H.B. 223 Electronic Signature Collection Amendments

What this bill does

The bill would end paper signature gathering for initiatives, referenda, and candidate nominations in 2030, leaving electronic signing as the only method. It would require the electronic system to scan driver licenses to verify signers and to offer offline signature collection by 2028.

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

• 7 yes, 2 no, 3 absentHouse Government Operations Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 29, 2026Who voted how
• 46 yes, 25 no, 4 absentFinal House vote · Feb 9, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 0 no, 2 absentSenate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 17, 2026Who voted how
• 11 yes, 18 noSenate vote, which failed · Mar 5, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 29, 2026 House Government Operations Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (82 turns)

  1. Committee chair35:46

     Alright, we'll move right into the agenda. Um, item number one, house bill 2 23. And I saw the, the, uh, illustrious representative from, is it South Jordan? South Jordan, South Jordan, representative Jordan Tuscher, house Bill 2 23 electronic signature collection amendments. Time is yours.

  2. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher36:05

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, really appreciate being in your illustrious committee here. Um, this bill, house Bill 2 23 is one that should look very familiar is we, we had several interim meetings, uh, on this bill. And kind of, uh, based on the feedback that I got from the committee, have made the changes to, to, um, I think go the direction that we're looking for. So, um, I have a, uh, a flyer for the committee, if you don't mind if I could have my intern pass that out. You Bet. Of Course. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. So, uh, as many of you know, in, in 2022, uh, the legislature created an electronic signature gathering process for initiatives referendums and candidate uh, nominations. Um, at the time, uh, as, as we talked with the clerks, they, they weren't sure exactly how the electronic would mesh with the paper method. And so they, they required you to pick, at the beginning, you'd either go paper or you'd go electronic. And then, uh, last year, I believe in HB 300, we, we lift that requirement. So now people can do both. What, uh, HB 2 23 does is it Sunset the paper signature gathering in 2030. Uh, really the intent of this is to say, this is a better process. We wanna move towards this process. And so it sets a date out in the future that we're going to, to move towards. Now, obviously, if, uh, if we see that it's gonna take more time, legislature will have plenty of sessions in the meantime to come back and push that date out. But it sets the goal that we're, we're working towards, um, to get rid of the paper se gathering, um, process. And I'll talk a little bit of the, of the benefits of that in just a second. Um, additionally, in HB 2 23, it requires, um, the online Signature Gathering Program to be able to scan a driver license or other valid voter identification. This is something we talked about in the interim committee. It was always the intent of the bill When the initial app was, was put together, they, um, they did it by just entering the driver license number and capturing a picture of it. But this allows for the, the scanning feature. And then lastly, it requires the electronic Signature Gathering Program to be able to collect signatures offline. And this is something that's gonna be critical, uh, if it's the the single path that, that we're gonna be moving forward with. And this is, again, one of those things that we intended the system to do, but the way that it was originally, um, built it's web based. And because of that, if you don't have an internet connection, you can't actually gather the information and submit it. And so what this will do is create the app that will store that information until there is, uh, internet connection, and then it can upload that same information. Um, now why is HB 2 23 important? Well, primarily, and this is where I started on the electronic path in the very beginning, is it's much less expensive. Just the process of printing the paper packets can be a huge burden, um, for groups that are running initiatives referendums or trying to get on the, on the ballot as a, as a candidate. And so this takes out that expense altogether. It allows anyone that has a device, um, you know, like the phone in my pocket to be able to use that, uh, to gather signatures. Uh, next it allows much more integrity in the process. This is a real issue that we saw, um, in the last candidate gathering signatures where, you know, there were some complaints of did the signatures match? Did they not match? Um, this takes out that guessing that is going on to say whether or not it's matching. And, um, it, because we're scanning that identification card, we know that the person is who they say they are. And it's much more reliable than, than going with a signature matching a third. And this is a huge point. It reduces all the administrative burdens, uh, for the clerk. So no longer do they have to receive, uh, thousands of pages of signatures and scan them in and go through the process of verifying each one and seeing whether or not it matches what they happen to sign at the DMV, you know, however long ago. Um, but allows for that immediate, uh, instant, uh, process that doesn't require any administrative burdens to, to go through. Um, fourth, it, uh, it allows for that instant verification. And so if you're out gathering signatures, rather than submitting a, a bunch of packets and, and maybe gathering 20% or 30% more, because you know that some of those voters may not be in the area, maybe they aren't registered, maybe they're not registered at the right party, maybe their signatures aren't gonna count you. You gotta put some padding in there. No longer is that an issue. As soon as you collect the signature, you will know whether or not that is a valid signature or not. And lastly, this increases, um, our widespread collection. So by allowing for that, uh, ability to do the electronic signature gathering that we don't currently have in the system, by passing this, we'll add that feature, um, to the app that allows for the signature gatherers to use the electronic process in places where they don't have reliable internet coverage. So with that, Mr. Chair, uh, happy to answer any questions and would urge your support.

  3. Committee chair41:04

     All right. Thank you very much for that concise presentation. I think most of us have read this bill or, and, or looked at it. Um, we'll turn it to the committee for questions. I see a couple. So, um, representative Pucci, your light's on and you didn't turn it on. Okay. Sorry about that. You're good.

  4. Committee chair41:26

     Um, go with Representative Welton and then we'll go down the line to Representative Maloy. Go ahead. Thank

  5. Rep. Doug Welton41:32

     You, Mr. Chair. Uh, you might have said this in the beginning part of your presentation. I walked in late. I apologize. Um, I'm just curious how the signature matches up. 'cause when I sign something electronic versus when I sign something real, they're not even closely related. Like they're not, they're not even remotely the same.

  6. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher41:51

     Yeah, no, that's a really great question. And actually a flaw with the paper process, right? Because we're capturing those signatures electronically at the DMV and then we're comparing it to what they sign on a physical piece of paper. This though, though, through the electronic gathering process, it does collect a holographic signature. That's not what verifies the signature. What verifies the signature is the person showing up with their own id. And once it scans that driver's license, that's the verification process. And it's instant. Now for some reason, it were to be challenged or there was some sort of fraud that was alleged, you could go back and look at the signatures, but the verification process happens with the id.

  7. Rep. Doug Welton42:27

     Okay. I just curious 'cause when I, when I sign an electronic packet, it's not gonna look like my driver's license signature.

  8. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher42:34

     Exactly. Yeah.

  9. Committee chair42:37

     Okay. Thank you. Representative Welton, representative, uh, Corey Malloy.

  10. Rep. A. Cory Maloy42:43

      Thank you. Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm interested, my is related to the offline. Uh, so if there are, if they're gathering signatures offline with their phone, is there a risk at that data being kept on the phone and used inappropriately or potentially used inappropriately?

  11. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher43:04

      Yeah, it's a, it's a good question. Um, there is specific language in there that doesn't allow for that. Um, and but

  12. Rep. A. Cory Maloy43:10

      The, okay, but go ahead.

  13. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher43:12

      But what I was gonna say is compare it to the status quo. Status quo is a piece of paper where someone signed and gave all their same information. Right? So how much easier is it rather than hack backend, hack the system? 'cause you happen to be in a place that can't submit automatically versus taking a picture or a photocopy of the piece of paper. So it's a much more secure process than we have today.

  14. Rep. A. Cory Maloy43:35

      Okay. I still, uh, personally, if it's going from my scan directly online, which is another option, right. Uh, that to me is that would be much more secure than keeping it on someone's phone until they upload it, in my opinion. Yeah,

  15. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher43:55

      And I agree. So where they have internet access, that's the way it would just go direct. And that's the way the app works today. Mm-hmm. The problem is, let's say you're out in, um, Representative Monson area and you don't necessarily have internet access. So now you can't capture those signatures at all. And so this would allow for that capture of signatures, but as soon as you're back in internet area, then it would

  16. Rep. A. Cory Maloy44:18

      Upload. What's wrong with just using the paper again? I mean, I get, I get everything you said, but it's just like, what's wrong with the paper?

  17. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher44:26

      Well, everything I just said.

  18. Rep. A. Cory Maloy44:30

      Yeah, I know. But I, I, I guess I'm not seeing that. But anyway, thank you Mr. Chair.

  19. Committee chair44:37

      Alright, thank you. Representative Moy, uh, representative Mike Peterson. Then we'll go to representative, uh, Doug Faia after that.

  20. Rep. Michael J. Petersen44:43

      Thank you. I, I've got, I got two or three questions and, and I want also begin with sort of a follow up with what Representative Maloy just asked. Are you mentioned cost is one of the issues? I've not, I I've personally not heard anyone say that the cost that was a causing them an issue. Is that a, something you've been hearing about?

  21. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher45:01

      Yeah. So let me give you an example. And this, this happened, you know, shortly after I got elected, we had the Olympia Hills decision that was in Salt Lake County. So the county came in, decided that they were going to permit a huge development, even though all of the cities around it didn't like it, most of the citizens around it didn't like it. So they, the, the grassroots organizers said, all right, we're gonna run a referendum what the county tried to do. And as they started to calculate just the cost of printing packets, they found that they would have to raise $1 million. That was with complete grassroots support, just printing the packets because of the amount of paper that's required under our statute. And, and let me be clear, uh, right now, the way the way the statute reads, one piece of paper holds two signatures. So if you're trying to overturn something in a county, you know, that has a, has a large population, uh, it's significant. And then with every signature packet you have to print all of the information that was included in whatever was passed, you know, for, for that referendum purpose. So that, that's why it ended up being so much paper that had to be printed.

  22. Rep. Michael J. Petersen46:07

      Okay. Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. Uh, my next question, um, why, why mandate, why, why not if a group wants to continue with the paper? I, I think about, I think about, uh, you know, we didn't, we didn't like mandate that, that you could no longer use a slide with her. We said, you know, as, as, and, and, and I, I grew, sorry, I'm old, but I, we grew up there and then we sort of slowly picked up the calculator. So I'm just wondering why. Sounds Like you were talking to Marilyn here about that. She gave me the same example. Um, well, It, it, it was one of my concerns though.

  23. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher46:46

      Yeah. No, and I think it's a legitimate concern. Um, my answer would be this is we're, this is not the private market that we're dealing with, right? The private market would come up with lots of innovative ways and people would just gravitate to whatever made the most amount of sense. This is government and we're saying exactly the way that you have to do it. Now we could give, give two options, um, but then we lose all the benefits of what we're, we're trying to get to. And think about all that administrative burden. Think about the risks of integrity that we just heard about and how many lawsuits have been filed over whether or not a signature was was properly copied or not. It's, it's 2026. And if we have more effective ways to do that, that decreases, makes it easier for people to do it decreases the burden on government, makes it cheaper. Why would we not move towards that direction?

  24. Committee chair47:31

      Okay. Alright. Thank you. Alright, thank you. Uh, Representative Fiefia here. You're ready. Go.

  25. Rep. Doug Fiefia47:37

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Representative Peterson asked kind of a question around my first, which is just around the cost savings of, uh, the paper. The second question is, um, you talk about reducing some of the administrative burdens. Do you have a sense of how much time this will save? Um, with moving to this model?

  26. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher47:58

      I, I don't know off the top of my head, but I know we've got some amazing county clerks that are here and, uh, that always love my bills. And I'm sure they, they could give you a better sense of what they think the savings might be.

  27. Committee chair48:08

      Okay. Thank you. Alright, thank you Representative fia. Um, I see no further questions from the committee. So at this point we will, uh, go to the chair because I have a couple.

