H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments: transcript

Thank you Mr. Chair members of the committee. Um, so if you recall last year there was a bill that passed through this committee and, um, through and was signed, or I, I guess when it was enacted actually, and a law that limited, uh, flags, um, from, uh, municipalities being flown in schools and in certain other locations. And those, um, and that bill, um, after it went into effect, it, uh, created some, uh, confusion and there was some actions taken by, uh, municipality to adopt, uh, additional flags, um, that kind of put the state in a conundrum where we had a, uh, a state law and a municipal, uh, sort of, um, uh, situation put together that, uh, we're kind of in conflict. And there's been a lot of discussion about what does the state do to resolve this issue. We could either, um, we could, uh, repeal the law, we could make adjustments to it. And so what I've done is here is I've been working with the League of Cities and Towns, um, in order to identify a good way forward that would allow, uh, the state's interests when it comes to regulating certain locations for neutrality, um, and the municipal interests when it comes to controlling their own property. And so what this bill essentially does, and I am speaking to the first substitute, there is an amendment on that as well. So what this does is that it changes the, um, the process by which that these municipalities adopt flags go currently. They can adopt as many as they'd like. This would change it to be that there is, there would be one official flag that could be adopted by a municipality and that they can adopt any number of cultural or, uh, ceremonial or any other types of flags that they would like. Um, and then it only regulates the, uh, a couple of locations that the state has an interest in regulating in those locations. Only the only flag that can be flown is the official flag, and that would be a school, a courthouse, an airport, or a public transit facility. And then there is a carve out in this, uh, amendment that you'll see as well that identifies, uh, that if a school or another facility is being rented out and is authorized by, by third parties to use, that they, um, are not, uh, gonna be, uh, required to, um, essentially abide by that same standard. They can still use those facilities as they wish because there, there's many cases that, uh, parties, for example, use schools for, um, for caucus events or other types of, of events. Um, and there's a lot of times flags that will be flown there. So those, those carve outs are in place. Um, we have worked again with the c with the league. They've, uh, taken a neutral position. I'm not sure if they're gonna be here to speak to it, but, um, we've, uh, had good discussions and I think that this is a, a way forward so that the municipalities can still operate the way they'd like in their, uh, private, uh, interests and property they own, and that the state, uh, can control the interest in the areas in which that the state has an interest in controlling. And with that, I will end my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got just a couple questions if that's okay. Yes, please go ahead. Thank you. Hi. Um, okay, so I just wanna make absolutely sure I'm understanding. So if a certain capital city were to, um, fly, they could fly nonofficial flags like at City Hall and things like that? That's Correct. Okay. Um, and then could other government organizations specifically, I'm thinking schools display a certain capital city's ceremonial flags?

No. So currently the schools fall under the four categories that they would be, uh, required to only utilize the official flags.

Okay. But outside of those, all their other locations would be subject to whatever flags they want. Okay. Thank you. And then I, I'm hoping you can kind of expand, um, I think it's lines 81 and 82, and I apologize if I'm in the wrong version. Um, I, that's where it talks about, um, adoption of a flag being subject to review by the rules review commission. What is, what does review mean? Do they just have to like, look at it and say like, yep, that's a flag?

No. So in fact this, this was a, a good point that was brought up and I apologize I didn't bring it up earlier because this was actually probably our biggest, uh, conversation point with the league was understanding this piece and we made the substitute made a, an adjustment to this, uh, language. Uh, previously I think it was viewed as a, uh, a requirement to get approval. Um, and this is not an approval process. Um, municipality can go through their own process or adopt their flags however they like. The intention behind this is to ensure, essentially it's to try to stop the flag wars, so to speak, from continuing. And so there may be, for example, um, a situation where a city may adopt, let's say a, um, a flag, a MAGA flag as their official flag. Um, or a city may adopt a, um, let's go Brandon flag for example. Um, and I think that the intention here is to say that being subject to review under this section means that we just wanna make sure that if you're gonna be adopting an official flag that it meets with the, with the government neutrality standard that's set, um, in here. This is not for ceremonial or for the other flags we're just saying we want them to, uh, to have whatever ceremonial and other types of flags they'd like. But when it comes to the specific, um, regulated flags that the state has an interest in ensuring that they meet the neutrality standards, those can be subject to review from admin rules so that there would be not a need to come back here and pass another bill that tries to figure out how to deal with this if the wars continue, so to speak. Just to follow up, if I may, Mr. Chair, um, so say, so it gets reviewed and they're like, Nope, this isn't complying. What happens then? Because review is a word that I like, I think, but like, it doesn't have any, it doesn't have teeth. What are, what happens? So from my understanding is that admin rules would have authority to request a change to that, um, flag. Um, again, this is only if they decide to review that there is no requirement for them to get approval from the committee. Um, but under, I believe the, the code of admin, the admin rules committee, they would have the authority to, uh, intercede in those cases and say, this doesn't meet the standard. Go back to the drawing board, so to speak.

