H.B. 242 Initiative and Referendum Signature Gathering and Removal Amendments: transcript

Thank you. Um, so I'm gonna tell you a little story about how this bill came to be. So, in August of, um, 2024, um, the Clinton City Council voted in a three two vote to approve a new housing development in Clinton. And the first time that I am aware of in Clinton's history, um, we had a referendum and volunteers were mobilized all of our city. I have never seen a grassroots effort like I saw in my community, um, for that referendum. And they did, um, a lot of work. In fact, they gathered enough signatures, they gathered 3,883 verified signatures, which is more than anyone has ever voted in a municipal election in Clinton. So when I say people were mobilized, they were very mobilized. Um, so after they had gone through that whole process, they qualified for the ballot. Um, then, um, you know, we have the opportunity to have people remove their names and people were hired to come into Clinton and, um, go, uh, find the people that had signed and asked them to remove their names. And they were successful in their efforts by 14 signatures. They were able to remove it from the ballot. And, um, that had to do with participation districts and all of that. But there were of course a lot of frustrations. I heard a lot of, from a lot of people in my community about the process. Um, and especially about the equity between the process when you have volunteers out gathering signatures and trying to get this on the ballot. And then, um, some paid signature gatherers coming into the community and sometimes feeling like we're, we're not even sure if the people that were paid to come into our community were over 18. And, and they, um, often, uh, didn't represent themselves correctly. But a lot of the, the rules that we have in statute around if you're a paid signature gatherer, um, the, the law was silent on if you're paid to remove signatures. And so all of those rules, um, that they were not the same, they were not the same rules. In fact, there were no rules. So what this bill does is it just says, um, the rules that we have, if you're a paid signature gatherer, also apply if you're paid to go out and have people remove their signature. So we're just making it the same. So for example, you have to be at least 18 years old, you have to provide a statement on the impact, which is what you have to do on the other side, um, of what happens if you sign it. You have to certify that you saw them sign it, just like on the, um, packets. You know, you have to certify that you were there. You have to wear a badge that says you were paid and that's who you are. Um, and if you do misrepresent yourself, we're carrying over the criminal penalties as well. That class A misdemeanor, that's the same for signature gatherers. Um, so that's what the bill does. So it's pretty, um, simple. Just moves all of those protections over so that they're the same in both places. And that's the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my apologies. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair Marie Dougherty, Clinton City Mayor. Um, I'm appreciative of Representative Peterson for her explanation and her work on this. Um, she's expressed some of the incongruities she's trying to remedy. And I can add just a little more color to the story of Clinton. My city has about 12,000 registered voters. And so, as she said, um, the number of signature petition, um, uh, threshold, you know, it was pretty incredible to get the 3,883 signatures. Um, it was a land use rezone. And so I was on the city council at the time, and this, I believe is the kind of scenario for which the referendum law was made. Uh, the council was divided. The, uh, the vote didn't track with the general plan. The majority of the planning commission was opposed to it. And so the residents had cited their, their deep frustration with the process. And after the volunteers gathered their signatures and made such an impact, um, and the signature removal gatherers went out to do their effort, we were able to gather doorbell camera footage from these encounters. And the footage made me gasp a boy who looks about 16 explaining, he doesn't really know what a referendum is, but that he'll get 50 to a hundred dollars per signature. Um, a man saying he was sent by the state and that signing the removal means we get to vote on it. Others saying they were sent by the city to correct misinformation and that signing this new paper would stop the high rises. So complete fabrications. Um, as Representative Peterson said, the developer was able to get just enough removals that the petition lost by only 14 names. And the level of frustration among our Clinton City residents who had expended very large amounts of time across many, many weeks sacrificing as volunteers to put forward this initiative, um, or this referent referendum was so painful to watch. And so, um, HB 2 42 implements safeguards, my constituents were deceived and thousands were disenfranchised. And I think those safeguards would do us well moving forward. So I urge you to give it a favorable recommendation. And thank you very much for your time.

