H.B. 391 Vacancy Replacement Amendments: transcript

substitute house Bill 3 91 vacancy replacement amendments Representative Shepherd. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you Committee. It's an honor to be back in front of you today. I feel like I was just here. House Bill 3 180 91 House Bill 3 91. Third substitute. It clarifies that vacancies in the offices of US. Senator Vickers, state Legislature, state Board of Education, and the government offices. And let me step back and say that it has the attorney general, state treasurer, state auditor, and Lieutenant Governor in there as well. That they'll be filled by an appointment from the party that the individual was selected, the political party that the individual selected the last time that they were elected or appointed to the office. That's what the bill does. That's my presentation.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I was, I was reading earlier, um, I, I thought I, excuse me, just a second. Thought there was some more detail in there. I apologize. I'll, I'll pass on that. Um, okay. Um, okay. So we address US Senator, this state legislator, uh, state Board of Education, an appointment from the governor and vacancy in a county office.

Thank you. I'd move that we pass, uh, favorably from this committee's third substitute house Bill 3 91.

All sum. Thank you. I mean, waive.

I'm presenting on My own. Okay. I think there's some here for public

Thank you. House bill 91. This bill is not about individual people, it's really about right of association. This bill is about the timing of elected officials resignations who has the authority to replace those vacancies and the timing of those appointed replacements. This bill addresses a potential situation where a partisan elected official could potentially, after being elected in a general election, or appointed to fill a vacancy in a partisan office, decide to at any point after being elected or appointed or after assuming office decide to change a party affiliation and then followed by a resignation, this bill will close a loophole where the will of the people who in good faith voted for a candidate who represented themself to be aligned with the party its platform and perhaps won a convention race without having to go to a primary. Then perhaps the candidate was placed on the general election ballot by the partisan party party and they were, they were elected by that party and placed on the ballot to carry their banner on the general election ballot. When a candidate switches political parties and then resigns, the question is, which party gets to do the replacement? In a situation like this where a different party appoints the replacement, who is harmed, I contend the will of the voters, they would be harmed. And in such a situation they're subverted. Their will is subverted. This bill adds clarifying language to which partisan party would be, could be, and is authorized to replace a former office holder. This bill additionally establishes an interim vacancy period in nonpartisan vacancies. The period of time between the general election and the first official day of a new office holder and the new body of a council, local school board of special districts. And their term, it moves the replacement appointment window to 30 days after the newly elected council, local school board or elected special district board when they're formally seated. So as you can see, the affected races are the United States Senator. Okay. For the first part, which we talked about, the partisan races, United States Senator Vickers, state legislators like US state board education member and a county government office holder. And the nonpartisan races with the interim vacancy period that affects municipal offices, local school board, and elected special districts. I also want to just mention that I just have some, just a little bit of information on bills that have ha Utah legislative bills that have directly limited or clarified the powers of outgoing city councils and local bodies during the transition interim periods based on available legislative history. And I just wanted to mention, in 2025, we prohibited ordinances during interim period that impedes successor action. That was house bill 1 0 9, house bill 2 23. And we have one that is clarifying timing, referral of local ordinances, subject to referendum. And there was house bill one 19 and 1 33 in 2019, which strengthened referendum initiative, timing, and process. And I, I'm open for questions.

Go ahead. Yes. Oh, we actually had a situation in the legislature and I'm aware of in my county that there was someone that changed their party affiliation and then in my county party in the county, um, or county government organization, I could put it that way, that person then threatened to resign. So a different party could make the replacement and they were elected by a Republican party and then was going to jump to a third party. We had a situation in the Utah legislature where we have had that replacement and uh, this is not about the people who have replaced, been replaced, um, it's not about the people who have been appointed. This is about structure, this is about the will of the voter and that's why I brought this forward.

Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I guess the question I have is, did the people elect the person or the party and how do you know which who they voted for? So we're talking about the will of the people. That's something I, I, I try to figure out all the time 'cause you and I all hear Juab need listen to we the people and like who are the people, right? Is it the 10 that are mad or do they represent the 20,000 voters that I had?

