine would be connected to the person that is over, um, that is putting things on overpasses. But I also would like to see the sign be larger. Is there, um, any appetite for that?

  14. President Adams (presiding)55:22

      Senator Vickers? Hold it. Your Mike's on. There you go.

  15. Sen. Evan J. Vickers55:27

      Thank, thank you Mr. President. Appreciate the question. First on the enhancement penalty, actually there is no enhancement penalty in this bill that's already current statute, so that that's already there. Um, the, the question about an overpass, actually, it's not a, it's not allowed to put a pa a sign on an overpass now. Uh, so it, if that was the case, you know, that would, that pla sign placement would've not have been appropriate and not, not legal. Uh, as far as the, the 14 days, that's a kind of a runway to allow individuals to have some time after the election in a timely fashion. I'm, I'm with you. I, I'm, whenever I run a campaign, I want, we're out there taking signs down that either that night or the next day. And so I totally agree with you there. We're just trying to give a reasonable runway for that. For the, and as far as municipalities taking signs down, the only thing that typically what they would do is if they find signs that have been strayed and they would put, bring those signs in. And only, only thing the bill does is designate that the municipality would have a, a place to put them and then they would identify to the candidate where to go pick 'em up.

  16. President Adams (presiding)56:33

      Thank you. Senator Vickers. Any follow up? Senator Rebe?

  17. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe56:37

      Yes, thank you. I I appreciate that answer. Um, I know in Salt Lake County, we, we definitely have people putting up signs over and over and over again, over overpasses and it's not unintentional. It's, um, a, a, a great placement if you wanna have your name out there. But it's something that I know my municipalities have really been bothered by because they do spend a lot of time taking them off our highways, taking them off our, um, on ramps, off ramps, and then also over or overpasses. So I, I support this bill. I wish it was a little bit, uh, stricter on who can be fined with putting signs in illegal spots. So thank you.

  18. President Adams (presiding)57:17

      Thank you Senator Vickers summation and a motion.

  19. Sen. Evan J. Vickers57:21

      I would wait further summation and move the first substitute house Bill 33 pass.

  20. President Adams (presiding)57:25

      Thank you. And the question is, shall first substitute House Bill 33 pass roll call Vote. Senator Spery aye. Blue in aye. Bramer bus CU Moore and Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Hankins Ipson Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Reeb Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton Aye. Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye. First substitute house Bill 33. Having received 27 a votes zero nay votes, two being absent passes his body and will be returned to the house for further consideration.

• Feb 12, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (11 turns)

  1. Sen. Evan J. Vickers51:59

     And so we've had instances, every, every campaign, we have instances where people are, are altering other people's signs. They're destroying signs. This sets up a process where number one is we can identify a sign who's, whose ownership, who put it there. Even if it's a sign against a candidate, that sign would have to have some kind of an indication on it that who, who put that sign up, who owns that. Uh, also if signs get taken down from time to time, you'll find signs laying around. Sometimes it's people doing nefarious things. Other times it's just people doing funny things. Sometimes it's just the wind blowing 'em around. And a municipality can gather those signs and put 'em in a location, and then they, they can, they can contact the candidate, the individual whose name is on the sign, and they can come pick those up in the location. The two major points is just what I mentioned, the, uh, presumption of us that the sign that's up there for a individual candidate is owned by that candidate or the, the friends of, or the group, the committee to elect or whatever that group is that supporting that individual. And then the piece about putting it in a mow strip or a parking strip that is adjacent to a property that is maintained by that property owner. And that property owner has given that individual permission to put a sign in that, in that spot. Thank you, Senator Rebi of the bill.

  2. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe53:22

     Thank you, Mr. President. Um, the sponsors yield to questions. My first question is on Line 201, making this a Class B misdemeanor. Um, I, I do believe that we should have responsibility over our signs, but a class B misdemeanor can be up to six months in jail or, um, I, I just don't think that six months in jail is a reasonable thing for just putting a sign in the wrong spot. I would prefer to see that these fines were greater. So if we could make it just a larger fine that was dedicated to the homeless school lunches and just have it be a really, uh, significant fine, I think that would be a much better deterrent for people to not put these signs, um, in the wrong places or not follow the rules. Uh, the other, uh, question I have is about line 2 25 with saying the bills need to, the sign needs to be removed in 14 days. I would also like to see that we are taking these signs down off of our overpasses. As someone who runs in Salt Lake County, I really try hard not to have my signs on overpasses. Sometimes I have very, uh, over zealous volunteers putting signs up in the wrong spots. But I think that this is something that we've talked about year after year, that people are constantly putting signs over overpasses. And if our communities and our cities are taking these signs down, I would prefer to see a huge fine that would be a more of a deterrent because it's not just once they're up there, they go, they get taken down and they get back up, they get taken down and they go back up. And the cities know who the nefarious characters are. And when I've spoken to my own city, they've said, oh, you know, this person does this all the time and we've only seen you've done it once or twice. And so, um, I I would like to see that a fine would be connected to the person that is over, um, that is putting things on overpasses. But I also would like to see the sign be larger. Is there, um, any appetite for that?