Right, myself or Chair and members of the committee. Thank you. My name is Richard w VNGs ii. I'm a resident of Clearfield, Utah, uh, a registered Utah voter voter in a 20 year United States Air Force active duty service member about to retire. I'm here to oppose house bill one 60, house bill 1 67 and House bill 1 2 42 because together they substantially raise barriers to citizen led ballot initiatives and weaken the principle of popular sovereignty. The first three words of the United States Constitution are we the people. This is a statement of authority. Government power originates with the people. The Ninth Amendment makes clear that rights retained by the people exist even when not explicitly listed. Popular sovereignty is foundational to self-government. While there is no federal ballot initiative process, states like Utah have chosen to recognize citizen initiatives as an expression of that re retained authority, especially when representative bodies fail to act. HB one 60 doubles the signature threshold required to qualify initiative.

Understood. House bill 2 42 on the surface seems like it clarifies and aligns both those individuals that are collecting signatures and then going out to then have signatures removed. However, that's another statutory burden and threshold that citizens have to meet overall. And as it stands right now, Utah already has one of the higher barriers in the United States for one of the states that does have referendums. And this is just another procedural hurdle that citizens would have to overcome. Therefore, I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill in its current format. That way you talking prone, uh, protect election integrity without silencing its citizens. Thank you.

Sorry, Bear with me here getting this right. Alright. Okay. Um, my name is Kenneth Stringham. I am an elections coordinator with the Lieutenant Governor's Office. Um, I wanted to thank Representative Peterson for working with us on this bill. Um, we think it makes a lot of sense to standardize the requirements between signature collecting for a petition as well as the process to remove signatures from a petition. We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction towards harmonizing the signature gathering and signature removal process. Um, so therefore we support this bill. Thank you.

I'm sorry, can you hear me? Now?

Oh, sure. Hi, Adam Larson. I'm a resident of Clinton City, was, uh, involved in this referendum last year and was recently elected to the city council. So, um, the requirements for a successful render referendum are already very difficult to achieve. I admit there's some wisdom in that to avoid the frivolous use of the process to usurp the power of the governing body. However, when an issue is sensitive enough to mobilize dozens of residents to collect thousands of signatures, the effects should be acknowledged in the law. Petitioners are required to attest to their honesty and forthrightness in the gathering of the signatures. They are obligated to inform each signer of their right to remove their signature. They are even obligated to provide the signer with written instructions on how to remove their name after the petition period. The opposing party has 45 days, uh, to solicit removal of signatures. The current code heavily favors the opposition in terms of public education and opportunity when the removal efforts include hired helpers, uh, who are unknown to the city or to the county or to the residents. Or when those anonymous individuals can claim authority, they don't have or say whatever they want to secure the removal. This amounts to coercion. If the state is serious about protecting the right of the people to petition for referendum, they should require more disclosure and more integrity from the opposition. Thank you.

My apologies. Um, so first of all, uh, we, uh, are in support.

Oh, I'm sorry. Helen Moser League of Women Voters. I'm, uh, based in holiday and uh, first of all, we support and appreciate the intent of HB 2 42 to promote transparency and prevent fraud in the initiative referendum process. 'cause election integrity is obviously essential. But the concern we have, and it may be just simple clarification, given that there are other opportunities besides using paid signature, um, folks who are paid to rescind signatures gather statements that they would go, uh, door to door. In addition, there is an effort underway by kind of a grassroots organizations to actually engage with voters over the phone, via text, via email, et cetera. Are those considered part of this or is it strictly related to those who go door to door? Because otherwise we would have some concerns about the, um, the imposition on those who are approaching, uh, voters in a different manner than door-to-door. And so we're seeking for clarification on the bill and, um, if it is indeed pertaining to both sets of individuals. We just wanna make sure that there's a recognition that, um, signature rescission is very frequently handled by unpaid volunteers. And their role is purely, uh, to inform voters of the right to rescind, explain the process set forth by the county clerk and then the voter independently completes sign and submits the rescission form. The final legal act is performed by the voter alone and not the volunteer. Uh, so if they pertains to all parties involved in the signature rescission approach, we would be opposed to this bill.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Can I, can I ask, uh, for Representative Peterson to answer those questions by chance from the previous, uh, comment?