Well, I would contend that when you have someone that's in a general election, that there are voters who do vote for the person. They also vote for him because they're in a party of their choice. That person is carrying the platform, they're supposed to be representing the platform at that party and that's where that association comes in. So I believe that people do elect a person, but they also elect them because they're in a party. I can tell you that, you know, my belief is that, um, I am particularly not going to be voting for certain individuals because I completely don't align with them. And, and I would be voting for another person even if I hadn't had the chance because I see that there's a platform where I do align and I can trust where their judgment's going to go on representing me.

Okay. Can I have a follow up question? You may Go ahead. Since We're, I'm gonna use a scenario of my colleague since he just stepped out. And let's just say we've got a Representative Loubet who is in a swing district. Certainly some people are voting for him because he's Republican and some people are voting against him because he's Republican and a lot of people are voting for him because he's Anthony Lube and a lot of people aren't. So in some areas it's pretty clear that they're heavy red or heavy blue to use those. But in that situation, did they vote for the person or did they vote for the party?

How did that person get on the ballot? Oh, was I supposed to just be able to ask? No.

Thank you. How did that person get on the ballot? Is going to be my question. Were they on the ballot because they were an unaffiliated candidate or were they on the ballot because a party and they went through the whole process and the party put them on that on there. And so I can't get inside the mind of the voter, but I can get inside of the thought that we put people on ballots for a reason. And I, I guess I'm just gonna stick with that.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, right now what is the require? What is the process? So if you were to, uh, resign, let's say as a state senator, um, and you changed your party affiliation and you resigned and you created either a new party or there was a a small party, what's the process by which that person gets replaced now?

Well currently the way it's been practiced is that the party that the person changed into the office hold changed into is the one who made the replacement.

And what's the process by which they choose a

Replacement? Oh, okay. So it depends upon the party. Right now we go to a central committee or delegates, depends which role it is for a state legislator to go to delegates. And it would either be state delegates or county delegates, depending if it crosses multi-county lines or not. And uh, those people would then go, uh, the delegates would then hold an election and they would determine who they wanted. So that is for the parties of the major parties, the Republican Democrat Party, uh, that's my understanding at least of the Democrat party as well. And so they would have a convention of delegates and you know, there's sometimes a hundred, sometimes there's many more than a hundred in the, in the multiple hundreds that will come in there and they would then determine who their person is that they want. And that name would go to the governor and the governor would make that appointment then.

And is this statutorily set in the law how they do this process? Or is this relegated to the party's own rules?

So that part is, I think it's a hybrid and I think it goes to the party's rules on there. So the, we allow the party to actually make that replacement and their, the liaison from the party will then notify us who it is. Did I answer your question?

Yes. And Mr. Chair, I assume I can ask another question.

And, and so just so I'm clear then, if this is relegated the rules of the party. Um, so if, if for example, I wanted to resign and establish my own party, I could set the rules for my own party on how I would find a replacement for myself and that there's no statute that says how that works. I can, I can make any selection process. I wish. Is that currently what the code says for a state and I submit that name to the governor and the governor selects that person?

Well, there has been a situation where there was a minority, an extra minority party, uh, who has made a replacement for a state senator. And I'm not really sure if they had tried out that process in the past. It may be the first time they've ever done it. And there was a very small quantity of people out of a very small quantity of voters in the subset of the district.

That was an interesting answer, Mr. Chair to his question. So I, I guess my thing is when we have political caucuses, Mr. Chair, aren't they a select group of people that select somebody? 'cause not everyone participates in caucuses. So wouldn't that be similar to what we, what the good representative there was talking about? I don't know. Am I off that? That's

You got me. But

My, my concern is, my question is, um, well I have two questions 'cause he triggered a question. My first question is, can you just clarify for me when we're talking about appointing an individual to fill the vacancy of a, a municipal election, it says prohibits a local legislative body from approaching an individual to fill that vacancy. Can you clarify that a little bit more? 'cause that's a little bit different than partisan races.