  28. Committee chair48:21

      So, so if you just, uh, re reverify for me that does the technology currently exist to implement this now? Yes. I don't know if any of you are gathering signatures for your own reelection campaigns, but if you, you, whether you are or not, you would've saw the, the box that said, which path do you want to go down to collect signatures. Uh, you know, you could go convention only, you could go electronic path, you could go paper path, or you could go, go both today anyone can go and access that app and um, and collect signatures electronically today.

  29. Committee chair48:56

      Okay. And then the, the other thing, just for clarification, 'cause I think you said this, but does this app allow you to operate offline, save data, uh, until you can get back into an online situation?

  30. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher49:08

      It doesn't today, but that's what is mandated in this bill. So by 2028, they have to add that functionality.

  31. Committee chair49:14

      Okay. And your bill also mandates that it's done electronically?

  32. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher49:18

      No, no more paper After, after 2030. 2030. So 2028, we'll have that functionality. We'll still have two years before we phase it out. And, and like I said, uh, Mr. Chair, the, we're, we're putting a line in the sand, you know, if we need more time, there's plenty of, of sessions between now and then to, to kick it down the road. Um, but this is getting us to where I think we need to be.

  33. Committee chair49:42

      Alright. Hey, we thank you for bringing this to the committee and for your innovative thought. We're gonna go to the public now. Uh, raise your hand if you'd like to speak on this bill. Okay. I see four. Uh, we'll look online as well, but, uh, if you're for the bill, raise your hand. If you're against the bill, raise your hand. Okay. Uh, you made the heart sign earlier, now you're not sure. Okay. We're doing the six 70. Well, uh, Representative Teuscher, we'll ask you to vacate the chair so we can fill these and, uh, have, have you folks come up. We're gonna limit your, your time to, uh, 120 seconds. That's very generous. You can do a great deal in 120 seconds. So come on up. Those of you who wanna speak on the bill, uh, please sign the clipboard and, uh, let us know your name and, uh, who you represent. And then you'll get your two minutes.

  34. Kristin Richey, resident50:44

      There we go. Good afternoon. My name's Kristen Richie and I'm from Highland. I have real concerns and questions regarding this bill and going digital. How would human beings ever see the data or counted or know if it had been manipulated? Would information going into the system disappear behind a technological curtain that the Lieutenant Governor's office would be solely in charge of monitoring for us, in order to have transparency in elections, it's crucial to have physical proof that can be examined and counted in front of human beings. I have concerns that fewer people would participate in signature gathering because they do not possess an approved device. Line. 269 states that the device does not contain any applications, software, or other data other than those approved by the Lieutenant Governor. What device is that? Do I have one? I don't know. The bill describes a web-based or application-based interface designated by the Lieutenant Governor to access the system. That's line 2 25. And cybersecurity is a huge issue for me there. Who oversees this? How do we have confidence? It has not been manipulated. Where's the physical proof we can examine in the process? I don't see any mention of a published signature list or the cybersecurity concerns that I mentioned. I feel like we're getting off track, trying to further justify signature gathering with various rules, processes, and innovations that make it more difficult for common citizens to be involved in the process and have confidence in the integrity of their elections. Thank you so much for the opportunity to express my concerns.

  35. Committee chair52:47

      Thank you ma'am. And thanks for being with us today. Um, we will turn the time over to Marilyn. We know you ma'am, go ahead. Tell us who you are. Anyway.

  36. Marilyn Momeny, resident52:56

      Marilyn Momani. I'm a citizen representing myself and I am thrilled that I have now achieved, uh, honorary statuses. People are sharing my examples. So I'm gonna go home and tell my husband. I'm halfway famous at the Government Ops Committee. Um, I didn't know that there was a system. I actually texted Jordan Tuscher ahead of time and I guess it's been out for a few weeks and we can register. I, I like software, I'm game to try it. Um, I don't know if the signatures for prop four, how they registered, so I don't know if we can do that. But my thing is, let's try it. Let's make sure it works. I think if we try it and it works and people like it, people will just move to that. We live in the digital age. I'm not sure why we have to mandate a date. Um, the biggest concern, 'cause obviously I'm interested in elections and I'm in a number of groups. The biggest concern that people have is security because of the issue with the signature verification, and I don't know if you probably all know, but the lawsuit got opened back up again, um, from the 2024 signature issue. And the reason it was opened up is because two government agencies didn't give accurate information on what was going on with signature packets. And so I think there's a huge level of distrust in giving our state agencies sole control over everything. They have a lot. Now, I, I have a grammar request that I've appealed and they're telling me there's zero records that are responsive to their request. Even though the letter that the atten that the Lieutenant Governor wrote said, her staff spent two weeks compiling the data. And because of this lack of sharing of data, lack of transparency by government agencies, there's a huge level of distrust that we are now taking. What's a paper piece of paper we can verify and turning it over to an agency. And now we have no visibility of it. If this bill passes, I think the other bill that has to pass is John Johnson's Senate Bill 1 53, which requires that when you sign a candidate nomination petition, that information has to be posted on the LGS website. So we have visibility of who's signing these petitions and whether those signatures are are valid or, you know, multiple names. So again, there's a lot of bills going through. Um, Mikel had a bill yesterday that kind of repeats what's in the John Johnson bill, the SB 1 53, but his bill, SB 1 94 doesn't have the, the c the signers have to be posted on the LGS website. We've gotta have that transparency or people will not buy into this. So I don't know whether I'm a yes or a no, but those are kind of the concerns and conditions I have. Thank you very much.

  37. Committee chair56:09

      Thank you, Marilyn, for being here today. Uh, come on up, uh, Ricky and then anyone else who wants to speak to the bill, please come on up.

  38. Ricky Hatch, Weber County Clerk Auditor56:18

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ricky Hatch. I'm the Weber County Clerk auditor here representing the county clerks for the state of Utah. And to al always share the love with Representative Teuscher. Um, we want to thank him for his innovation and his, uh, continual reaching out to us, and we appreciate that The, the clerks do appreciate, uh, the concept of performing that check on, uh, a signature and on a voter, uh, putting their name on the petition. We appreciate having that check up front. That definitely does increase the efficiency on the backend, um, to allow that. And it's going to decrease the number of, uh, rejected signatures because quite often people will sign a packet that they don't even qualify to sign for if it's safe for a candidate and they're not in that district, things like that. So we do appreciate that that does, that would reduce the administrative burden, uh, on counties, uh, down the road. Uh, we do have some concerns about data privacy. Uh, uh, anytime you're gonna scan a government id, uh, and collect that kind of information electronically, there's con there's some concern about that. There are some provisions in the bill as well as in state code that addresses that. Uh, so that is one, one concern that we have. And we do have some concern if we move to an exclusively electronic, um, situation, uh, for folks who don't have access to government IDs, um, that would be essentially be blocked outta that process. So b based off of that, that's a big long way of saying the clerks are neutral on this bill. We don't have a, have a support or opposed position on this. Thank you.

  39. Committee chair58:02

      Thanks for being here. Ma'am, go ahead.

  40. Kenna Stringham, Elections Coordinator, Lieutenant Governor's Office58:06

      Hi, um, my name is Kenneth Stringham. I'm an elections coordinator with Lieutenant Governor's office. Um, firstly we wanted to thank Representative Teuscher for his work on this bill and for working with our office in this process. Um, our office is very supportive of the e petition platform and we are happy to help deliver this legislatively mandated system. Um, we do believe that with some more de development, this platform will make the signature gathering process more efficient. However, as of today, the petition, the e petition platform has not been successfully used to gather signatures and still has futures that need to be ironed out. Um, because of this, we are a little bit worried about the artificial timeline that is outlined in this bill. Um, out of all the candidates that have declared their desire to use the platform for candidate signature gathering, only one gathering group has reached out on behalf of four candidates. Um, and they are the only ones that have made any sort of inquiry into how to use the electronic route. Um, and as of today, they have yet to collect any signatures for those candidates. Um, because of this, we do believe that it may be premature to Sunset the manual petition process, especially given the untested nature of the electronic platform. Thank you.

  41. Committee chair59:27

      Alright, very good. Thank you for being with us. Um, looks like Alright, we got one on line. So Seth Stewart, turn on your camera please and tell us where you reside and then you'll have, uh, two minutes.

  42. Seth Stewart, resident59:41

      Great. Yeah. So I'm Seth Stewart from American Fork. I have, uh, foundational concerns with the signature gathering method and the updates. Signature gathering disproportionately favors candidates and issues with deep financial backing in a free and fair election system candidates campaign to a single electorate and compete with each other for their vote Signature gathering removes the competitive element and replaces direct contrasts and debate with a test not only of individual voter approval, but also of a campaigner's ability to reach large numbers of people without the benefit of the government apparatus. To invite the public to weigh in on a public question already raised, making it a pay to play effort that favors those with expedited media access, social media and distribution. By transmitting personally identifying information to the Lieutenant Governor's office, the parties in power gain information about a base of loyalists and to dissenters who are for or against a given candidate or issue. There is no protection against misuse of this information by incumbents and merely appointing someone within government to promise us that it is not happening or will not happen is forever inadequate because that is not a real check. While the transition to digital signature gathering might cut costs, it removes crucial oversight and transparency by centralizing information and verification. Those in government have a right to know the outcome of each vote or election in terms of the number of votes cast and for what or whom. They do not have a right to know who voted how. I have counted votes as a volunteer in our caucus system. And there are two major items of importance an election worker must verify. First, he must authenticate that the prospective voter has a valid credential to vote. And credentialing at the precinct level has always worked because no one can verify your identity better than your neighbors can, and there's no need to centralize it. Second, the worker must ensure that the voter cast exactly one ballot ballots are anonymized before they're read. Trusting a piece of software authored by the parties and government entrenches a clear conflict of interests. While I appreciate the effort, perfecting an inherently flawed, centralized, and non-transparent system is not really an upgrade to our system of checks and balances. Thank you for your time. I urge you and HB 2 23.

  43. Committee chair1:01:36

      Alright, thank you. Well done. You, you finished in, in time. Appreciate your comments. Well, we really appreciate you being here, Seth. Alright. Um, we'll close public comment at this point. Um, I do wanna say Representative Teuscher, I appreciate the fact that you, uh, are innovative and you're thinking of the future. I think over time, uh, this is just gonna happen. As a matter of course, we're gonna have to pay attention to technology as it develops and improves. Uh, with that, I'm gonna open it up to the committee for, uh, further discussion and or action.

  44. Committee chair1:02:15

      Okay. Representative Cutler, go ahead, sir.

  45. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:02:20

      Thank you. I, uh, I'm supportive of this effort. I, I think we're moving in the right direction. I just wanted to ask, uh, representative Tesser, if he clarify when a user signs, uh, electronically. My understanding is there would be a, uh, data that's created that says when they sign it would have a, a timestamp. You would know who that, you, who that, uh, person is. So there is a verifiable log that could be audited, uh, if, if needed, whether we print it out or write it by hand, there will still be a log.

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

      Is that correct? That's exactly Correct. Thank you.

  47. Committee chair1:02:57

      Alright, thank you Representative Keller. Um, Representative Peterson. And then we'll move over to Representative Stoddard. Go ahead.