Gotcha. Thank you so much. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask about for some clarification. Certainly in my community there's been some confusion over this, uh, law which regulates the official flag. D does this, uh, what are the restrictions on individuals, uh, d um, who are not in a classroom or who might be trying to display, uh, a flag at their desk or at their dais or what are the, what are the restrictions on individuals?

So there aren't any, this bill only talks about the city, municipal, municipality, county or political subdivision, and it only regulates the government speech. So this is, uh, unrelated to, uh, any individual.

So an indi, if I may continue an individual who might be not express the views of the majority of a, uh, of a government entity, not the official views. Can, you would say there are no restrictions on their free speech? I would say that this bill has no restrictions on it. If there, if there's other, there may have others. Yeah, there may be others out there

and, uh, depending on the location or, but this bill has no effect on individual speech.

Thanks for that clarification. Sure.

Thank you. Just have a clarifying question. So looking at the bill, if a city wanted to fly a POW flag, would they be able to

Uh, yeah. Only, only in the, the locations that aren't regulated. So they wouldn't be able to fly it at a school, a courthouse, um, the airport or a, um, uh, UTA facility, um, as the government agency, a third party could,

So at City Hall they could fly the POW flag?

Correct. But a school couldn't fly a POW Flag? Uh, the municipality or the school itself could not, well, as long as the, I don't believe they can under the current law either. Hold

On. Did you just say the municipal, A city couldn't either.

Yeah. This is related. This is regulated specifically to cities, municipalities, county, or political subdivisions. Correct.

So, yeah, I'm just clarifying. Like a POW flag, A city couldn't fly at a city hall Building. They could at a city

hall building. Yeah. The, the only regulations when it comes to what, what, uh, the state would regulate would be those four locations. Schools, uh, airports, um, courthouses and, uh, UTA facilities.

Okay. And then the oversight committee, is there criteria for what they're looking at when they review a flag?

Just under the section. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I just have some no surprise questions in the, the school space. So if you were teaching a class, I suppose there's probably a definition here that I should have looked up, but like, if, if I'm teaching a, like a current issues class and we're talking about this issue and I put a, a flag on screen about some of the, the contested flags. 'cause it's a current issue. Is that considered displaying a flag on school

Property? Thank you for the question. And, and actually, and maybe this will help clarify too. So this isn't changing or repealing any of the existing areas of code. So we already have sections of code that deal with that right now. Um, this is not changing or affecting any of that. So this is just simply stating that, um, that the municipal flags themselves are going to be restricted to their official ones. So if they are currently not allowed, they will continue to be currently not allowed. The only change would be is that municipal flags that would be normally considered allowed under the carve outs of the, of the current law would no longer be allowed unless it was an official flag. Does that, I'm sorry if that sounds complicated.

Yeah, I'll, I'll work through it. I think it sounds right. I think

So. The limitations here should be only on the only change. What we're making when it comes to schools under current law today is that municipal flags that have been adopted as official flags would no longer be allowed to be displayed, only the official single flag that would be changed under this section.

Okay. So that does go back to the original underlying question. So if you're teaching a history class, you're talking about, let's say propaganda or something like that, or historical laws, and I display those on a PowerPoint and say, Hey, here's the discussion that was happening back in the mid 2020s, you know, and let's talk about freedom of speech and ideologies and things like that. Does that cons, is that considered displaying a non-official flag?