Um, and thank you for the opportunity. So this bill is specific to if you pay people to remove signatures and, and, and something that we, there's no change on is an individual's ability to remove their own signature. That process is not changing at all. So there's no changes to, if I signed something and I personally decided I want go turn the form in to the county to remove it, that process is not changing at all. If someone talks to me as a volunteer and says, um, you know, you signed this and not, you know, if you don't want to have your name on it, you can. This is your process for going to do that. Nothing there changes. It only changes if someone, uh, gives you the form and says, you know, we want you to fill this out. They are there in a paid capacity. That's when it changes.

Thank you. I'd make them, there's no substitute or amendment right? Negative. Okay. So I would make the motion that we favorably recommend HP 2 42 initiative and referendum signature gathering and removal amendments.

Think my light's on, but Hang on. Flash. Is this discussion to the motion? I, I'd be happy to just, uh, speak in favor of the motion and also, I, I want to Wait a minute. There you go. I didn't do that. I wanted to speak, But I understand the chair's pro. This machine silencing me. It's not me. Probably Feels good to silence me. I know. Go ahead. My Wife wishes she had one of those buttons. Yeah, Yeah. Uh, my understanding, and I I love the sponsor to clarify is currently we, we have another, uh, signature verification committee bill that requires training for signature gatherers. And in discussing with the, uh, sponsor, if someone is paid to remove signatures, uh, we think it might be good policy to also require them to take that training. And if the sponsor is, uh, willing, I would put, I would include them in that, in the next version of that bill that's coming to this committee for revision to require training for paid signature removers as well as the paid signature gathers like we have discussed, uh, over time.

Yes. So I just became aware of that this morning how your committee had, had had a discussion about that. I think matching those rules is my intention here. So if we'd like to match them, uh, through coordination clause, I think that would be a great idea.

Um, I appreciate that motion. This was, um, very interesting to watch in my community. I've never seen anything like it in my community. I've lived there 20 years and, um, I really appreciate us being able to respond to the frustrations that residents felt. Um, this was an incredible grassroots effort in my community and, and the frustration they felt was very justified. And so thank you for, um, supporting this bell and um, helping to remedy it for the next folks. So thanks.

Thank you so much. So, um, back in August of 2024, the Clinton, uh, city council voted on a, um, land use development, um, with a vote of three, two to approve that development. Um, and, uh, citizens in Clinton for the first time in the history that I'm aware of, uh, launched a referendum initiative. Lots of volunteers got involved. I've never actually seen anything like it. People were mobilized all of our city to gather signatures. Um, those volunteers were able to gather enough signatures. In fact, they gathered more signatures for the referendum than anyone has ever voted in a municipal election in Clinton. So it was a big deal in our community. A lot of people were out gathering signatures. So after that was certified, uh, and they were able to meet the, uh, requirements in all four participation districts. Um, then individuals were hired to go out and remove names. And, um, by 13, 14 votes, I mean 14 signatures, they were able to remove the, um, referendum from the ballot. So people in our community felt very much like, um, the rules weren't quite fair, uh, between the people who had gathered signatures and then people who were paid to co remove signatures. So as we looked into it, the law really isn't the same. If you pay people to, uh, go out and gather signatures, they have to wear name badge. They have to be 18 years old. There's, um, requirements about, um, uh, um, if you don't tell the truth, what happens, none of those things were actually in code for people paid to remove signatures. So what this bill does is it makes the rules exactly the same. It makes it the same for people who are paid to go out and gather signatures. It makes them the same for people who are paid to go out and remove signatures. And that's my presentation.

to people to remove their signatures? It, it Didn't contemplate that because we hadn't seen that, but

Yeah, I'd definitely be willing to discuss that.

It does. Thank you.