Was that in current code?

Well, I was just reading the key talking points here.

Okay. So I just, I just wanted

To, just wanted to go to my technical Clarification. So we, you're not talking about municipal races at all then

The only time talking about municipal races is in that timeframe of the interim period of time between, so let's say,

Yeah, gimme an Example. This

has happened. This has happened. Okay. It's happened several times and so we're trying to get through this little loophole that's happening there as well. It's, I guess it wouldn't be a loophole in this one. It's really, um, some people look at it as maybe political gaming and just wanna remove as much as possible there. So I will go with an example of a city in, in my county and uh, the people that left and the people that were appointed are all good people. So it's not about them. So we had an election, there were teams of people who ran some on with some might think is Team A, we'll say that way, and a team B who might have had some different ideology. Team A, their people didn't win. Team B, their people won. Some of the people that didn't win were on the current council. So this was the city council were on the city council. One ran for mayor and lost one, ran for reelection and lost both good people. Their current mayor at that time was also there and chose not to run again. So what happened was we had an, a fourth candidate, the person who got fourth place that, uh, I can't get inside the voters, but I actually did a debate for them. And there were a lot of questions. And one of the questions was a conflict of interest. And many of the people, my understanding in that city felt that there was an inherent conflict of interest for one of the candidates because they held a county position as well and a county position of great power. And so they didn't know whether they would be representing the county position or they would be representing the city position. Now I happen to know this individual fabulous person. So it's not that person was appointed and had a Team B known that there was going to be a vacancy on election day, which would trigger that this former council, I guess it was the current council at that time, but it was after the will of the people spoke and Team B's candidates were all, they all won the election. So one of the candidates from Team A was appointed. And the goal of this is to make it that the current will of the people would be who would be making that decision about the replacement. And so that would happen just after that new board is seated. Is that clear?

I think so. I just, uh, I just know that, um, municipal elections operate from my perspective being, um, active in local government as an employee as well as just someone who's active. Um, the way we we do things seems to work. Even though I may not, um, necessarily agree with who the city council appoints. There's a process in place there that I just don't think needs to be messed with. I guess that's my concern.

That's correct. Uh, for state legislatures it would be the delegates, not the central committee.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

I, I apologize. I just have more ideas, more thoughts percolating in my head, so thank you. I'm trying to think. So I'm gonna use some, some hypotheticals with real names because my mind is simple and I can't do a and B and blue and red or, or yellow and green or whatever. So I'm gonna use some some real terms here. Let's just say that the governor is the one that, that steps down, um, changes his party steps down. It's different and it goes back to the party. And let's just say that you have the same party and you have, uh, Spencer Cox and Phil Lyman. Who did the people choose? If you look like hindsight, like we're trying to project what we think the will of the people is, that's a hard, that's, I guess I just really have a hard time with knowing whether the will of the people. 'cause now you've got two people who are both Republicans, but there was a very sharp divide on who the Republicans wanted.

Well, I would go with who won the primary and then who was put on the general election and who won. But in the governor's case, we have a lieutenant governor who is the direct successor. And

I understand I'm using that for like a scenario. Okay. Like, like I'm using one with names that we know, but apply it to a state representative, John. Yeah.

Well anyone listening now they understand Lieutenant Governor is the one though.

Yeah, I, no, I understand that.

Thank you. So the example you gave, uh, would this representative happen to live in that city that you're referring to?

No. Are you sure? I'm positive. Okay.

