H.B. 443 Amendments to Procedure to Fill A Legislative Vacancy: transcript

Sorry, I'm just calling up your bill real quick, uh, so I can follow along.

All right. Thank you Mr. Chair. Committee members. Um, I wanna note that this is the, the first interesting bill I brought to this committee and I appreciate your attention to it. Um, we have an interesting problem in our state, and that is the issue of filling vacancies. So just a little bit of data, 28% of our current Senator Vickers were initially appointed as a midterm vacancy replacement, and 21% of representatives were, uh, Senate District Six. Just for an example, it has been 39 years since there was an totally open seat election. Uh, the most in our body in the house is House District 60, where there's been three appointments in a row. Um, that's representative Clancy's seat, so we will have another one shortly. Um, Utah legislative races are one by incumbents 95% of the time in the last six years. And, and that's why I feel like this is an issue. We've got people who are being appointed by small groups who are getting the benefit of this incumbency bump where they're winning 95% of the time, but they're not going through a traditional vetting process to be appointed to the legislature. And that's what HB 4 43 is trying to correct. So this deals with situations where there is a midterm vacancy in the state legislature. And essentially what it does is it creates a process for an election that can be a regular general election where the seat just stays empty until the general election or a municipal election, or we can actually call a special election to fill the, fill the seat to fill the vacancy. Um, I, I think it's an issue where we have these people, you know, I look at one of our democratic seats where that seat was voted on by 17 delegates and that's who chose their representative. And that's not the process we have and that's not the process that we want. I think it's better if we have more people voting and more people who have a say so that we are getting someone who actually represents the district as opposed to just a small group picking who is going to fill that role. Um, it's a very complex bill. I'm open to any questions, but that's, that's basically the gist of the bill.

Okay. Not, not municipal level and not any other statewide positions.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And I do have a couple of questions just going over this. So I know that there's a number of states that do this already. Um, and uh, is there, I I would, I guess I'm, I I've looked at the fiscal note as well and I'm not sure I, I'm understanding, do we know exactly what the cost in difference is when it comes to, 'cause if you're, if you've got a midterm vacancy replacement and you're doing a, um, an appointment through, um, delegate, you know, election process versus a special election, I would imagine we're talking about a pretty significant difference in cost. But I don't see, I don't think enough of that in the fiscal note to know what that might be.

Yeah. And I don't, I don't have that information what the cost would be. Um, but under the bill it would be, and KIS looking at me like she knows the answer. Oh, well now I'm nervous. She wants to see if to get it right. Right. Yeah. Um, so under the bill we would, we would have essentially a special session vote where we'd have to appropriate money to do that. So, but since there is no requirement to do that, that's why it's not in the fiscal note.

I see. And I will phone a friend who is more knowledgeable than I am. No, I won't phone A friend. Looks like you got it. Right on. Yeah, I think You're, I was clarifying. No, she was clarifying for me. Okay. Uh, I'm, I'm, I'm listening. I'm very effective at, uh, multitasking. So, so keep going.

Yeah. So that, that's why the fiscal note is set up the way it is because it doesn't automatically allocate money for it. That's something that we would have to do and we could do that on a district by district basis, however we wanted to handle it. And, Oh, Go ahead. Oh, I'll just say it, you know, because it may be different. Um, I know I've talked with somebody who've raised concerns of a house district versus a senate district because we have far fewer Senator Vickers and they cover a lot larger areas. You know, that may be one where we want to call and, you know, say especially if we have more than one Senate vacancy, at the same time, we may want to allocate the money to do special elections there because they have more constituents. If we lose a couple house members, not a big deal. I mean, look at our floor votes, not, not in like a, I'm gonna off some people way, sorry, Representative Cutler, but, um, but look at our floor votes. I mean, we regularly have people missing votes because they're off the floor for whatever reason. So if we had seats that weren't filled immediately during session time, it's not gonna be a big change from what we're already seeing.

And I, I guess that leads into my second question because I, I, I, I understand at least from a votes by vote perspective that, uh, that concept, but I guess my concern is, is that the district's, uh, representation may not be, um, may not be filled there. And I just, I, I think that there, there's an interest in, in seeing those positions, uh, filled whether they, because they can hold those representatives accountable on their own if they're not gonna show up to a floor vote, for example, or a committee. Um, but I guess, uh, the other question would be, um, in the same vein when it comes to these, um, uh, these appointments, I think because I I'm trying to understand the policy. So the concept is, is that if, if someone is elected, the, the expectation, at least from the electorate that has chosen that person, is that that person would serve for a period of time two years or four years. And if they vacate that seat beforehand, the question is, does the will of the voters that made that election, whether it was a year ago or six months ago, still apply for that expected term? Or do we expect the new electorate, depending on how things have, may have demographically other shifted, decide how that moves forward. I guess I'm just curious what, what, what I guess sparks the interest in, in changing that from, you know, where it was when, when the election happened versus that current date and time when, when the vacancy appears. Uh, I mean, and, and I think just a clarifying question. I think you're saying like in your seat, if you were to resign, it was a Republican victory, Republican should replace, is that Yeah, and I guess, and, and yeah. And that, that brings up a good question too, right? And when you've got a, a seat that may have a lot of, or there isn't any clear majority, um, in, in a district such as mine, for example, the question may be, um, you know, is this a party that chooses to replace that seat? Is it, um, 'cause that, that, that is a question is, is that the, does the vote reflect some sort of, uh, preference for a candidate for a party? We can't really tell it's, I I, we had a similar bill on this in our last committee meeting that I think these were hard discussions. I'm just trying to figure out, you know, are we, are we disenfranchising pre-PA voters by making this adjustment? I, I just wanna hear your kind of talking through that.