  48. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:03:07

      Thank you. Um, you're an energizer bunny. I gotta tell you, I I don't know anybody that works so hard to make these things happen. You're awesome. You, you do a great work, uh, representative. But having said that, I, you know, you, you blew me away when you said the Olympic Hills cost and you started, started to reel me in. Um, but I'm, but I gotta tell you, I'm concerned that esp you know, especially when right here, the LGS office and the clerks, they didn't gimme any confidence. And, and when I see a 2028, uh, it, it doesn't all operate yet. And then I see it's gonna happen in 2028. We wanna make this happen in 2030. I gotta say, I'm, I'm concerned. Oh, I need to reserve a right to make a motion. Um, um, we're gonna have to move to somebody else, but go ahead and make your So, so, I, so I have my concerns that it's, that it's, that it's gonna be quite ready for to, to make it mandatory. And, and, and if, and if I'm hopeful that maybe you'd be willing to, to see if we could put the mandatory off and just let it more happen naturally as, as things happen and people become more, uh, more confident. So there you go.

  49. Committee chair1:04:25

      Alright, thanks for your comments. And, uh, silly me man. I said Stoddard was next. And so I've gotta go to Representative Stoddard, who I love, like a brother.

  50. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:04:35

      Go ahead, sir. I'm gonna make my motion first, so don't forget, uh, I move that we favorably recommend HB 2 23 electronic signature collection amendments.

  51. Committee chair1:04:50

      All right, that motion is in order, um, discussion to the motion representative. Fifi,

  52. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:04:57

      Do I get to speak to it?

  53. Committee chair1:04:59

      Oh, no, we've heard enough from you. Go ahead, representative.

  54. Rep. Doug Fiefia1:05:06

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and I'd like to thank the good representative for your work on this. Um, as someone who has been labeled in the legislature as anti-technology recently because of my bills, um, I think this is the few cases where this makes sense, saves money, it brings efficiency and also fixes a lot of integrity problems that I'm concerned with when it relates to, um, when it relates to elections. It fixes concerns around legible handwriting, duplicate signatures out of county signers, um, weeks or months of verification delays. These are all good things that we need. I know there's, and a concern around cyber, believe me, the last cybersecurity bill that went through my committee, we sat for hours and went line by line to ensure that our data was safe. Uh, if there's someone who cares about this, it's definitely me. And I, I think what this does here is adds what's called digital provenance, which if you have a paper and you want to verify and go back, someone can throw it away and it's gone. This, this is why a lot of fraud happens with cash. And we've moved to a digital where you can actually see where the money transferred. And, and you can see the digital receipt. Digital provenance is a way to see where the signature and everything that happened with timestamps. This will fix a lot of the problems we have in elections. Now, I know the concern of, well, we are, we're mandating it, it's 2030. Well, the nice thing about sun setting something that far out is if it's wrong, we come back again every single year for 45 days and we fix it. But what this does is it sets a goal that we can all work towards. And I think that's all this is. This is all this bill is, is let's try to get digital. Let's make sure that cyber works. Let's make sure the app works. Let's make sure that everything is in line and let's get there. But if we just wait and we continue to have paper signatures, we continue to have integrity problems and we, we will see the amount of legal, uh, battles happen, increase because we continue to have paper signatures. And I, I think this is a good move. So I think the good representative for his work here and, uh, I shall I share my support?

  55. Committee chair1:07:29

      Alright, further discussion. The motion, uh, Representative Peterson, is your light on? Alright, thank you.

  56. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:07:35

      Go ahead. Uh, I'd like to make a substitute motion.

  57. Committee chair1:07:38

      Alright, that's in order. Go ahead.

  58. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:07:40

      I'd like to, uh, motion that we hold and see if we get at least this date thing repaired a little bit and then, and then come back.

  59. Committee chair1:07:52

      Okay. Um, so the motion before us now is to hold any discussion to that motion to hold. I saw a light over there. Did you, are you alright? Go ahead, representative.

  60. Unknown speaker1:08:06speaker not certain

      Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I was gonna speak similarly to the first motion, um, but now we're speaking to your substitute motion, so I'll speak to that. Um, I would support the motion to hold, uh, for the same reasons. Um, I, uh, personally, I am not someone who's afraid of digital technology, if it's secure, if it makes our lives better, and I'm not sure that this doesn't do that. Um, but I also have concerns about the mandate, um, the, uh, offline aspects of it. Uh, and I think there's wisdom in what's been said about just seeing if it, we can make it, just see how it works and goes before we start mandating change. And, uh, so I'm gonna support the motion to hold.

  61. Committee chair1:09:00

      Alright. Thank you. Representative Malloy. Representative Welton.

  62. Rep. Doug Welton1:09:04

      Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I would, I, I appreciate both points of view on this issue. I, I think having a date is good. Government doesn't move if there's not like a deadline pushing us to, to move ahead. Um, I, I look at my TV signals and, you know, we'd still be on analog if there wasn't like, here's the line in the sand that we're going to move towards. And so if we're not there, we can always backtrack this and change this in 2027 or 2028 or 2029 if the technology's not there and we're not moving. But I think, uh, we're in a good place and I would, I would vote against holding.

  63. Committee chair1:09:40

      Right. Thank you. Uh, representative Pucci.

  64. Rep. Candice B. Pierucci1:09:45

      I was just gonna say usually a date we can just strike and fix and committee if we wanted to do that now, but I, I think I agree with Representative Walton that we need to have something pushing us. If not, this never happens. But we can continue that discussion. I was curious where the sponsor was at on the motion as well, if the good chair would go to him at some point.

  65. Committee chair1:10:03

      Yep. He's next. Uh, bill sponsor, uh, your, uh, discussion on this motion to hold.

  66. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:10:09

      No, thank, thank you. Um, I obviously, uh, think that Bill should advance, but, um, what I, what I wanted to say it similar to what Representative Welton had talked about, I think it's really important to have a goal out there. And as you heard from the Lieutenant Governor's office, people aren't naturally moving over to the digital platform because they're, it's what they've always done in the past, and they're afraid, especially under short timelines, that if they try something different, then maybe it won't go quite the same way that they had. And so when we passed this bill in 2022 and we saw that people weren't using this path that we created despite the advantages, that's what spurred the discussion in the interim committee to say, okay, well how can we help people and, and encourage them to start trying out this path? And that's exactly what this is trying to do, is to incentivize people to say, Hey, at some point I'm going to have to move to this path. And, and we've opened the window so they can do both at the same time. So they can, they can, you know, they're not being held to one or the other, um, but they can try it out, work towards it, see if it's working out, report any problems that they have, we can continue to fix the app. And, uh, like Representative Welton said, if we need to kick it out next year or two years or, or whatever, if this committee would like to move the date to 20 31, 20 32, you know, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I just think we need to get a date out there at some point that helps encourage people to start using the system that we've set up and that we've invested a significant amount of state resources into setting up.

  67. Committee chair1:11:35

      Yeah. Alright. Thank you, uh, for, for that. Uh, we'll go back to the maker of the motion, um, and let you some

  68. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:11:46

      Thank you. And I appreciate what, what you've said there. My concern is that if we, um, we're not, it's not ready for, it's not quite ready for prime time. I mean, some of the, some of the, the, the, the, uh, application, I mean the application, if you want to use it like in Lewiston, right? And it doesn't, you're not connected to the internet, you're, it's not gonna work. And, and I know we're headed there, but if we don't make it there, if we think we've had troubles in the past about signature gathering, all hell's gonna break loose if we require it. So, um, and you know, we, we have, uh, what an HB two 18 we're, so we're, we're already trying to, trying to move this forward. And, uh, so for that, that, that's why I, that's why I, I would maybe a 2032, maybe a 2033. I, I, I don't, I don't think 2030 is the time. So I, again, I, I I think we ought hold this.

  69. Committee chair1:12:42

      Alright. Thank you for your comments. We're gonna go back to the maker of the original motion for his comments on this. Go ahead, sir.

  70. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:12:49

      Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um, I would oppose the motion to hold. Um, I understand there's some concerns about the data collection, but it seems the maker of the motion is only concerned with the year. That's something that could be easily fixed. We've worked on this issue, we've talked about this issue. It's time to get it going. I think the biggest question here is whether it's gonna be Android or Apple devices, but we're gonna have to wait to see the result of Senator Cullimore bill to figure that out. So right here I'd say no on the motion to hold and let's, let's get this thing going.

  71. Committee chair1:13:21

      Alright, thank you. Um, we're gonna go ahead and take a voice vote on the motion to hold. Um, so go, go ahead. Let me turn on your mic this time, ma'am, go ahead. Representative Welton Motion to hold. Yay, nay motion to hold. I was a no Representative. Stoddard, no Representative Pucci? No. Representative Maloy? Yes. Representative MacPherson? No. Representative Loubet? No. Representative Fiefia? No. Representative Cutler? No. Representative Peterson? Yes. And Chair Bruton? No. 2 8 2 2 Voted a. Alright. The motion fails eight to two. Oh, passes. I mean, and it fails. Yes. The motion fails. Eight to two.

  72. Committee chair1:14:19

      I just wanted to say, I, I appreciate th this discussion and what's gone on. I understand the concerns that are out there, uh, potentially with, uh, with, uh, technology, but, uh, the fact is technology's moving forward and we can't bear our heads in the sand. We do need to be, uh, intelligent about the way we move forward. However, so we are at the point where we're going back to the original motion, which was to pass out favorably. Uh, correct. So I'm gonna give you a chance now to describe why you make this motion. Go ahead.

  73. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:14:56

      No, you kinda need that. Thank you. There You go. Um, I, I think this is important. I think we ought to be making sure that the process we have are secure, are easy. And I think this bill does just that. Uh, I appreciate the sponsor's work on this. I know he's worked very hard on it, but I think this is the direction we should be heading. And so let's get this to the floor. Let's have a debate on it, but thank you for your work on it.

  74. Committee chair1:15:23

      Alright, thank you Representative Stoddard discussion of the MO motion. We have, uh, Representative Maloy.

  75. Rep. A. Cory Maloy1:15:30

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm, I'm just gonna reiterate, I guess kind of what I said before, which is, uh, I, I don't have an issue with technology and I think we are going that direction and I don't have an issue with that really. But, um, we have some experts or people here from the clerk's office, from the LGS office that didn't leave us with a vote of confidence from their areas. And, uh, and I actually have, uh, issues with the mandate, not necessarily the deadline as much as the mandate. I think. I also think, uh, a digital and a hard copy way of doing it, uh, is probably the right course, at least as it's all the kinks are being worked out. You know, if we set it up and it happens, then we, I think we should have both because in the same, in the same light in those rural areas where, uh, it's not, I don't think it's just, uh, internet hookups, it's just the technology and it's not, it, I don't think it's used as much as it would be on the Wasatch front. Uh, I, I'm probably totally wrong with that, but, um, I would just be concerned that there is no other backup way to do it, especially for some of the rural, uh, uh, county clerks and so on. So I guess I'm gonna be, uh, I would've preferred to hold so I could just keep working on it and, and maybe make it better. But, um, because of we didn't do that. I, I guess I'm gonna be a no vote, but, uh, I don't think it's not gonna happen. I'm just a little bit concerned about right now. Alright. Thank you Representative Malloy.