You, Mr. Chair Marie Dougherty, mayor of Clinton. I was on the city council at the time of our referendum, and our council was divided and the process was flawed. Uh, resident volunteers worked hard on a referendum, and so they were shocked when word trickled in the unknown. Hired workers were soliciting signature removals. The doorbell camera footage made me gasp. A boy who looks about 16 explaining, he doesn't really know what a referendum is, but that he'll get 50 to a hundred dollars per removal, a man claiming he was sent by the state. And that signing the removal means we get to vote on this others claiming they were sent by the city to correct misinformation. Many of my constituents were deceived and mistakenly removed their names. And when that caused the referendum to fail, thousands were disenfranchised. I'm disheartened when I think of the volunteer residents who worked hard to give their fellow voters a voice who believed in a process that let them down. Many still struggle with cynicism from that. So HB 2 42 implements safeguards, and I urge you to give it a favorable recommendation. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, my name is Seth Stewart from American Fort, representing myself. Um, I don't have one question about the bill. Um, it has this, uh, symmetry, uh, ethic around it. I'm just wondering, um, since it prohibits, uh, signature gatherers from being paid, sorry, signature removal gatherers from, uh, being paid per removal, um, does, I'm just wondering, what do you do currently? Is there a similar prohibition for signature gatherers to be paid per signature? And, um, just besides this, I, I think, I think there are some underlying structural issues with signature gathering. Generally. I think we're kind of seeing that, uh, there are some financial incentives here around how, uh, elections are basically being conducted and, uh, because this is a, it's an element in an electoral structure or an an, uh, voting and on various issues and so on. And, um, we've noted similar things with the nominating petition, signature gathering route, which displaces in many instances the nominating, um, convention for candidates. So just wanted to get some answers on those issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I recommend that we pass out with a favorable recommendation house Bill 2 42 to the full body of the Senate.

Uh, I appreciate the motion. Um, this, this does, um, say that they can't be paid by the per person that they get their name to removed because they're targeting specific people. And so that was an intentional choice to say that that is actually a prohibition to be able to target specific people and then get paid. It creates a weird incentive for the signature gatherers. So I'd appreciate your support. This was really important in our community, and I think we're seeing how important it's statewide.

Thank you. And I'll just make a commentary before I go back to, uh, Senator Balderree, you know, know we're, you know, we've got this Prop four thing going on right now. Some of you might have heard of it. Um, and, you know, we may have a potential where, you know, 175,000 people have signed to put on the ballot, and if 20 or 30 signatures can be removed, it won't be on the ballot. And so I do, I do appreciate what your comments, because it is a little different when you just can target a very small number of people and, and, and undermine the whole effort.

Yes, I'm thankful that the sponsor, um, is addressing this critical gap in our election code by bringing the same level of accountability to signature removal as we already require for signature gathering. And it ensures that paid gatherers identified by badges, uh, providing a formal notice to voters that removing their signature may prevent an issue from ever reaching the ballot. So I urge my colleagues to support household 2 42 because this isn't about being pro initiative or anti initiative, it's about being pro voter. And it ensures that when a citizen interacts with the petition gatherer on the doorstep, that they're gonna be met with facts and not pressure. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. I have been the next bill on the calendar for like the last 45 minutes, so I'm really excited we're finally here. Okay, so this bill came about because, uh, in my community this year, we had the first referendum we have ever had against a, uh, city council decision, a three, two vote on our city council. And, um, uh, the citizens in my community didn't agree with that decision and, um, launched a referendum effort. They got more people to sign the referendum than have ever voted in a municipal election in my city. So it was very intense, um, and very, um, a very thorough effort following, getting all those signatures. Um, the, um, the person on the other side of it hired some folks to come and target folks to get them to remove their names. And by 13 votes, they were able to get the initiative, uh, referendum removed from the ballot. So many people in my community were very frustrated by this experience, especially because, um, all the signatures were gathered by volunteers and all the signatures were removed by folks who were paid to come into our community and remove signatures. So what we learned is that the law is not the same for paid signature gatherers as it is for people paid to remove signatures. So all this bill does is it makes the rules exactly the same. So if you are paid, uh, to remove signatures, the bill says you need to be 18 years old. You need to, uh, be able to provide a statement on the impact of removing your signature, um, that you need to wear a badge saying who you are and that you're paid. Um, and it, and that if you misrepresent yourself, the same penalty applies, um, as of a class A misdemeanor. So the bill just really creates parody between people who are gathering signatures that are paid and people who are removing signatures who are paid. So the same rules apply to everyone on both sides of this. Um, and so I would ask for any questions. Thank you.