  3. President Adams (presiding)55:22

     Senator Vickers? Hold it. Your Mike's on. There you go.

  4. Sen. Evan J. Vickers55:27

     Thank, thank you Mr. President. Appreciate the question. First on the enhancement penalty, actually there is no enhancement penalty in this bill that's already current statute, so that that's already there. Um, the, the question about an overpass, actually, it's not a, it's not allowed to put a pa a sign on an overpass now. Uh, so it, if that was the case, you know, that would, that pla sign placement would've not have been appropriate and not, not legal. Uh, as far as the, the 14 days, that's a kind of a runway to allow individuals to have some time after the election in a timely fashion. I'm, I'm with you. I, I'm, whenever I run a campaign, I want, we're out there taking signs down that either that night or the next day. And so I totally agree with you there. We're just trying to give a reasonable runway for that. For the, and as far as municipalities taking signs down, the only thing that typically what they would do is if they find signs that have been strayed and they would put, bring those signs in. And only, only thing the bill does is designate that the municipality would have a, a place to put them and then they would identify to the candidate where to go pick 'em up.

  5. President Adams (presiding)56:33

     Thank you. Senator Vickers. Any follow up? Senator Rebe?

  6. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe56:37

     Yes, thank you. I I appreciate that answer. Um, I know in Salt Lake County, we, we definitely have people putting up signs over and over and over again, over overpasses and it's not unintentional. It's, um, a, a, a great placement if you wanna have your name out there. But it's something that I know my municipalities have really been bothered by because they do spend a lot of time taking them off our highways, taking them off our, um, on ramps, off ramps, and then also over or overpasses. So I, I support this bill. I wish it was a little bit, uh, stricter on who can be fined with putting signs in illegal spots. So thank you.

  7. President Adams (presiding)57:17

     Thank you Senator Vickers summation and a motion.

  8. Sen. Evan J. Vickers57:21

     I would wait further summation and move the first substitute house Bill 33 pass.

  9. President Adams (presiding)57:25

     Thank you. And the question is, shall first substitute House Bill 33 pass roll call Vote. Senator

  10. Senate clerk57:32

      Spery aye. Blue in aye. Bramer bus CU Moore and Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Hankins Ipson Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Reeb Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton Aye. Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye.

  11. President Adams (presiding)58:35

      First substitute house Bill 33. Having received 27 a votes zero nay votes, two being absent passes his body and will be returned to the house for further consideration.

• Feb 13, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)25:21

     First substitute House bill 33. Political Signs Amendments by Representative Teuscher. Representative Teuscher.

  2. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher25:30

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to concur with the Senate amendments

  3. Speaker (presiding)25:34

     Representative Teuscher moves to concur with the Senate amendments. Would you like to speak to it?

  4. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher25:38

     I would, uh, the Senate and their great wisdom made, um, two changes to the bill. Um, the first change is, uh, as you'll recall, the bill originally, uh, requires all political signs to include a disclosure as long as it is, uh, larger than 18 by 24 inches that says that which, which campaign or candidate paid for the sign. They've added some language that essentially says that if it is a sign that just advertises a candidate, so it just says the candidate's name and the office they're running for, uh, that you can presume that that is the candidate that paid for that sign. Now, if the sign were to send some different message, vote against a candidate or about another type of, uh, ballot proposition or something else, the language would have to say that it was paid for by, but if it's just a sign that says the candidate's name, then that would be presumed to be paid for the candidate and that disclosure would no longer be needed. The other language that they added was a provision that, um, prohibits municipalities or, or, um, political subdivisions from, um, restricting signs within a park strip. And I know this is an issue that we looked at closely in the interim, uh, because we didn't have consensus with the league. I had pulled out the language. The Senate feels very strongly that it's important to, to cover that in this bill. What we've done is very narrowly tailored that exemption, uh, exception in the, in the statute. So essentially what it says is that, uh, a city cannot prohibit a, a political sign in a park strip where that park strip is adjacent to the property owners residence, um, or, or ownership of the property. And they are required to maintain that park strip. And then, as you know, the bill already, uh, includes language that, uh, political science can no longer, um, be up for longer than 14 days following the election. So it would only be during that campaign season. And we also have language that you'll see on line 2 89 that says that nothing in this section would prohibit a local government entity from regulating the posting of a political sign to prevent a traffic, a pedestrian, or a line of sight hazard. Right? So if you're on the corner and a political science gonna cause a, a, uh, a line of sight hazard, then they can regulate that. But otherwise, during campaign seasons for these very limited purposes, uh, um, that, uh, a, a owner can put these signs in their park strip and that is the changes that the Senate made.

  5. Speaker (presiding)28:13

     Thank you. Representative Teuscher rip the motion is to concur with the Senate amendments. Discussion to the motion. See none representative er for summation. I'll waive. The motion is waived. I'll place the motion to concur with the Senate amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Voting is open on first substitute House Bill 33. All president have Representative Owens. Representative Owens Representative Owens. We'd like to vote Seeing all President having voted, voting will be closed First Substitute House bill 33 Having received 69 yay votes and one nay votes passes the house and will be returned to the Senate for the signature of the president representatives. We're going to the Senate third Reading calendar.