  76. Committee chair1:17:15

      Any other discussion of the motion? Alright, uh, seeing none, bill sponsor, um, your summation or end discussion of the motion here? Yeah,

  77. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:17:24

      I'll, I'll be quick and not rehash anything that we've already talked about. One thing I did want to clarify and I, I talked to, um, to Mr. Hatch about this as they came down. Um, there is a process in place if you don't have id. Um, and that process is laid out in the code. It's already set up with the electronic process that you have today where they gather a lot of information, they still gather the signature and then it does go to the clerks where they have to verify it, unlike the instant verification that you have with the id. Um, so just wanna make sure that that is clear. And then, and also say that absence this, absent this bill, the development of the offline solution won't be developed, right. That, that's a requirement in this bill that isn't required otherwise. And so we need to pass the bill if we want to ensure that anyone can use the electronic system, even if they don't have internet access at the, at the time. So I appreciate the great discussion. This, uh, this committee always does a very thorough job of, uh, looking at bills and, and would appreciate your support.

  78. Committee chair1:18:23

      Alright, thank you. And one of the great things about the Utah state legislature is we make mistakes sometimes and we own 'em and we, we fix 'em. And so just a pointed question to you, uh, sponsor, if, uh, through the, uh, next, uh, year or so you see that technology isn't ready or there's a problem, uh, on the horizon, would you be willing to, uh, sponsor legislation to repeal the bill?

  79. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:18:50

      Absolutely. Alright. Okay. I need to say that, so thank you.

  80. Committee chair1:18:55

      Alright, so, uh, seeing no further discussion, the motion before us as we favorably pass out, uh, house Bill 2 23 electronic signature collection amendments. I will take a, uh, vo voice vote on this one as well. So, go ahead ma'am. Representative Welton? Yes. Representative Stoddard? Yes. Representative Pucci? Yes. Representative Maloy? No. Representative MacPherson? Yes. Representative Loubet? Yes. Representative Fiefia? Yes. Representative Cutler. I stepped out for a bill. And Representative Peterson? No. Representative Chair Burton? Yes. Alright. The, the rule this passed is seven to two. Congratulation representative.

  81. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:19:55

      Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you.

  82. Committee chair1:19:57

      Alright, uh, we're moving to the next item, uh,

• Feb 9, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Rep. Thomas Dunnigan19:15

     Representative Dunnigan, Mr. Speaker, I move to circle.

  2. Speaker (presiding)19:18

     Thank you. Representative, would you like to speak to that sponsors off the floor?

  3. Speaker (presiding)19:22

     Thank you, representative. Uh, discussion to the motion to circle. Seeing none. We'll go and place the motion.

  4. Speaker (presiding)19:27

     The motion before us the house circle HB 2 23. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes.

  5. Speaker (presiding)19:34

     The bill's been circled. Madam Reading Clerk

• Feb 9, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (34 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker57:41speaker not certain

     I move that we encircle house Bill 2 23.

  2. Speaker (presiding)57:44

     Thank you, representative. That motion is in order. We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the house in circle HP 2 23. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been encircled, um, before the BO body for its consideration to you. Representative Teuscher.

  3. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher58:02

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I I also move that we, uh, move the first substitute of HB 2 23.

  4. Speaker (presiding)58:07

     Thank you. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to it?

  5. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher58:10

     I would. Uh, this makes it just a couple minor changes. It, uh, changes the cybersecurity requirements to meet the Lieutenant Governor's requirements, uh, as there were some concerns brought up in, uh, committee about that. It also requires the LGS office to report back to the Government Operations Interim Committee, uh, each year. And then it includes a coordinating clause with HB 32.

  6. Speaker (presiding)58:33

     Thank you Representative Teuscher. Discussion to the motion to adopt first substitute under Representative Teuscher name on HB 2 23. See none. I'll go ahead and place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes. The bill has been substituted before the body for its consideration. Back to you, Representative Teuscher. Thank

  7. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher58:56

     You, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues. As you'll remember, um, back in 2022, this legislature passed, uh, HB two 18, which created an electronic signature gathering process for initiatives referendums and candidate nominations. Now, at the time, uh, this was brought because as some communities decided that they wanted to move forward with some from referendums of local decisions that their, their counties had had made, they found that just the printing process in terms of getting those, um, packets together and having to print out all the information was significantly prohibitive. Uh, in fact, in one, uh, potential referendum that was trying to be run in Salt Lake County, they estimated it would cost over a million dollars just to print the paper in order to run for, in order to, to run this, uh, referendum, even though they weren't using any paid staff whatsoever. And ultimately they were unable to raise that money. And, and the law went into effect. And so, uh, this legislature wisely, uh, created a path that, that, uh, created an electronic signature gathering process. Essentially, it's an a, uh, a website that you browse to on your phone that follows exactly the same process that you would for gathering regular signatures. Uh, there's still gatherers that go out there, but then rather than signing on a piece of paper, you sign on an app. But one of the great things that this bill included is that rather than forcing the verification of that person's identity through the signature, uh, process, they gather the information from a scan of their id. And so that that instantly verifies that that person is the right person, just like we do for voting or any of the other, uh, elements that, you know, if you wanna buy a beer or, um, alcohol or, um, tobacco or anything else in the state where you want to prove your identity just like this. If you want to sign a signature packet you sign, or you, you scan the back of your id, that verifies your identity and you're able to move forward. This prevents a number of, uh, great benefits in that it's, um, less expensive because you no longer have to print any paper. There's more integrity in the process because you're scanning the ID card rather than, uh, trying to rely on verification of signatures that we all know is, uh, is fraught with a lot of problems. It reduces the administrative burdens because clerks no longer have to, uh, compare signatures. And then for those that are gathering the signatures, because they get that instant verification, they know exactly where they're at and the number of signatures that they need to gather. So no longer do you have to pay or have your, your volunteers try to gather 20% extra. 'cause you don't know who, how many are actually going to be verified, you know, instantly at all times, whether or not that person is, is registered to vote, whether or not they qualify to sign the petition, whether they've signed it for someone else, um, et cetera. All of that is instant. And then it allows, um, for widespread, uh, collection across the state, uh, without having to, uh, manage a number of packets and try to distribute them and then gather them back in. So what HB 2 23 does is it moves forward to say this is going to be the path that we'll move forward for gathering signatures. It Sunset the paper signature, uh, gathering path in 2030. So in four years from now. Uh, it also adds in a requirement that, uh, the electronic Signature Gathering Program be able to collect signatures offline. So currently the program can't collect those offline. It has to be connected to internet at all time. This would allow for them to collect the information, just like any other app. And as soon as you're in, in cell phone range or in internet access, that it would upload that information, um, back over to the, to the LGS office to be able to verify, uh, the information. This is a, uh, an ambitious path to try to get us to where we need to be. And by 2030, uh, as I mentioned earlier, we've added in a number of provisions to give time. We'll have, uh, three legislative sessions between now and then. We'll have reporting coming back from the LGS office to make sure everything is on track to be able to move to this, this process. But if we don't put that line in the sand, it's gonna be difficult to make sure that we're ready by 2030 to move to this system, which is a much better and more secure process. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge your support of this bill.

  8. Speaker (presiding)1:03:11

     Thank you, representative Tess. Your discussion to the bill representative Mike Peterson, representative Mike Peterson.

  9. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:03:18

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Teuscher, will you yield to a series of questions?

  10. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:03:24

      Yes. Yes. Representative Peterson.

  11. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:03:26

      Thank you. Uh, first I, I wonder if, if, uh, if we could know how many campaigns or referenda or, or, uh, how many times has this process been used so far in the state successfully?

  12. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:03:40

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's a wonderful question. Uh, as far as I understand, no one has used this system yet because they, they have a paper, uh, paper method that they're used to. They go out and do that, and they're afraid, uh, that in adding the ID requirement that there'll be less people that want to sign the petition.

  13. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:04:01

      Uh, Mr. Speaker, I won't ask another question. I'll just make a comment. And that, as much as I think there's some great things about this, I, I, I, I appreciate the idea that, we'll, that we'll save money for folks. It potentially could save money for folks, but if we force people to do this, uh, it's never been tested yet. And I I I, I may come from a rural, a rural county. Uh, I'm, I'm afraid of my folks in AM in Amalga or Lewiston, and, and this doesn't work, and it's their only option that, that, so, so I'm just, I'm just afraid we don't know if this is ready for prime time. That's the answer. And because of that, I, I, I just can't support this yet.

  14. Speaker (presiding)1:04:43

      Thank you, Representative Peterson. Further discussion to the bill. Representative Dunnigan.

  15. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez1:04:48speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sponsor, yield Representative Teuscher, will you yield?

  16. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:04:52

      Yes. Yes. Representative Dunnigan.

  17. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:04:55

      So under this, uh, process, somebody comes to the door and I wanna sign the petition. I'll have to show them my driver's licenses or other qualifying id. Is that the idea?

  18. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:05:06

      Yeah, just as part of the app. The, the verification process comes when you show your ID and scan the back of it. And that, and that way they instantly verify your identity.

  19. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:05:17

      Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns with this. Uh, right now we have the ability to gather signature electronically. Many people don't want to do it. They don't want to. If somebody comes to the door, they have no desire to show their driver's license to them to show their ID to them. And so it, I believe it curtails, it makes it much more difficult to engage in the, in the process, whether it be a, you know, petition or a referenda or whatever. So I'm very concerned that instead of having an option now where we can do electronically or we can do manually, we're taking the manual way and gonna require everybody to pull out their driver's license to some stranger that's standing in the door. So that concerns me. Mr. Speaker?

  20. Speaker (presiding)1:05:56

      Thank you, Representative Dunnigan. Further discussion to the bill. Representative Shepherd.

  21. Rep. Jill Koford1:06:01speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative Teuscher, will you yield? Yes. Yes, representative. Thank

  22. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:06:08

      You, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to verify, is the driver's license required or is it just one way of showing your id? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  23. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:06:19

      If you don't have a driver's license, there's a variety of other ways that you could verify your identification, but those process then require the manual review of the clerk's office to ensure that it really is you.

  24. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:06:31

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may make a comment. That's okay. Thank you. I actually requested to see this process from our LGS office, and, um, spent about an hour going through it and trying it with an id. Trying it without an id. You can use a Costco id. It does just have to go back to the county clerk then, and then be approved. Uh, the signature verified and approved. So as far as what I have seen, the only thing that I would be concerned is that we require that we Sunset it, but I'll be voting in favor of it today, and I think we can look at that Sunset at another time. I think the opportunity for us to save so many man hours and so much money in that verification process by using the electronic voting will be helpful and budget reducing in our county clerk's offices. Thank you.

  25. Speaker (presiding)1:07:28

      Thank you, Representative Shepherd. Further discussion to the bill representative Grant Millard.

  26. Rep. Grant Amjad Miller1:07:33

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, rise in opposition to the bill. I, I appreciate, uh, the good bill sponsor here. Uh, and the effort here to really streamline, uh, verification of signatures. This would take a lot of man hours out of the process. That said, I have collected many signatures myself. I collected signatures to get onto the ballot. I've collected signatures for initiatives. Um, it is very inherent in the way that our system is structured to just want to put ink on paper. People are used to it. It's comfortable. Um, and it's an entirely different thing. It's very, very personal, very invasive to ask someone to pull out their driver's license. And then you have someone you don't know pull out their, their phone or their tablet and scan it. Um, we have a lot of issues right now reading the news with, uh, you know, regardless of political affiliation, people being hired out to collect signatures and, and doing it in a fraudulent way. And we're trusting them to collect driver's license photos of, of, of constituents. Um, we've collected signatures ink on paper. I mean, this goes back to 1960, uh, you know, sorry, 1669. The House of Commons had resolutions of how to collect ink on paper petitions. We've been doing it since before the founding of this country. We've been doing it all throughout the 250 years of this country. We wanna set and set it within, uh, a couple of years. I, I'm worried about that. Uh, I think that we have a classic process. Yes, it's arduous to verify it, but I kind of concerned about what it means to actually persuade the amounts of people we need to sign petitions to pull out their driver's license to trust strangers with that sensitive information. So I I, I oppose the bill.