I believe, and that's not part of this bill, but I will just, from what I understand, under the current law, that's not considered display.

Okay. Thank you. I don't believe. Okay.

But it is not part of this bill. Okay. Alright,

Thanks.

Sorry, second bite of the apple. And we spent a lot of time on flags in education last session. Mm-hmm. So I think I'm a little PTSD here, but, um, I'm trying to, I Try, wanted to make sure this bill wasn't called Flags, if I'm being honest.

Okay. So if you can just walk through Sure.

Current code real quick for us, where we're at and how this changes it. I just think that would be helpful. Um, and then I don't have, um, Representative Lee and Senator McKay's bill mm-hmm.

Completely memorized as far as That's okay.

But from what I understand, under their current, um, the current, uh, statute, you can only display official flags from municipalities in schools. And there's some language about what display means. Mm-hmm. Um, and that it doesn't apply to textbooks or instructional material or other types of, uh, situations. And that, um, what this, what under the, the code originally, uh, supplied, if a municipality adopted multiple official flags, then that would essentially bypass the intent of the original language so that those municipal flags could be considered, uh, a, a carve out under the original language and could be flown at, for example, a school.

Um, and so what this bill only does is it essentially eliminates the, um, the totality of the category of municipal flags. We're really talking today about one municipality that's adopted, I think four or five additional flags, three new flags. Um, those three new flags would not be allowed to be flown, um, in, uh, a school, a courthouse, a airport, or a UTA facility. But the municipality could go back and adopt one official flag. That official flag would be the flag that they could fly in those locations. That would be the, essentially the only change that's happening in schools is we'd be eliminating the municipal flags that have been adopted today from this section, and allowing the them to only fly one official flag. That flag would be subject to admin rules to as to con, uh, to ensure that those meet government neutrality standards. But then it also changes that the municipalities can continue to fly whatever flag they'd like outside of those four regulated facilities. And currently the code says that they cannot fly, um, a non-official flag at City Hall, for example. This would, this change would allow Salt Lake City to continue to fly whatever flag they like at City Hall, but not allow them to fly any flag they'd like at a school, at an airport transit facility, or a, um, uh, keep forgetting the fourth one. Courthouse. Courthouse. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks for that clarification. I think that's really helpful.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Justin Lee, deputy Director of Utah League of Cities and Towns. I do wanna thank Representative MacPherson for working with us. Uh, he reached out to us and we always appreciate it when a legislator reaches out to us and, and says, I'm working on this and I'd like your input on this. We did have concerns with the, the original iteration of the bill. Um, previously there was some language in there that said flags would have to be approved by that, uh, legislative committee. Um, and we think you have better things to do with your time that'll be approving flags up here. And so this, this substitute does make that the review that has been talked about previously. And so with that, we do think this is good clarification and we are neutral on the bill. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, um, members of the committee. My name is Marina Lowe, representing at Quality Utah. Um, we appreciate that HB 3 0 2 would largely allow for individual expression in the form of flag display by government entities. We still have concerns about legislative control over municipal and county level government action, but we have appreciated engaging with Representative MacPherson and will continue to do so, um, as this bill progresses through the process. And, um, we appreciate that Salt Lake City will have the ability to fly the pride flag during the annual pla, uh, pride flag, uh, sorry, pride celebrations that happen every year. And so we're grateful for that. Thank you so much.