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

For folks who are volunteering to help gather signatures, do they have to wear a name badge? No. And currently with folks who are gathering signatures, they also have to do online training with this change any amendments or any rules for signature gatherers with the training.

So there's legislation proposed this session around, um, training related to people who are paid signature gatherers. Um, and if that bill passes, we have some coordinating language to make sure that that is, we're trying to just curate parity between both sides. So, um, what we've been working to, uh, make sure that those bills coordinate, so the rules remain the same on both sides.

I, I do greatly appreciate the sponsor bringing this bill forward. I know this little while we've had a lot of confusion on people going around gathering signatures for different reasons, and there have been folks who we've heard stories who have not been completely honest about what they're gathering signatures for. So I do appreciate a little bit more clarity on it. Um, I do appreciate the opportunity to make sure that folks are wearing the name badge and clearly distinguish when they are paid signature gatherers and what they're gathering signature for. So thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Uh, I'd really appreciate your support on this bill. It was a very frustrating experience for my constituents to do all that work and, and gather all those signatures and then, and then feel like the, the, it wasn't fair, um, in how it all played out. And, and I think keeping the law consistent is also really important for people on both sides of the issue. So thank you. I'd ask for your support.

You. I would move, uh, third substitute and I'm happy to speak to that. If you would go ahead. Uh, this, uh, creates an an immediate effective date. It deals with, uh, with problems related to prepaid postage. It does not allow prepaid postage. It creates an exception, uh, for, uh, uh, excuse me. It, and then it also allows for issues related to dates on removal petitions so that if there is an obvious error, but it is known that it is an error. For example, it's the beginning of 2026 and they sign and sign 2025 out of habit, but they never received the packet before then. That the clerk can make some exceptions related to that. Thank you for the explanation.

I'd consider that a friendly motion.

Yes. Quickly. Mr. President, uh, as much as possible makes the rules the same for the paid signature gathers as those paid to remove the signatures requires individuals hired to be removed, signatures to be at least 18 years old. To provide statement on the impact of removing signatures from the ref referendum. Certify the collected certify. They collected the signatures wear a badge indicating they paid with a unique number assigned to them and prohibits misrepresentation and, and mirrors the Class A misdemeanor we have for the signature gatherers, gatherers, classifies or clarifies the email addresses collected as part of the initiative process cannot be used for other purposes than required notification related to the initiative. Uh, that's my presentation. Thank you Mr. President.

Thank you. Yeah, I don't have a question because I'm, I just wanna make sure people realize that what this is doing is directly impacting the effort to overturn Prop four right now. So wanna put that on the record? Thanks.

Thank you Mr. President. I'm wondering why we chose the age of 18 to collect signatures when the voting age is 16. We talk about wanting to be civically engaged and I think it would be really exciting for kids that was 16 to be a part of this process. Is there a reason why we chose 18?

Did I I didn't hear a question to ask. Yield the question, but I'll, I'll yield if the good president wants speak. Senator,

Senator Rebe. One More time. I'm sorry. Will the sponsor

Um, this is again mirroring, as I said in my own Miss State. We mirroring the exact same requirements for signature gatherers. That's the answer.

One more time. It mirrors the exact same parameters as it is for p to signature gatherers.

Call the question. Thank

Senator Vickers Baldry Lewin Brammer Bus Colmore Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay McKay. Mikel Milner Aye. Musselman Aye. Owens pitcher, Blum Pitcher. Blum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton. We need two thirds. Bickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton.

Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker motion to concur with the Senate amendments. That motion is nor as I speak to it. Yes. So the two, uh, amendment or the a amendment that they made affects two portions of the bill. So as you recall, this is the bill that said the same rules apply for signature gathers if you're paid, that apply to people who are paid to remove signatures. So the same rules apply. Um, the Senate put in a immediate effective date on two portions of the bill. The first bill, the first part is the deceptive practices. Uh, in the bill it says you cannot, uh, impersonate that you're from the government and that those criminal penalties, um, will just be immediately effective. And then the second part that you can't pay somebody to remove or give them something of value to remove their signature, including, uh, disallowing prepaid postage. So that's what the, uh, amendment does.