  27. Speaker (presiding)1:09:17

      Thank you, Representative Miller. Further discussion to the bill Representative Shelley.

  28. Rep. Tracy Miller1:09:24speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I rise in support of this. I think there's been so much, uh, ms, uh, mistrust in our election process, whether it's through the, uh, ballot initiatives or any other way. And so this just, this just strengthens the ability to, to make sure that we know who's signing the ballots, who's signing the initiatives. Um, it's a great starting point. I'm sure there's gonna be improvements, but, uh, I appreciate the sponsor for bringing it forward.

  29. Speaker (presiding)1:09:52

      Thank you Representative Shelley for the discussion of the bill. Representative Cutler.

  30. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:09:55

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wanna rise in support. Sometimes government needs a little push to, to move forward and use the technology that's available, that's more efficient, that protects privacy and improves process. And I think this is one of those case. And I commend the sponsor for his work.

  31. Speaker (presiding)1:10:11

      Thank you, Representative Cutler. Uh, back to you, Representative Teuscher for summation.

  32. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:10:15

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, appreciate the great conversation that we've had here and the issues that, uh, that we're having to weigh. Um, I think it's important to note that when we're engaging in gathering signatures for an initiative, a referendum, or to get a candidate on the ballot, that is an electoral process. And I think it's a little interesting that, that people would feel is in, in the words of, of some of the people that you just heard, that it's too personal or invasive, uh, for someone to have to pull out their id. This they, they are engaging in law making. And if they don't care enough about the petition that's in front of them to be able to pull out their driver's license and have it scanned, do we really want those types of people participating in the, in the law making process? That's exactly what this is here. Um, we're ensuring that it's more secure, that those people that really have signed the petition actually signed the petition. And I think all of you have seen news, news articles really just in the last couple of weeks of hundreds of signatures that are, that people are saying, were obtained fraudulently or were forged. This takes that out of the equation. A hundred percent ensures that every signature that is gathered is by the person who actually wants their signature on the line. And, and when we move forward in this process, I get that for hundreds of years, people have been used to signing things on paper. Well, for hundreds of years, people rode horses and donkeys and wagons, and then they got used to a car, right? And now everyone drives a car and it isn't that different in this type of a system. They'll get used to signing petitions on a tablet like they do everywhere else, uh, except for participating in one of the most important aspects of their, uh, of their lives in engaging in electoral processes. And so, uh, colleagues, I would urge your support of this. I think this gets us on the right path. If there are any issues as we move forward to 2030, we have plenty of time to continue to kick the can down the road. But if we don't draw that line in the sand, it just isn't going to happen. And we'll continue to have the fraud that we've seen here and the con the huge amount of work and burden that we're placing on all of our clerks. Thank you.

  33. Speaker (presiding)1:12:28

      Thank you. Representative TE voting will now be open on first substitute HP 2 23. Representative Maloy like to vote, seen all present, having voted voting is now closed. First sub HB 2 23 passes this body with 46 yes votes, 25 no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

  34. Speaker (presiding)1:13:43

      Representative MacPherson.

• Feb 9, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (35 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker58:04speaker not certain

     move the first substitute of HB 2 23.

  2. Speaker (presiding)58:07

     Thank you. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to it?

  3. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher58:10

     I would. Uh, this makes it just a couple minor changes. It, uh, changes the cybersecurity requirements to meet the Lieutenant Governor's requirements, uh, as there were some concerns brought up in, uh, committee about that. It also requires the LGS office to report back to the Government Operations Interim Committee, uh, each year. And then it includes a coordinating clause with HB 32.

  4. Speaker (presiding)58:33

     Thank you Representative Teuscher. Discussion to the motion to adopt first substitute under Representative Teuscher name on HB 2 23. See none. I'll go ahead and place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes. The bill has been substituted before the body for its consideration. Back to you, Representative Teuscher. Thank

  5. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher58:56

     You, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues. As you'll remember, um, back in 2022, this legislature passed, uh, HB two 18, which created an electronic signature gathering process for initiatives referendums and candidate nominations. Now, at the time, uh, this was brought because as some communities decided that they wanted to move forward with some from referendums of local decisions that their, their counties had had made, they found that just the printing process in terms of getting those, um, packets together and having to print out all the information was significantly prohibitive. Uh, in fact, in one, uh, potential referendum that was trying to be run in Salt Lake County, they estimated it would cost over a million dollars just to print the paper in order to run for, in order to, to run this, uh, referendum, even though they weren't using any paid staff whatsoever. And ultimately they were unable to raise that money. And, and the law went into effect. And so, uh, this legislature wisely, uh, created a path that, that, uh, created an electronic signature gathering process. Essentially, it's an a, uh, a website that you browse to on your phone that follows exactly the same process that you would for gathering regular signatures. Uh, there's still gatherers that go out there, but then rather than signing on a piece of paper, you sign on an app. But one of the great things that this bill included is that rather than forcing the verification of that person's identity through the signature, uh, process, they gather the information from a scan of their id. And so that that instantly verifies that that person is the right person, just like we do for voting or any of the other, uh, elements that, you know, if you wanna buy a beer or, um, alcohol or, um, tobacco or anything else in the state where you want to prove your identity just like this. If you want to sign a signature packet you sign, or you, you scan the back of your id, that verifies your identity and you're able to move forward. This prevents a number of, uh, great benefits in that it's, um, less expensive because you no longer have to print any paper. There's more integrity in the process because you're scanning the ID card rather than, uh, trying to rely on verification of signatures that we all know is, uh, is fraught with a lot of problems. It reduces the administrative burdens because clerks no longer have to, uh, compare signatures. And then for those that are gathering the signatures, because they get that instant verification, they know exactly where they're at and the number of signatures that they need to gather. So no longer do you have to pay or have your, your volunteers try to gather 20% extra. 'cause you don't know who, how many are actually going to be verified, you know, instantly at all times, whether or not that person is, is registered to vote, whether or not they qualify to sign the petition, whether they've signed it for someone else, um, et cetera. All of that is instant. And then it allows, um, for widespread, uh, collection across the state, uh, without having to, uh, manage a number of packets and try to distribute them and then gather them back in. So what HB 2 23 does is it moves forward to say this is going to be the path that we'll move forward for gathering signatures. It Sunset the paper signature, uh, gathering path in 2030. So in four years from now. Uh, it also adds in a requirement that, uh, the electronic Signature Gathering Program be able to collect signatures offline. So currently the program can't collect those offline. It has to be connected to internet at all time. This would allow for them to collect the information, just like any other app. And as soon as you're in, in cell phone range or in internet access, that it would upload that information, um, back over to the, to the LGS office to be able to verify, uh, the information. This is a, uh, an ambitious path to try to get us to where we need to be. And by 2030, uh, as I mentioned earlier, we've added in a number of provisions to give time. We'll have, uh, three legislative sessions between now and then. We'll have reporting coming back from the LGS office to make sure everything is on track to be able to move to this, this process. But if we don't put that line in the sand, it's gonna be difficult to make sure that we're ready by 2030 to move to this system, which is a much better and more secure process. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge your support of this bill.

  6. Speaker (presiding)1:03:11

     Thank you, representative Tess. Your discussion to the bill representative Mike Peterson, representative Mike Peterson.

  7. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:03:18

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Teuscher, will you yield to a series of questions?

  8. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:03:24

     Yes. Yes. Representative Peterson.

  9. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:03:26

     Thank you. Uh, first I, I wonder if, if, uh, if we could know how many campaigns or referenda or, or, uh, how many times has this process been used so far in the state successfully?

  10. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:03:40

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's a wonderful question. Uh, as far as I understand, no one has used this system yet because they, they have a paper, uh, paper method that they're used to. They go out and do that, and they're afraid, uh, that in adding the ID requirement that there'll be less people that want to sign the petition.

  11. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:04:01

      Uh, Mr. Speaker, I won't ask another question. I'll just make a comment. And that, as much as I think there's some great things about this, I, I, I, I appreciate the idea that, we'll, that we'll save money for folks. It potentially could save money for folks, but if we force people to do this, uh, it's never been tested yet. And I I I, I may come from a rural, a rural county. Uh, I'm, I'm afraid of my folks in AM in Amalga or Lewiston, and, and this doesn't work, and it's their only option that, that, so, so I'm just, I'm just afraid we don't know if this is ready for prime time. That's the answer. And because of that, I, I, I just can't support this yet.

  12. Speaker (presiding)1:04:43

      Thank you, Representative Peterson. Further discussion to the bill. Representative Dunnigan.

  13. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:04:48

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sponsor, yield Representative Teuscher, will you yield?

  14. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:04:52

      Yes. Yes. Representative Dunnigan.

  15. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:04:55

      So under this, uh, process, somebody comes to the door and I wanna sign the petition. I'll have to show them my driver's licenses or other qualifying id. Is that the idea?

  16. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:05:06

      Yeah, just as part of the app. The, the verification process comes when you show your ID and scan the back of it. And that, and that way they instantly verify your identity.

  17. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:05:17

      Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns with this. Uh, right now we have the ability to gather signature electronically. Many people don't want to do it. They don't want to. If somebody comes to the door, they have no desire to show their driver's license to them to show their ID to them. And so it, I believe it curtails, it makes it much more difficult to engage in the, in the process, whether it be a, you know, petition or a referenda or whatever. So I'm very concerned that instead of having an option now where we can do electronically or we can do manually, we're taking the manual way and gonna require everybody to pull out their driver's license to some stranger that's standing in the door. So that concerns me. Mr. Speaker?

  18. Speaker (presiding)1:05:56

      Thank you, Representative Dunnigan. Further discussion to the bill. Representative Shepherd.

  19. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:06:01

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

  20. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:06:07

      Yes. Yes, representative. Thank

  21. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:06:08

      You, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to verify, is the driver's license required or is it just one way of showing your id? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  22. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:06:19

      If you don't have a driver's license, there's a variety of other ways that you could verify your identification, but those process then require the manual review of the clerk's office to ensure that it really is you.

  23. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:06:31

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may make a comment.

  24. Speaker (presiding)1:06:35

      That's okay. Thank you. I actually requested

  25. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:06:38

      to see this process from our LGS office, and, um, spent about an hour going through it and trying it with an id. Trying it without an id. You can use a Costco id. It does just have to go back to the county clerk then, and then be approved. Uh, the signature verified and approved. So as far as what I have seen, the only thing that I would be concerned is that we require that we Sunset it, but I'll be voting in favor of it today, and I think we can look at that Sunset at another time. I think the opportunity for us to save so many man hours and so much money in that verification process by using the electronic voting will be helpful and budget reducing in our county clerk's offices. Thank you.

  26. Speaker (presiding)1:07:28

      Thank you, Representative Shepherd. Further discussion to the bill representative Grant Millard.