All righty. Thank you very much. And thank you to the sponsor of this bill. I'm Seth Stewart, representing myself from American Fork. Uh, I'm not seeing any red flags in this bill, um, right outta the gate. And maybe that's something that could be addressed, but if I'm understanding right, line 67 says, uh, Utah's historic flag is expressly allowed to be displayed. Um, love clarity on that, just to be sure. 'cause I know there's been some, uh, chagrin over that. Um, I, and I see this bill partly as a maneuver to minimize contention, which is commendable. I understand that's a challenging task because how do you minimize contention without squashing freedom of expression, including the capacity to dissent from statewide review? Um, I likewise believe there are open questions the legislature should consider about local versus state authority. Uh, the state has for, since its inception, really been under, um, a theory of municipalities being political subdivisions of the state. That has not been the uniform rule of the United States since the beginning or since the articles of Confederate Confederation and so on. Um, but I, I will say that I, I I, I do have concerns about centralizing that that authority, um, local municipal flags on government property can serve an important signaling function, including to indicate distress or other important messaging. And of course, we don't want that to be hijacked by, say, the national parties or, um, a certain political movement. Right. But I would just urge a little bit more consideration to that effect of how do you, um, enable the municipalities to express their own views by way of popular sovereignty without necessarily gatekeeping it. And also, um, yeah, I, I, I honestly think that would be the best thing to do because the, uh, we're worried about national party flags flying or something like that, then that's already an inversion of federalism there. So thank you. Thank

Thank you Mr. Chair. I move that we pass out HB 3 0 2 first substitute as amended favorably to the full house.

Thank you, Mr. Ra. I assume he's not speaking to it. Um, thank you Mr. Chair. I I I'm gonna be voting no on this, but I wanted to explain why. 'cause I feel like there could be an assumption that this is a knee jerk. Oh no, it has to do with flags thing. And I wanna be clear. It's not that. And I actually, uh, commend the sponsor with, I think that this bill has a measure of grace to it that we don't often see in bills that sort of touch these sore points. And I, I am sincerely appreciative of, of that. 'cause I think a lot of us were a little nervous when we saw that there was another flag bill. Um, I, we talk a lot as a body about local control, and I feel like sometimes that that's just lip service. And I want to make sure that, like, that is a thing that I've tried to stand up for. And I feel like saying, Hey, you have to do, like a flag is individual to a municipality. And I, I trust municipalities to care for their constituents and represent them in the way that they see best. And to say, okay, we agree with that, but also run it up the flag pole to the state. 'cause we think we know better than you. That kind of gives me that vibe. So I'm a know on that for that reason. But again, I really do want to commend you for the tremendous work that you've done in taking a really hot button issue and, uh, pouring a glass of cold water all over it. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I just a few comments, if I may. Um, I'm probably a little out of sync with some of my colleagues in that I thought it was very creative what Salt Lake said he did. Um, not that it was good or bad or not, not something that I would fly, but I, like you have to give them kudos for creativity there. Like, I, I, you know, I mean, you make rules and people play in the rules. And, and, and I guess one of my comments, I wanna, I wanna echo some of the same things that the Representative Hayes said. Like, I I was a little worried that we had another flag bill, but I think the term grace that she said, a measure of grace here, I I, I think that you have done a really good job of trying to, to thread that needle. I do have concerns with local control, but like, I think your description of, of state interest areas is, uh, very well thought out. Um, one, one side thought, and I'm not saying this to say that we shouldn't, uh, continue to address areas of public interest, but in my study of history, I found that even in the Holocaust, when people's, uh, lives were on the line, they still found ways to symbolize and make them them public. And so I don't think this will ever be done. There'll be different things that come out, whether it's something you wear on your shirt or your pen or a hat or a color. Uh, so I think the committee should be mindful of that, you know, and there's people that feel like they're marginalized, whether they're liberal or conservative or something else altogether, there will continue to be signs. And so I think we should be mindful of that, but I don't think that means we shouldn't act. And I think that this is a, a again, a, a measured and thoughtful approach to it. So I appreciate it.

Thank you. And thanks for walking through. It sounds like your bill will improve where we are at. I think too, to some of the comments made, um, at some point too, we have to allow local elected officials to live with their choices. And if a city wants to defend their constituents, that flying a pride flag year round is how they're gonna roll or what they're gonna do. I think at some point we have to let them own that and let the voters actually be able to see that decision in full force. And, uh, so I, I will be supporting your bill. I think too, this has been a lesson learned as well. Um, we talk about local control and, um, it's hard for voters to go to the voting box and actually demand changes or consequences if we're going in and saving them, so to speak. So I appreciate you trying to navigate this and get us to a better spot.

