H.B. 92 Presidential Electors Amendments

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see how your own representative and senator voted and where they spoke.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and one-line summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.

What the bill does

This bill modifies provisions governing the distribution of electoral votes.

Hearings and debates

• Feb 6, 2026 House Government Operations Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (22 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:59:45

     Alright, um, it is Friday night, so we're gonna move on to the, uh, to the next bill. That is House bill 92, uh, presidential Electors Amendments Representative Stoddard, come on up and uh, the time is yours to present your bill. Go ahead.

  2. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:00:02

     Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I've talked to a number of you and I'm, uh, under no illusion of what's going to happen to this bill. Um, But I want to introduce and put it out there because I think it's a novel idea. Currently, our state is essentially a flyover state when it comes to presidential elections. You'll have someone pop into Park City, raise some money and leave. But I think there's a better way to do it where we can actually matter as a state and where we can have our presidential candidate candidates actually trying to earn our votes and showing up. I don't know if this solves the problem or if this is the answer, um, but, but I do think it's a unique way to look at it. So under the bill what it does is that it changes our current electoral college votes from a winner takes all to one per condition congressional district, and then two for the majority winner of the state. I think it's an issue we need to talk about. So like I said, I know where this bill's going, but I would love it if we as a committee could take this up in an interim or something to at least study if there's anything we can do to make ourselves matter. We have a unique perspective in our state and a lot of our voters think differently than voters from both parties on the national level. And I think that's a great thing and I would love it if we meant more in our nation in terms of what our thoughts are on presidential candidates. So I am open to any questions. Um, I do hope this is something we can look at because I think, I think it's important. Alright. And, uh, if you are anything, you are thoughtful, sir. Appreciate you bringing it forward.

  3. Committee chair2:01:28

     Uh, does that complete your presentation? It does. Alright. We'll go to committee for clarifying questions. Representative MacPherson and then Representative Pucci.

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:01:37

     Thank you Mr. Chair. I actually do appreciate this. Uh, I always like discussing these kind of questions with you. And so my question is mostly about, um, you know, I I, from my understanding at least of the electoral college is that the intent is, or at least originally to ensure that the, um, state itself is, um, that the power of the state is reflected in the college rather than looking at the individuals and the individuals within the state. That this is a, this is the way, uh, in which it was framed so that a small state like Utah with six electoral votes would be able to use those as a block essentially to matter more than, for example, one vote here or there that might be split up depending on the candidates in a race. And then that's why it was initially designed that way. Do you see that differently, I guess, or how, how do you, how do you understand that to be, I guess, more beneficial to the state? Or is this more looking at the individual voters within the state?

  5. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:02:39

     Um, and, and I see both points and I think that that's why I structured the bill the way that I did. 'cause I recognize the, the majority winner and that's why I allocated the two votes there. But I also, um, we have a state that has not been in question in terms of majority votes for a long time, but because of that we're forgotten. I mean, when's the last time someone came other than just to raise money? I think that's true of a lot of states. Yes. I think there's about seven states that that matter. Right. But I think that we are better than all those states. And so I think that we should matter. And so I'd love to see something set up where we can take into account the individual voter as well as the state priorities.

  6. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:03:19

     Is it fair to say though that the, um, the, the two states that do divvy up their, um, their electoral votes, they don't necessarily get any extra screen time, uh, because of that?

  7. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:03:33

     I think they get more than us.

  8. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:03:35

     Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

  9. Committee chair2:03:37

     Alright, thanks for the question representative. We'll go to Representative Pucci.

  10. Rep. Candice B. Pierucci2:03:41

      I think that we were both thinking the same thing. Grips gonna McPherson around the states that do it, it's Nebraska and Maine. Maine. Okay. I was just curious on that. How many electoral votes do they have like testing all of our American government history? Okay, I was just curious on that. And I think, you know, this comes largely down to a discussion around the electoral college and, um, proportional voting we're first winner takes all. But you are very much unicorn and I appreciate you, uh, always giving us thought provoking legislation. So Thank you. Thanks.

  11. Unknown speaker2:04:12speaker not certain

      So, uh, we're looking this up. Maine's got four and we think Nebraska's pretty close to us, but Okay, we're checking there. They're Nebraska's got five. Okay. Thank you.

  12. Committee chair2:04:26

      Alright, thank you and thanks for the questions. Any further questions from the committee? Not seeing any, we will go to the public and open up public comment. Raise your hand if you wanna speak to this bill. Alright, ma'am, come on up. There's just one behind you representative, so you can stay right there. Please sign in and again, tell us who you are and who you represent. Two minutes.

  13. Marianne Christensen, Utah Legislative Watch2:04:50

      Marianne Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch and I'm here to speak against the bill because I really appreciate the electoral college as devised for us by the founders. I think it was really a divinely inspired idea that they came up with that, that, that, um, protects us from just the tyranny of the masses. I did a deep dive on national popular vote, which is the same thing. It's kind of an end, end run around the electoral college just as this bill is. And I learned that it only takes 17 of the largest states to out vote. All the other states combined. And when we mess with the electoral college, those are the results we get and it's a dangerous road to go down. So I would appreciate your no vote. Thank you.

  14. Committee chair2:05:46

      Alright, thank you ma'am. Thanks for being here. Alright, we'll close public comment and bring it back to this committee for further action. Oh, come on folks. Can we Move to the next agenda Item? You're all awake. Well, I need a motion for that. Alright. Representative Welton.

  15. Rep. Doug Welton2:06:08

      Yes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, well I do appreciate the discussion and uh, I think there's some very valid discussion points here. I, I'm a strong believer in the, the electoral college, but it's very true that we're a flyover state and, and Utah looks different. Utah's red and blue, it's different than the national red and blue. And uh, you know, it used to be Florida got whatever they wanted and got all sorts of presidential promises and other people got presidential promises and everyone that's super red or super blue gets kinda left in the dust. But, uh, I support the electoral college and I think we're at a, at a place. So I'd make the motion that we move to the next item on the agenda.

  16. Committee chair2:06:49

      Representative Stoddard, I, you don't enter the courtroom like this saying, you know what's gonna happen. You don't do that then, do you? No,

  17. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:06:57

      I do, but I always win. So that's, that's How I, I can, I can only imagine Kurt STI and I, you, You're,

  18. Committee chair2:07:03

      you're highly me valued by this committee. Uh, we, we love you. And, uh, the motion before system move on to the next agenda item. Um, would you, did you want to, did you speak to that already? Representative Welton. Alright. Um, to you, uh, representative maker of the bill, uh, how do you feel about that motion? I

  19. Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:07:21

      Feel great. Like I said, I wanted this to start a conversation in the hopes that we can continue it and maybe work on something as a committee.

  20. Committee chair2:07:28

      Alright, thank you sir. Uh, motion before is that we move on the next agenda item. Um, voice vote. All in favor say aye. A aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. Alright. Wow, that was unanimous. Okay. Last bill.

  21. Unknown speaker2:07:43speaker not certain

      It wasn't, no, no.

  22. Committee chair2:07:46

      Okay. It wasn't unanimous. All right. 10 10, 1 10 to one. Uh, move on to the next item. I am the last item of the day. I'm sorry for comic relief. I'm, I'm bringing up the rear here, but, um, thank you to the committee for all your hard work thus far.

All votes

• 10-1-1House Government Operations Committee · House Comm - Held · Feb 6, 2026Roll call

Tallies are yeas–nays–absent.