  27. Rep. Grant Amjad Miller1:07:33

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, rise in opposition to the bill. I, I appreciate, uh, the good bill sponsor here. Uh, and the effort here to really streamline, uh, verification of signatures. This would take a lot of man hours out of the process. That said, I have collected many signatures myself. I collected signatures to get onto the ballot. I've collected signatures for initiatives. Um, it is very inherent in the way that our system is structured to just want to put ink on paper. People are used to it. It's comfortable. Um, and it's an entirely different thing. It's very, very personal, very invasive to ask someone to pull out their driver's license. And then you have someone you don't know pull out their, their phone or their tablet and scan it. Um, we have a lot of issues right now reading the news with, uh, you know, regardless of political affiliation, people being hired out to collect signatures and, and doing it in a fraudulent way. And we're trusting them to collect driver's license photos of, of, of constituents. Um, we've collected signatures ink on paper. I mean, this goes back to 1960, uh, you know, sorry, 1669. The House of Commons had resolutions of how to collect ink on paper petitions. We've been doing it since before the founding of this country. We've been doing it all throughout the 250 years of this country. We wanna set and set it within, uh, a couple of years. I, I'm worried about that. Uh, I think that we have a classic process. Yes, it's arduous to verify it, but I kind of concerned about what it means to actually persuade the amounts of people we need to sign petitions to pull out their driver's license to trust strangers with that sensitive information. So I I, I oppose the bill.

  28. Speaker (presiding)1:09:17

      Thank you, Representative Miller. Further discussion to the bill Representative Shelley.

  29. Rep. Troy Shelley1:09:24

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I rise in support of this. I think there's been so much, uh, ms, uh, mistrust in our election process, whether it's through the, uh, ballot initiatives or any other way. And so this just, this just strengthens the ability to, to make sure that we know who's signing the ballots, who's signing the initiatives. Um, it's a great starting point. I'm sure there's gonna be improvements, but, uh, I appreciate the sponsor for bringing it forward.

  30. Speaker (presiding)1:09:52

      Thank you Representative Shelley for the discussion of the bill. Representative Cutler.

  31. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:09:55

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wanna rise in support. Sometimes government needs a little push to, to move forward and use the technology that's available, that's more efficient, that protects privacy and improves process. And I think this is one of those case. And I commend the sponsor for his work.

  32. Speaker (presiding)1:10:11

      Thank you, Representative Cutler. Uh, back to you, Representative Teuscher for summation.

  33. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:10:15

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, appreciate the great conversation that we've had here and the issues that, uh, that we're having to weigh. Um, I think it's important to note that when we're engaging in gathering signatures for an initiative, a referendum, or to get a candidate on the ballot, that is an electoral process. And I think it's a little interesting that, that people would feel is in, in the words of, of some of the people that you just heard, that it's too personal or invasive, uh, for someone to have to pull out their id. This they, they are engaging in law making. And if they don't care enough about the petition that's in front of them to be able to pull out their driver's license and have it scanned, do we really want those types of people participating in the, in the law making process? That's exactly what this is here. Um, we're ensuring that it's more secure, that those people that really have signed the petition actually signed the petition. And I think all of you have seen news, news articles really just in the last couple of weeks of hundreds of signatures that are, that people are saying, were obtained fraudulently or were forged. This takes that out of the equation. A hundred percent ensures that every signature that is gathered is by the person who actually wants their signature on the line. And, and when we move forward in this process, I get that for hundreds of years, people have been used to signing things on paper. Well, for hundreds of years, people rode horses and donkeys and wagons, and then they got used to a car, right? And now everyone drives a car and it isn't that different in this type of a system. They'll get used to signing petitions on a tablet like they do everywhere else, uh, except for participating in one of the most important aspects of their, uh, of their lives in engaging in electoral processes. And so, uh, colleagues, I would urge your support of this. I think this gets us on the right path. If there are any issues as we move forward to 2030, we have plenty of time to continue to kick the can down the road. But if we don't draw that line in the sand, it just isn't going to happen. And we'll continue to have the fraud that we've seen here and the con the huge amount of work and burden that we're placing on all of our clerks. Thank you.

  34. Speaker (presiding)1:12:28

      Thank you. Representative TE voting will now be open on first substitute HP 2 23. Representative Maloy like to vote, seen all present, having voted voting is now closed. First sub HB 2 23 passes this body with 46 yes votes, 25 no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Representative MacPherson.

  35. Speaker (presiding)1:13:51

      Thank you representative. That motion is in order. We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the house, UNC circle, HB 1 36.

• Feb 17, 2026 Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (25 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:24:51

     Okay. Um, house bill, first substitute of House Bill 2 23, electronic signature collection amendments. Representative Chevrier. Thank you. Good to have you here today.

  2. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:25:04

     Yeah, good to be here. Um, thanks for having me. I do have a flyer that my intern has put together. Do you mind if she hands that out to the committee? No, That's fine. Thank You very much. Well, I, I'm excited to present this bill. Um, as many of you know, I think, uh, all of you were around, uh, in 2022, um, when we created the electronic signature gathering process, um, for initiative referendum and candidate nominations. And at the time, the intent behind this process was to create a more secure, uh, more streamlined, um, process that allowed for still gathering of signatures. This is not something that anyone could just jump online and suddenly add their signature, but rather than someone going around and collecting those signatures with a piece of paper and a pad and, you know, two signatures per page and having to deal with all of that, that you do the same thing on an electronic device. And that's what we went ahead and did in 2022. The, the state invested a fair amount of money in getting that, um, put together and developed. Um, what, uh, what HB 2 23 does is it goes ahead and, and sunsets the paper signature gathering process with enough time for everyone to get on board and, and ensure that the, the system is, is working and there aren't any, um, issues with the system. Um, and, and that is that the bill sets out that this would, this transition would happen in, in 2030. Um, additionally in the bill, it requires that the online signature Gathering program be able to scan driver's license. It currently can do that. And so that, that's how this works. So rather than, um, on a paper, someone adding their holographic signature and then that getting sent over to the clerk's office, where they have to pull out a number of signatures that you've signed on different electronic pads or for, um, uh, when you've turned in your ballot over the years and compare whether or not it really matches, um, what you do is, uh, the signature gather on any type of device that they have, um, whether it's a tablet or a phone, whatever, whatever they provide. If someone wants to, to, um, add on, add their signature to the petition, then they would just scan the back of the driver's license that gathers all the same information. It instantly verifies that voter, so they know whether or not they're registered to vote, whether or not they're registered for that petition. So say you're gathering for candidates and they don't actually live in that Senate district or that house district or school board district, or whatever it does, would let them know immediately that's the case. Um, and then once they've gone through the process, it collects that information, walks them through just the same thing that would be on the paper. You understand what you're signing here, here's a chance to read it. They can add their email address if they want to get a paper copy of it, everything that they do in the paper, uh, method. But then rather than again, having to go to the clerk's office and all that backend work, it's immediately verified. So those that are gathering for petitions right now, they often will gather 20, 30% extra signatures because they're just not sure if every signature is going to be verified. That takes away all of that extra legwork, you know, instantly how many people are verified. And you also don't have to wait for a period of time for that, that to be processed and for the signatures to, to be gone through and counted and then posted on the website and everything, everything happens at the exact same time. Um, in some feedback, uh, this, this bill had on the, uh, on the house side, we added a couple other, um, provisions that you see in the first substitute. Um, it does require that, um, that the, the platform that the Lieutenant Governor's office meets their security requirements. So currently in the bill, it says that the lieutenant's governor's office actually has to approve every device that happens to be on someone's device. That really wasn't the intent. So they just wanna make sure that they have the security that's necessary to protect that information. And I think what's important to note is that no information is stored on the device, except in the case where you don't have any web access and then it's stored for a short period of time until they, you receive access to the internet again. And then that gets uploaded to the Lieutenant Governor's office. It also requires the Lieutenant Governor's office to report back to the Government Operations Interim Committee, um, for the next period before this goes into effect. And a number of things that they need to share with the committee. How many people are using the system? Have they run into any issues? What we wanted to make sure is, if, if for some reason we're not ready for that 2030, uh, Sunset, then we have plenty of time to push that date out. But what's really important about that 2030, um, date is that gets everyone on board to this is the direction that we're going so that, that, um, people are using the system, they're trying out the system, they're getting through any sort of kinks or bugs that are in the system. Um, so it is ready to go as, as the system that will be used in the future. Um, I talked about some of the, um, advantages to this electronic system. Let me just talk about a, a couple others. Um, one is that it, it greatly reduced costs for the signature, um, gatherers. One of the reasons we ran the bill in, in, originally in 2022, there was a referendum process that, uh, a group wanted to run in Salt Lake County after the, uh, the Olympia Hills decision had been, um, approved by the county council. There were a number of people in that, the southwest part of the valley that were concerned about, that they wanted to run an initiative because of the amount of paperwork that was involved in that. The, um, the ordinance that was passed the time and our laws that require every signature packet to have a full copy of what was, what, what had to be in there. And the number of grassroots people that they were planning on, on using for this initiative, they estimated it would cost over a million dollars just to print the paper in order to run the referendum. Now, that group though, they were planning on using everything from grassroots, uh, initiative, didn't have the money to print the paper, and thus were not able, uh, to run the, the referendum. And so this, this opens it up. It takes away the, the cost element really enabling any group, um, that fills comfortable, um, or wants to move forward with an initiative referendum, signature gathering to not have those costs of printing the paper, um, greater integrity in the process. Um, we've seen reports really just in the last few weeks, um, with a, a recent initiative of fraudulent signatures, signatures that weren't counted, people saying that maybe they, they had signed on, that it, it wasn't counted, or they hadn't signed on, but someone had forged their signature. This takes away that because we're using government, ID just like we use for voting, just like we use for a number of other, um, uh, situations in the state, whether you're gonna buy alcohol, whether you're gonna buy cigarettes, whether you're going to, um, uh, enter a bar, all of those things where you have to verify your ID, when we're initiating a a law making process, it makes sense for people to have to show that they are who they are. So it adds more integrity to the process. I've already talked about reduced administrative burdens, but just think about the thousands and thousands of signatures that no longer will have to be verified by, um, the clerk's office by moving forward. Um, for those that are gathering the signatures, they get that instant verification so they don't have to pay to gather in additional signatures. And then lastly, um, what this does compared to the current system is that it allows that offline process. So in those rural areas where they don't necessarily have, uh, internet access, it allows them to use this electronic method, which in today's system they can't do. And so those are the, those are the real advantage to this bill. This is the approach that I think, uh, makes a lot of sense for the state. We've seen it in other states that have moved forward with this electronic gathering process. And, uh, Madam Chair, I would urge the committee support. Happy to answer any questions.

  3. Committee chair1:32:54

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, questions from the committee? Senator Johnson?

  4. Sen. John D. Johnson1:33:05

     I, I like, I really like this idea of, of moving towards this, but I, but I still think that there are some issues with that. Okay. A normal security protocol, you, you know, you're, you're scanning the driver's license, right? Are you taking a picture of the person when you scan the driver's license? No. So how do you know that the picture on the driver's license matches the person that's signing the document? So the, uh, the gatherer, that's one of the things that they have to attest. They attest that they've looked at the driver's license, it matches the person that's there. And then when you talk about widespread fraud, it would be very difficult for someone to, uh, replicate a number of different fraudulent driver's license that could be scanned in and then, and then move compared to someone who could fraudulently just add a holographic signature. So it's more secure than the paper process. Yes. But, but you also need an audit trail, right? Because, because if I'm going out scanning a bunch of driver's licenses, where's the chain of custody between that going, going back to the election office? How is that data encrypted? How, how do you make sure that that data isn't captured by the person collecting the signatures? Because if you did, right, you could go, you could go scan a bunch of driver's licenses and then you could, you could actually use those in the future, right? And so I, I just think that there's, I, I just think there's some security protocols that, especially when you're moving to an electronic version, right? Uh, and, and then, you know, there, there probably ought to be some type of notification system so people know that their ID was actually scanned, right? So if you had something where something you own, right? So you could scan their driver's license, they could get a text to their phone, and they could confirm that that was actually them because you, you can't just go off the barcode there. So I'm a little bit worried about some of the security protocol and, and just leaving that up to the elections office to, to come up with that because we're moving into a new frontier, right? And, and I think, I think given that we are, we, we could actually make this bulletproof with the security that's applied to it. So I, I, that worries me just a little bit, especially going to now, now we're only gonna do it this way, right? Yeah. And I do agree that this is probably, this is probably the path we need to go down, but I, but I think there's some additional security protocols that we could put into place. I, you know, I, I don't know, you, you probably know more about this than I do, but given that you've, you've worked on this, but I, I just, that, that just worries me a little bit. Yeah.