Oh, you know, I want, I wanna take a second then since we're done here or close to done. Uh, representative Wal, you were exactly right. I had the same fe same thought, man. They are creative. How, and I, because I loved, I love rules. I love to figure out how you can. So that was awesome. Um, I, I, I, I, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't necessarily love it, but it was awesome. What the, what they, but I really appreciate what you've done here because I think you've been, I think what you're, what you've done here is a fair and reasonable, very metered approach that I think is a, this is, I've worked in this space a little bit. This is tough stuff. And you, I think you pulled off something kind of miraculous. So I I I, I gave you kudos.

If that's okay. I'll, I'll be very brief. I know we're all itching to get away for that three day weekend. Um, but, you know, my wife and I, um, not long ago we were in Park City during, uh, pride Month, and we, and they had some flags flying. And my, my wife, I hope she's not listening or embarrassed by this, but she, you know, she was just kind of like, Ugh, pride, pride, flag. She didn't like it. And, and I just kind of told her, I was like, what, what do you really care though? Like, what is your, what is your interest here? And it, and it really kind of brought it back to of, you know, that this is in that particular city, in that particular area. That's what they decided they wanted. They've elected people that have, uh, decided that's what they wanted. But I do think that the state does have an interest in some of these locations where it's not just about the municipality. You know, the airport is our primary point of entry for the state. It's gonna be that for many, many people for the Olympics. Um, that that's a, that's an issue that perhaps the state has an interest in ensuring that there is more of a neutrality standard there. Same with our transit facilities once you leave the airport. Um, same with our courthouses and in our schools, these, these aren't just, um, people that are, um, people that live in those areas or that vote in those areas. Um, and the state has an interest, I think, in ensuring that. Um, and, and I don't want to throw, um, any necessarily cold water on the discussions that have been had in the past over, um, you know, whether a city, um, should or should not do what they want on their own property and, and have the relationships with the state work. I do think that the, uh, elect elected officials should be accountable to their, to their electorate. Um, and this, this really allows that to happen while protecting the state interests, wherever they may lie. Um, we've tried to craft it in a way that, that will hopefully not result in further discussion about this, that we don't have to keep coming back under the concern over, you know, um, about how the marginalized and stuff, you know, I would just remind the committee this has no impact on any private citizen or private organization. This is only government speech, which is the, the name of the, of the bill that we're trying to regulate what the government is imposing in certain locations and not, uh, regulating what they want to, um, uh, put in place in their own, uh, other, uh, owned, uh, public locations. And so I do, I I do appreciate those that have spoken those with the concerns. I think this strikes the right balance. If there's adjustments that need to be made, I'm happy to look at those. But I think that with the parties we've spoken to and all, all the groups that have been involved on this, uh, I'm hopeful that if I have both, uh, uh, equality Utah and Trevor Lee both kind of like, maybe this is a, a fit here. Maybe it is miraculous, like the, the chair has said. So thank you, committee. Alright.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Em, this. Um, if you got, if, uh, colleagues, if you'll recall last year, there was a bill that was passed that, uh, um, identified certain types of, uh, flags and displays that could be held in certain locations. Um, and then shortly after the session, um, one of our municipalities adopted, uh, a number of additional official flags in order to, uh, kind of skirt around the state law. There's been a lot of discussion about what, uh, the process we should do. Um, I've been working, uh, greatly with the, the league, with Salt Lake City, with, uh, the different stakeholders. And what we came up with was a solution, um, in this bill, HB 3 0 2. Currently, what this, uh, bill would do, would provide that municipalities can only adopt one official flag and they can adopt as many ceremonial or other flags as they would like. And then it limits certain locations that the state has an interest in regulating to official flags only. And those locations are schools, airports, public transit facilities, and, um, courthouses. This, what this would effectively do is allow cities under properties that they own that is not on the regulated list. They could continue to fly the flags that they would prefer. And in the area, in those areas that the state has an interest in regulating, they'd be limited to only their official flag. This also subjects the adoption of flags to the admin Rules committee of the legislature. This does not require them to get permission or to get approval to, uh, to create a flag or to pass or adopt a flag. This simply allows the committee to have review authority of those flags after they've been adopted or if there are complaints that they don't meet this section of code. With that, uh, I am open for any questions.

Then I will waive.