Because, uh, it sounded awful like what happened in Lehi during the last municipal election. And so you had me with this bill, but then when you were explaining that, it was just like what happens in that municipal example? Uh, and what happened in Lehi is you have incoming city council and mayor, and, uh, it's a matter of weeks and you have an outgoing mayor and city council. So what you're, what you described is like the outgoing mayor and city council. It's like, oh, you lost election or you're not going, you're not running, you're not gonna be in office. And so they are from the election to the end of that term, we're creating lame duck municipal, uh, officials when they should be able to fully exercise what they were elected to do until the very end of their term. So I am, I'm not sure I agree with that aspect of it. Um, but as far as what goes on in our state elections and other things, I think there, there's a good case here. So I'm not sure where I'm at on this bill at this point, but that's what I was kind of thinking.

Thank you. If I could just respond. Yeah, please go ahead. Okay. I just wanted to go back to the previous actions that we've created, lame ducks situations in there, and some of the legislation that we've done here before my time. Those situations that I, I read that earlier. Do you want me to reread

It? I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you just said.

Okay. Maybe nobody did. I didn't, maybe I didn't say it clearly. I said that, um, a little while ago I brought up some of the bills that created lame duck situations for current boards and I can bring those, I can say those again if you want me to, but we do have other

No, I, I think I understand what, what I'm just saying at the municipal level in that scenario happened in Lehi and what I thought you were talking about is, uh, we're we're kind of forcing, uh, the, in the, the current municipal elected officials into a lame duck situation. It's like, oh, we have all new people, we have to wait till they are in office to make some of these changes. Now, as far as the party stuff, I, I totally agree with that. It's like, uh, if, if one party elects someone and that per, and they change their party and then they resign, it, it, it seems totally appropriate that the party that they were elected should be able to call that replacement. But, uh, in the, in the Senator Vickers race that we're, I think we're referring to, that's not what happened. And uh, and maybe that's the way it should be, but, so the, I guess my issue is really only with the municipal part of this discussion. So anyway, thank you Mr. Chair.

May I respond? Of Course,

So we want to remember that if the general election was on November 3rd, any election, anyone that resigns on November 3rd, between that time and basically the beginning of January, so you're looking at November and how many meetings are those councils having, or local boards, you know, the other ones are part of this. How many meetings are they really having? Are they missing two meetings? Are they missing three? Because you're going, you'll have November, there will be Thanksgiving, there'll be some that won't have meetings. You'll also get into December. But

The, the thing is, uh, in the party scenario, the party doesn't wait till the next central committee meeting to, to do that appointment. They call a special convention. And so there's nothing that would prevent a city council, a sitting city council to call a special meeting to address some of these issues. And, uh, so I'm, I'm not sure I'm going along with that thought process. Okay. But I understand what you're saying, so thank you.

That's correct. Alright, thank you.

Maryanne Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch, and I am here in favor of this bill. And when I was discussing it in a small group of people, we got that question, well, do people vote? Do the voters vote for people or do they vote for party? I think that they vote most often for ideas and ideologies that they find in platforms. And so this bill makes perfect sense for, um, supporting the people in their choice of which ideas, which ideologies, which platform they decided to vote on. And so I I really appreciate that. Um, in the 2024 election, we had almost a million and a half people voting. That's a lot of people that have invested themselves in an, in an election to have the outcome that they desired. And by having an, a public official switch parties so that they can have their replacement be elected by a set of rules that they weren't expecting, it's just not fair to all of those voters. Um, also in a lot of races, most races in Utah, the voters decide quite resoundingly. In fact, in this committee, half of you were elected by at least a three to one vote, some of you by a four to one vote of your, of your constituents. And this bill helps to, um, to validate the voters in those elections. But then on the other hand, those of you that won 50% plus something, those races are even more important because they have to be hard fought. The voters there have to campaign, they have to put signs out, they have to come out and vote. They have to get their, their neighbors to come out and vote. And so those votes are even more precious than the ones that are won in, in the, the overwhelming votes. Um, as far as the, as far as I understand what's going on in the municipalities, and this is the way I,