  5. Committee chair1:36:02

     Do you mind if I respond? Yes, please respond.

  6. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:36:03

     So, um, a couple things. I I do wanna make it clear, and I think you understand this, this system does exist today. So someone can go and gather electronically through this system. This bill just makes it, well, one, it moves to the Sunset that we've talked about, but also it actually adds some of that, um, uh, security, uh, protocols that you're talking about. In addition to signing the, or scanning the driver's license, it does also asks for a holographic signature. The holographic signature is not used for that verification process. But if someone were to challenge, um, that record and it does create a record in immediately, um, in the system that then goes to the LGS office, that then could, could go back. So if, if for some reason someone challenges and say, Hey, I didn't use my driver's license. They could pull up that gatherer, everything else, they went and do an investigation, reach out to other people, well, did you use your driver's license? We've got a copy of your signature. They could look at that. And it's actually more secure than you'd see on the, on the paper, um, path today for, for those very reasons, because at least, you know, somehow they got a, a scan of a driver's license. They have a holographic signature, just like the paper, uh, method today. Um, I'd love to see some sort of dual factor authentication. I don't think that we have that data or people are willing to, to link all of that data today where it has their, their phone number, that would be required because that would, that would certainly add a lot more security, but it also would require the state to own a lot more of the data, um, in order to do that and ensure that the data, I mean, it's the same thing with voting, right? It would be great if you could have dual factor authentication with voting. We, we don't do it today. That being said, there is a process right now that if the person chooses to, they can add their email address as part of that, uh, part of this process. That email address then sends out an email that lets them know that they did sign onto this initiative referendum, candidate gathering and information on how they can remove, remove their signature on it in a full copy of, um, of the initiative referendum or signature gathering. And, and the intent behind that was sometimes you're in the heat of the moment, you're getting kind of pressured to sign this thing. And so we wanted to make sure that someone had all of that information after the heat of the moment had left. And if they decided that they wanted to, to remove it, they could do it. So, I don't disagree that there's ways that we could make it more safe. However, I would just say I think this is, uh, significantly more secure than the process we have. Now. Let, let me add one other thing to, 'cause you, you threw a lot out there. Um, today. Uh, you, you talk about, well, is someone copying the same information that they have? The, the app itself doesn't allow that. Now, could someone do some screen capturing or something to do that? They could, but just like they could make a photocopy of every single paper pack packet they have and all of the information that's listed there. And so, again, I don't think it's any less safe than the process we have now. It gives us the ability to get even more secure than, than the status quo.

  7. Sen. John D. Johnson1:39:06

     Okay. Center quo. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I, we, we had a conversation earlier, the sponsor and I, um, about this. I think that there are some really good things about this. Um, I actually think speaking about more security, I think it protects some of our, um, people who have private, um, addresses. So, uh, for example, somebody who's in a, a domestic violence situation or have had that, or a, a public official who has been threatened in the past, when you're signing those packets in, you know, in real life, then that packet gets sent to, you know, taken to the next person to sign. And my information's right there, right? So I really kind of like the idea that, um, if I'm gonna be doing this online, the next person doesn't see my information. So I actually think that's, um, more secure in that, that way. But the question that I have, and I I had asked this earlier is, are we ready for that? Um, I think on two line, 2 69, if I'm reading this correctly, um, beginning on January 1st, 2028, we need to have, um, an operating system that can, um, work offline that's really close, right? And by 2030, we need to be totally off sign, uh, yeah, off signature packets and on online. Um, and I, I mean, I, I do agree we are going to, to this and perhaps this is a good way to kind of push us, but I don't know, are you, um, open to pushing those dates out a bit?

  8. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:41:02

     Uh, yeah. I mean, if that's the will of the committee, I, I think the goal here isn't necessarily to have a certain date to say it's gotta be 2030. The goal here is to say, we've gotta move to this system, and how do we get there and how do we get everyone motivated? Now, I've had conversations with Lieutenant Governor's office and DTS on these dates, and, and so far I haven't heard any pushback. They feel like these dates are reasonable. But what we, what I said before is we've, we've tied in that reporting, the annual reporting back to the government, um, operations interim committee to know if we're on track. And this gives us three legislative sessions between now and then to, if we're not on track, to say, well, we've gotta kick it down the road. And whether it's 20 30, 20 31, 20 32, I, I don't think the date matters as much as this is the direction that we want to go. And the only way to motivate government to move in a current direction is to put a date out there that everyone has to start reacting to.

  9. Sen. John D. Johnson1:41:58

     Thank you. May I have a follow up? Yes. On that? So on that same line, we're, you know, the operating, being able to operate offline, uh, by temporarily storing on the device. What, what does that look like? If I'm using my own phone or somebody else's phone? What does that look Like? So what, what

  10. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:42:14

      this will do is, um, they'll be creating an app. So today's world, if you were to use this, it's browser based. So you'd open your, your favorite browser, internet Explorer, or Chrome or Firefox, whatever it is. You go to the website, you'd log into secure page, you, you, you'd click on whatever petition you're working on, it would bring it up, you know, you'd register who you are as the gatherer. And then it has, you know, the information for, okay, I'm ready to collect the first signature. You know, it's scan in the driver's license and everything, but it's all browser based. And so if you happen to be in one of, uh, Senator Owens areas, let's say where you're up on the top of a mountain or something, and there's no internet access, you can't pull that website up and that person can't gather their signature. So what this will move us to in 2028 is an app based, um, and think of any of your favorite apps, um, I'm trying to think of something that, that gathers, um, information, you know, Facebook or something. It stores temporarily certain information and then it will say, okay, when, when we're back in coverage, we'll upload that information. Now that information isn't accessible to me. Um, it's not like I can pull up, here's all the, the information that's there and try to, to gather it, but rather it's just waiting. It's kind of holding it in a, in a bands until it receives that internet connection again. And then it would upload it just like it normally would. And, um, Madam Chair, I, I don't think we have an app like that yet. So we need somebody to develop it. I need to learn how to make an app, I think, or, or talk to Senator Johnson here. Is that, is that right? We don't have an app like that currently Yet for this gathering? Not yet. For that, Yeah, for, for That gap. No, no, no. Well, like I said, I mean, there are plenty of apps that do that today, but not, but, but for this, uh, gathering, no, right now it's browser based. So that's the requirement. That's why we're saying we wanna make sure that that is in place by 2028. And, and, but it's not a government, it won't be a government app. It's, it's developed by DTS.

  11. Sen. John D. Johnson1:44:15speaker not certain

      Oh, it is? Okay. Yeah. Okay. I got confused by that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

  12. Committee chair1:44:21

      Any other questions or comments on the committee? So anyone from the public would like to speak to this bill? Yes, please. One, two. Okay. If you would please come up and introduce yourself and sign in you one online. Okay.

  13. Kenneth Stringham, Elections Coordinator, Office of the Lieutenant Governor1:44:46

      Do, Hello. Um, my name is Kenneth Stringham. I am an elections coordinator with Lieutenant Governor's Office. Um, we are supportive of the e petition concept, but we do have some concerns with this bill and the deadlines that are imposed by it. Um, our main concern is the strict timeline that we have to eliminate the manual process. The bill is set to end all signature gather, manual signature gathering in 2030. And as of today, no one has successfully gone through the entire electronic signature gathering route. Um, this is the first election cycle that any candidates have opted to use the electronic process. We have had just five candidates who have signed up to use the process. And of those five, only three have gathered signatures electronically. One signature each. So only three signatures have been gathered electronically as of today. Um, apart from that, those candidates have continued to use the manual signature gathering process. The timeline developed for, or the timeline for developing testing and refining an app that could be relied upon as the only method for signature gathering is extremely short, which raises concerns for our office about its feasibility. Um, uh, we are working hard on this, and we also want to achieve this goal. Um, however, we feel like the timeline has to become completely electronic, is not realistic. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

  14. Lori Cartwright, Utah State Director, Mormon Women for Ethical Government1:46:19

      Yes. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Lori Cartwright, and I am representing Mormon Women for Ethical Government, or MWE for short. At mwe, one of our main purposes is to help our members become more informed and prepared for civic engagement. One way that the people of Utah have participated in government has been through the initiative process. This constitutional right is one that utahns have exercised sparingly. Since 1952, only seven citizen initiatives have passed. In part, this is because Utah's initiative process is robust with stringent signature requirements. We understand that the Electronic Signature Gathering app likely make signature verification quicker. And we think it is great that signature gatherers have options, but we ask that you do not eliminate the manual signature gathering option. People who would otherwise be willing to sign might not be carrying their ID or might feel hesitant having their ID scanned, especially for grassroots efforts. And in rural areas, areas, getting rid of the paper option will make it more difficult for citizens to participate in ballot initiatives and other petitions. Recently, there has been concerns about fraudulent signatures. Another bill presented this session. HB 32 would help reduce fraud by instituting a system to alert citizens when their signatures are recorded For a petition between 75 to 84% of Utahans support our right to ballot initiative. This is because citizen initiatives are not a partisan issue. We should not make an already difficult process even more difficult when there are other better solutions. For these reasons, we urge you to vote no on HB 2 23.

  15. Committee chair1:48:17

      Okay, thank you. Anyone online? Okay, then I'm gonna return to the committee for discussion or action.

  16. Committee chair1:48:34

      Senator Johnson.

  17. Sen. John D. Johnson1:48:36

      I, I move that we pass out HB 2 23 with substitute one with a favorable recommendation. I, I, I would like to give you some feedback though, on where I think if we're going to do this long term, where I think we really need to, to go with it, that I, you know, whether you adopt that or not, but I, but I do think I, I, I'm worried about some of the security, but I think that those security problems are worse with the paper. So, um, but I support moving forward with this.

  18. Committee chair1:49:16

      Okay. Um, discussion. Senator Juab.

  19. Unknown speaker1:49:21speaker not certain

      Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I also support this moving forward. Um, I would just like to talk about the timelines as we move forward. Thanks.

  20. Committee chair1:49:33

      Okay. Any other comments? Okay, I'm gonna return to the committee, um, and to senator, excuse me, representative Trisha. Um, uh, would you like to send Yes,

  21. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:49:46

      I, I appreciate the discussion. Um, I'm happy to work on some, some revised dates if we need to push this out. And would love your feedback on, uh, on how we can make this a little more robust. Um, yeah, I'll just leave it at that. I appreciate the committee's consideration and urge its support.

  22. Committee chair1:50:05

      Okay. Thank you. Senator Johnson, would you like some, wait. Okay. Okay.

  23. Committee chair1:50:11

      All in favor of passing out first substitute of House Bill 2 23 electronic signature collection amendments. Please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passage? Unanimously.

  24. Sen. John D. Johnson1:50:23speaker not certain

      But I think with the intent that we'll have some conversations about timing and process.

  25. Committee chair1:50:29

      Absolutely. Okay. Thank you.

• Mar 5, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (25 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker35:25speaker not certain

     Thank you. And now I would like to move a, a third substitute to this bill. A third substitute to house bill 2 33. That motion's in order. Uh, two three. Yes, it is. Uh, first substitute house bill 2 23. That's the motion. That's Bill we have ahead in front of us. So we, there is a, uh,

  2. Presiding officer (Senate President)35:48

     Senator Stevenson has makes a motion to substitute. You want explain the substitute Senator?

  3. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson35:53

     Yes. The third substitute, what it does is it just makes them, there's a few key policy changes that it makes it, uh, it gives a transition timeline in order of how you collect signatures. Uh, it kind of, it's a mandatory, it turns into mandatory by about 2032. And this is the time that the, uh, third substitute is the timeline that it presents.

  4. Presiding officer (Senate President)36:21

     Thank you for that explanation. Senator. I'd see no discussion on the motion to substitute the third substitute's online. So I'm gonna place the motion. The motion is to delete entitled embody first, substitute House bill 2 23 and replace it with third substitute House Bill 2 23. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes. The bill is substituted.

  5. Presiding officer (Senate President)36:43

     Senator Stevenson, any presentation on the bill?

  6. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson36:46

     I do. I have some presentation in, uh, in 2022. We pa uh, we pa in 2022, we passed House Bill two 18, which created an electronic seig signature gathering process for initiatives referendums and candidate nomination on the, on the local and statewide level, which the electronic system already exists in law. It has not yet been implemented. The reason being is because of the, as how complicated it is. So what this change does, and I, you know, we've talked a lot about electronic signature gathering. Uh, I keep thinking of the story of Edison and where he, it, he, he worked really hard to invent a light bulb and, and he failed many, many times until he finally got it right. And he said he'd learned how to not to invent a light bulb. I think the number was in the hundreds. So, uh, anyway, what this does is this transition, it's from a paper transitions this from a paper signature gathering by, by. And what it does is, by 2028, at least 10% of the signatures gathered must be electronic. By 2030, at least 50% of the signatures would be electronic. And then they would go to a hundred percent by 2032 or by 2032 requires a program to be capable of collecting signatures. Offline requires devices used for signature gathering. Uh, they must be, uh, they must meet security standards established by the Lieutenant Governor's office. They must re, it requires the Lieutenant Governor, uh, to report additionally or annually in the Governor Governor's Operation Interim Committee from 2026 to 2030 through 2031 on the implementation. And the performance of the electronic process provides provisions for the Lieutenant Governor to halt, uh, the transition if determined is not functioning properly. Uh, what this really does is it lowers costs for gathering signatures. And most of us have been through that. It improves integrity because, uh, scanning a government issued ID is more reasonable, uh, and accurate than a minimal, uh, than manual signature matching. It reduces administrative burden. It provides, uh, uh, instant verification and it expands access. Uh, that would conclude my, conclude my, uh, presentation. And I would be happy to take questions.

  7. Presiding officer (Senate President)39:29

     Thank you for that presentation. Senator Stevenson discussion of the Bill. Senator Vickers.

  8. Sen. Vickers39:35

     Mr. President, would this sponsor yield?

  9. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson39:37

     Senator Stevenson? Will you yield? I would.

  10. Presiding officer (Senate President)39:40

      Senator Vickers. Thank

  11. Sen. Evan J. Vickers39:41

      You. I am aware that at least currently in a sign signature gathering process, at least for candidate gathering, that there is an option to do electronic. It was my understanding that very few, if any, have chosen that. Do you know if that's accurate or not?

  12. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson39:59

      Senator Stevenson, That is accurate. And I would, uh, you know, it would be very interesting to, to, uh, I think Senator Riebe has a, uh, she actually proposed to substitute this bill. Uh, and, uh, but it would be interesting, but she has actually tried to use the electronic gathering process

  13. Presiding officer (Senate President)40:20

      Just to thank, Follow up. Thank you. Follow up, Senator? Yeah,

  14. Sen. Evan J. Vickers40:22

      Follow up Mr. President, if I could, uh, do you know why that they haven't been using that? Maybe Senator, you know, Senator Rebi can answer that, but, uh, I'm, I'm struggling. I guess I'm struggling whether trying to decide whether this is a good thing or a bad thing to go to a hundred percent, you know, electronic gathering. So I do you by chance know why people haven't chosen that? Or Senator Stevenson?

  15. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson40:46

      I think, I think Senator Riebe can explain to us why it hasn't worked well. But I will tell you that, that this possibly, like I mentioned in the beginning, this is, we're going to find out some ways not to build that light bulb as we go through this process over the next few years.

  16. Presiding officer (Senate President)41:01

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

  17. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe41:06

      Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I, I have actually tried to explore that electronic signature gathering, and it's really just a, uh, a nod to the technology, but really not a path to it. Uh, I, I, I am in the process of gathering signatures, uh, for full disclosure. And it's, it's time consuming. And it's also, as I mentioned last night, I think irresponsible that we have our, uh, constituents putting their PII on a piece of paper and having some random person carry it around. I know that there's been some stress about having outside influences or, um, creating, um, a path that might be, um, susceptible to nefarious activities. But I believe the path we have right now is susceptible to nefarious activities because it's on paper. Uh, I, I can't speak to how many people are using it because I don't really think it's a viable option. Like I said, I think it's just a nod to that technology, but I, I support this bill and I'm not going to run my amendment because I believe that this is the path we need to start going it towards. As I've said in the past as well, that if you have any kind of, um, disability or, um, mobility issues, it's really hard to get in touch with somebody that has one of those packets unless you want them to drive to your house or have them start doing their own packet. So I think that this is a better path forward. I think that when we start thinking about having our constituents engage in this activity, we really need to give everybody an opportunity to be on the same playing field. So thank you for these changes. And I, I, I, I'm looking forward to a more modern way of collecting signatures and I think we have the, the ability to do it. So thank you.

  18. Presiding officer (Senate President)42:51

      Thank you. Senator Riebe. Senator Mikel.

  19. Sen. Michael K. McKell42:55

      Thank you, Mr. President. I, I'm gonna just respectfully rise and, and I'm, I'm prob I I am gonna vote against this bill. I'm still concerned with. It's been several years since we've enabled the electronic version and candidates have simply chosen, chosen not to use it because it is, it's more difficult. I I have a hard time mandating, mandating a process that is more difficult for candidates if the process was better, if the process worked, that candidates would use it. And I, I guess my concern with this legislation is, is the mandate that everybody go to elect electronic? And if, if it was better, if it was more secure, I think, I think candidates would be using it today. They're not. And I think there's a reason they're not. So I'm just, I'm just uncomfortable with that. I, I, I'd rather see, I'd rather see candidates in that scenario have an option to use. Use those, those paper paper signatures versus just, just electronic. I think some of the concerns of electronic are, are probably similar. I think you'd have similar levels of problems, but I, I'm just uncomfortable at this point with this, this mandate. I think it actually makes it harder, not easier. Thank you.

  20. Presiding officer (Senate President)44:05

      Thank you. Senator Macl going to Senator Stevenson. Summation and a motion.

  21. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson44:11

      Yeah, I, I'm not sure this is the ultimate, uh, fix. I think that there's a possibility that this will be altered several times over the next few years, uh, until we get to a point where electronic signatures can be used. And I, I really, uh, again, I go back to my light bulb story. Sometimes it takes us a while to get things fixed. And right here, the thing I do like about this bill is it gives you time to get things fixed and get them to a position where, where we find something that works. And with that, I conclude my remark.

  22. Unknown speaker44:44speaker not certain

      Circle this bill. The third substitute has a different fiscal note on it than the one that's approved in the system.

  23. Presiding officer (Senate President)44:51

      Okay. Thank you. I need to circle this. We've got a fiscal note issue with it. Thank you. Motion to circle. All in favor say aye. Any opposed mo rule? That motion passes as the bill is circled. Senator Vickers,

  24. Presiding officer (Senate President)45:11

      Motion to encircle fifth substitute house bill 5 72. We have a motion to Uncer fifth substitute house Bill 5 72 Behavioral and Mental Health Amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Roll the motion passes. The bill is encircle. Senator Vickers.

  25. Sen. Evan J. Vickers45:27

      Thank you. I've got a couple of motions. Uh, motion to delete and title embody fifth substitute House bill 5 72 and replace it with sixth substitute house bill 5 72. Uh, the difference, uh, there was,

• Mar 5, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (16 turns)

  1. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson1:20:03

     But they have found the funding that makes this work. And, uh, and with that, um, if you remember the, what we went through before, we talked about really good things like light bulbs and we talked about how lowering costs increasing integrity. So with that, I would, uh, I would, uh, I would, uh, present, do you have any other questions?

  2. Senate President (presiding)1:20:26

     We'll open it up for questions. Again. We had fair and fairly good debate on this bill. Uh, we're on electronic signature collection amendments. Uh, and I have, it is red, but I have had declarance looks from our, uh, budget chairs that it is, uh, green in fact. So I'm gonna go ahead and take discussion.

  3. Senate President (presiding)1:20:46

     Senator Cullimore wondering about the red saying no discussion on the bill. I'm gonna go to Senator Stevenson for a, any summation and a motion.

  4. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson1:20:57

     Uh, I, I think we've given a pretty good summation of it.

  5. Sen. Jerry W Stevenson1:21:00

     Um, motion, uh, that third substitute house bill 2 33 pass.

  6. Senate President (presiding)1:21:06

     Thank you. The question is under suspension of the role shall third substitute house bill two two three. Pass. Roll call vote.

  7. Unknown speaker1:21:13

     Senator Baldy Blue in no Brammer us call Amore Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musman Owens pitcher Plum Re Sandal Stevenson Stevenson Stratton Vickers To know Weiler Wilson Winterton Harper Stratton Wilson.

  8. President Adams (presiding)1:22:25

     President Adams No third substitute Bill 2 23 having received 11 yay votes. 18 nay votes zero being absent, fails to pass and will be returned to the house for the signature of the speaker.

  9. Senate President (presiding)1:22:48

     Senator Cullimore.

  10. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:22:51

      Motion to Uncer house bill 48 third substitute house bill 48. We have a motion to Uncer third substitute house Bill 48.

  11. Senate President (presiding)1:23:04

      Yep. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes?

  12. Senate President (presiding)1:23:09speaker not certain

      And again, that's criminal and juvenile justice changes. Senator, we had a good discussion on the bill or had a good Presentation. This is a different one. Go ahead. It's a different one. I think Senator Weiler's got a few motions. Oh, there we go. That's right. This is a different one.

  13. Senate President (presiding)1:23:22

      So Senator Weiler,

  14. Sen. Todd Weiler1:23:26

      Thank you. Um, this

  15. Senate President (presiding)1:23:27

      is a good bill. Let me, your mic's not on. Let me get your mic on. There you go.

  16. Sen. Todd Weiler1:23:32

      This is a good bill. We heard it in judiciary committee. This, uh, we have a problem in that we have some, um, young, uh, men usually that have committed murder and we put 'em in a juvenile facility and they are a, uh, security risk not only to um, their fellow teenagers sometimes, but also,