I'll sign in as soon as I'm, as I'm done. Marilyn Baum, a citizen representing myself. Um, and I agree, I speak in favor of this bill. I agree with what Maryanne said. Do you vote for a people or party? A lot of people look for either the D or the r, the, the two major political parties in the United States and vote in alignment with the principles that they know underlie that party platform. Um, certainly personalities come into it, but a lot of voters don't know the actual candidates or haven't interacted with them regarding the municipality, um, I just reread lines 1188 to 1196 that speaks about the municipal elections. If I am running for a municipal election and I'm currently on the city council, or I'm the mayor and I lose, I am by definition a lame duck from that election where I lost till January when someone else takes the, the place. What this bill addresses is, can I, as the lame duck mayor now, if there's an uh, vacancy in the council, can I appoint my buddy to go in and vote the way the people who just voted me out want me to vote? That's what I think this bill is saying, is, during the time that you are already a lame duck, you cannot use your power to ensure that your point of view or your principles, which obviously the people didn't support, is what's gonna go forward. So,

You've got may, that may be my misunderstanding of it, but I think 45 seconds As, as I read the bill, that was my understanding of what we're trying to do is ensure that we maintain the will of the people in the way that they voted. So I may have to go back and study a little more on how, um, I appreciate your comment and clarification on that, but I, I would vote in favor of this bill, um, at least from my understanding. Thank you.

Yeah, so I actually ran in legislation on this three different times and it is the city council that replaces a council or a mayor replacement. We had a couple of cleanups that we had to do on it, but that's the way the replacement works.

It away. My, my name is Helen Moer. I'm here today representing the League of Women Voters. The league supports strong election policies that promote transparency, accountability, and voter confidence. And we appreciate the sponsor's effort to clarify, standardize the process for filling vacancies in elected office. However, we have three concerns with HP 3 91. First, the provision requiring that certain vacancies be filled by an individual selected by the political party of the prior office holder. Even if a special election is held later, the party selected appointee may serve for months and will be able to vote on budgets, ordinances, major policy decisions before voters have any say that an individual also gains in the advantage of incumbency, which can significantly influence the outcome of the subsequent election. This risk undermining the principle that voters not political parties should choose their representatives. And we're also concerned that party selection processes may not be as transparent or publicly accountable as vacancy appointments made in open meetings by elected bodies. And then lastly, the bill creates a new interim vacancy period that prevents some local governments from filling vacancies right away in, in municipal, excuse me, municipalities, local school boards or elected special districts for smaller cities and towns. A vacancy is not just a political issue. It can affect quorum, delay decision making, and disrupt timely delivery of essential services. Local governments need flexibility to maintain continuity of representation and operations. So for these reasons, the league opposes the bill and respectfully ask the committee to consider amendments that preserve transparency while protecting voter confidence and ensuring local governments can continue functioning effectively. Thank you.

Hello? Can you see and hear me?

Excellent. My name is Russ Rampton. I live in Provo. Uh, I am representing myself, certainly not my employer. And I also happen to be a candidate for Utah County Clerk seeking the endorsement of and the nomination from the forward party. So we're the party that started all of this. We're the only reason that this bill is here. Let me just make it very clear that we are suggesting that there is a better way in a time when political polarization is a huge thing and the delegates typically represent the extremes of their party. Open special elections create a better alternative. The replacement for Senator Thatcher was chosen in an open process, involved 1300 voters whose voting, uh, or at least whose party affiliations, um, represented the party affiliations of all of the voters in that district. Were able to involve a lot of people and able to have someone who the voters chose, not someone selected by party insiders. Please don't double down on protecting the parties. Find solutions that in, um, empower the voters. Thank you.

Thank you. You're looking for a motion to adopt the first sub or has it already been adopted? It

Okay, then I would make the motion that we favorably recommend for sub HB 3 9 91 out of this committee.

Uh, no, I think the sponsor's done a good job trying to explain it.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a substitute motion that we hold, if I could speak to that.

Um, I think there's still a lot of questions about the processes and how this would play out. Um, I'm, I'm hoping that I'm not the only one, but based on the questions asked by the committee, I I think there's some good things in here that we can suss out. Um, but I, I don't think it's ready to go to the floor.

Well I guess that's up to the, to the committee to make that decision. Um, I think that, I think it's actually really clear. If you are running as a Republican, you get elected in a convention by the delegates to go straight to the straight to the general election. They put you on the ballot or you have a hard fought primary like I did and they put you on the ballot to go. That party has invested in you and the voters have invested in you in the primary and then the general election has invested in you. And I think that it's clear in the situations we've talked about that we have Republicans at that point, Republican party. It could be a Democrat party, it could even be a forward party, I guess, or independent American party. But I think it's pretty clear what we're looking for here. We're looking for the willow of the voters from when that person was last elected or appointed. That's what I think we're looking for there. And as far as the other one goes, which just removes gaming, that can happen when a certain, uh, seating group of, of a council or the other entities are, are spoken of where it removes their ability to play games. If you want to resign, then resign prior to the result of the election and then there's no problem, then you can have that same group of people pointed. Alright.

Thank you. Uh, I'm gonna be a no on this and I appreciate the good sponsor. I, I know that she's really trying to solve a meaningful, uh, problem. And, and I think that it's a very real one. I mean, the, the non-elected, uh, political scientist part of me thinks that it was very creative what was done and the rest of me thinks it was very devious and maybe a little underhanded in what was done. Uh, that's brought this bill forward and, and, and not very fair to the people. And so I understand the desire to, to fix that. I have a couple problems. Number one is, uh, the municipal elections. We elected city council members to do a job for an entire term, not until a month and a half before their term is over. And that includes replacing and choosing the replacements. And so those are the consequences of elections. And so I, I, I don't like that part of the bill for that reason. And on the other piece, I, I, I just don't think that the party, I'm a proud member of my party. I've been a, uh, a delegate for 30 years and, uh, I got my little Reagan pin on here. Um, but I just philosophically don't believe that the party owns the seat. So I'm a no.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And I will say that I do have just some minor, maybe holdups on some of these, uh, questions. I think that there is a significant issue, um, on these statewide, um, and, and larger like the, um, executive and legislative, um, seats. And we saw that play out, um, very recently. I think there's significant problems there that need to be fixed. I, um, I disagree with a lot of the statements made about the process that was put in place. Um, and uh, I think if you look at the rules under which they operated, they were absolutely not appropriate for what we would think. And, and I would agree with Representative Welton that the party doesn't own a seat, but I also say that the individual in the seat doesn't own own it either. It's owned by the people. Um, and that district is is there. And, and I think that maybe there needs to be adjustments. There absolutely has to be adjustments in this process. We've seen this needs fixed, but I'm not sure exactly where it lands on when we get down to the municipal level. So I am going to be a yes, but I'm going to be working, um, with Representative Maloy on perhaps some adjustments and appreciate the committee.

Yeah, I was still waiting for a rec, a bill comparison on that between the two areas here. Alright, Mr.

Thank you. I'd like to move the third sub.

Yes. So we fixed a drafting year in the third sub and from the original bill to the second sub, we removed the municipal component just to have some further conversations during the year.

Thank you. This bill just clarifies that when there's a vacancy in a political partisan office, that, that that seat will be filled by the party of which the prior office holder was a member of at the time that that office holder was last elected or appointed. It goes for the offices of US Senator State Legislator State Board of Education, a county government office. The Attorney, attorney General State Treasurer, state auditor, and the lieutenant Governor.

Thank you. I'd like to move the third sub. The motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it and tell us the difference? Yes. So we fixed a drafting year in the third sub and from the original bill to the second sub, we removed the municipal component just to have some further conversations during the year.

Thank you. This bill just clarifies that when there's a vacancy in a political partisan office, that, that that seat will be filled by the party of which the prior office holder was a member of at the time that that office holder was last elected or appointed. It goes for the offices of US Senator State Legislator State Board of Education, a county government office. The Attorney, attorney General State Treasurer, state auditor, and the lieutenant Governor.