Yeah. And, and I think it could go either way. Uh, you know, I think there are people that vote based on party, and as much as I don't agree with that, I think that's the case. But I also think there's a lot of people that vote based on person. You know, for example, if, uh, same vote with my district, if I were to step down and the democratic candidates get to pick someone, they could pick someone who is far left, which is not representative of the district. Um, so should the party be able to pick that or should the parties be able to put up candidates so then people can then vet those candidates and see which one is more in line with their values? And that's, that's really the fundamental policy question here is should we give that right to a small group of people that could pick someone who's not in touch because that's the party that had the seat? Or is it the people's seat? Does that answer your question or did I just, I, I think so. I'm just, yeah. Processing. Thank you, Uhhuh.

Mr. Chair. Could, could the sponsor go over two scenarios? Could you go over the timing and logistics, uh, under this proposal for the seat that Senator Thatcher vacated, uh, when he vacated? How, how would this work for that scenario? And then let's also do another hypothetical situation. Let's say that President Trump appoints you to his cabinet to advise him on legal issues. Exactly. And let's say he does that next, next December. Oh, so that happens in a December. How, how would the timeframe and logistics work? Mm-hmm.

You can take those one at a time if it's Too much. Yeah, I will. Um, and, and I don't want to disappoint you, but I know very little of the timing of when, uh, of This bill No, no, not of this bill of Senator Thatcher's resignation. I, I pay far less attention to him than I think he would like. So, um, if you can clarify as to when that would be. I, I mean, under the bill they have, they have a certain amount of days that the parties can put up a candidate June Or, um, and then a certain amount of time where the governor can, you know, within 90 days the governor can call a special election. Where if it's more than 90 days outside of those already standing

Elections. So, so in the hypothetical situation where President Trump appoints you, his legal advisor, given your great knowledge of the law,

Brilliant legal mind. Yes. Brilliant legal mind is, that's the phrase I was looking for.

Yeah. And he does that December 1st, 2026. What would happen under your, in this scenario, how would your district be represented?

Yeah, so I, I mean, and that's, and that's the tricky part because of the timeline there. If it's December, you know, the chance of getting someone in before the legislative session is unlikely because they have a certain amount of days where they have to put up candidates and then you've gotta hold the election. Um, so, uh, sorry, scrolling through here. I was on the Senate side, so in between 21 and 28 days to select a candidate and then they would hold, they'd have to do the general election route because there's not, or a special election route because there is not an election before the next November. So that would be something that we'd have to consult with the governor's office as a legislative body, whether we wanna call ourselves in appropriate that money and then see, So could, in that scenario, could the governor say, Hey, this area of the state, Sandy Midvale is so important that we want to call, he's resigned December 1st, and within seven days the governor or lieutenant Governor recognized that and calls a special election in, in 30 or 35 days, let's say January 15th. Is, is, could, could, is that possible under the scenario or they have to wait till after the session? No, I think it's possible, you know, we'd have to have a special session to appropriate those funds. So You can't, you can't have an election unless there's a special session first to appropriate the funds. Even if, even in your case it's a county election, it's not a state election. Yeah. We, I mean we'd have to give the money to the county to hold that under the bill. So the governor would have to weigh, is Representative Stoddard's seat really worth appropriating money for? And, and I think, and I think that is, you know, then it's up to the whole legislative body. Like do we feel that there's gonna be enough absence from that seat, you know, the amount of time or is it just we just wait until the next election and that's, we're going to fill it.

Thank you Mr. Chair for the second run at this. I appreciate it. And 'cause this brought up maybe one other question because I've been still processing the thoughts on this. So if we look at, for example, the seat that Senator Baldry, uh, filled, I think there were like 12 or 13 candidates in that race that the, um, that the Republicans had done in a, um, in a special right. And, and I think in the seat vacated by Brad Wilson, I think there were four or five candidates on that house seat as well. Three Or four. Okay. And I guess my question because I'm going back to the policy discussion set about, well, a party, if a party's gonna make that replacement. You may not, they may in, uh, they may put in someone, but I, I, I guess I'm, I'm questioning that idea of putting in, because these are still, these are still currently in these, um, vacancy replacements. We're, we're typically getting quite a few candidates and there's typically a, uh, a, a pretty internal process. I guess what I'm wondering is, do you expect that to change? Is that, are we just making that process more expensive if they go to a special election? Um, are, or is the idea that in Senator Balder's race, for example, if you would had maybe a couple of additional candidates that came outside of the party that maybe that would change the outcome? I, I'm just curious. Again, I wanna make sure I'm understanding the reasoning, but also the practicality of it too, if you can help.

Yeah. And as so as to the reasoning, like we are getting, uh, by and large, a lot of people trying to fill these vacancies, which is great. I love that. Yeah. The main difference is, as opposed to having, you know, whatever group of delegates, I don't know how many are in Senator Balder's district voting, it would be the district.

Um, and I guess the other question now that was whispered in my ear is, so if nobody were to gather signatures, would this still just go to the regular convention process? So if you only had one, You only had, you only had, let's say, Republican challengers for the seat, and no one gathered signatures, would a convention just simply decide the outcome still? So if you only had one, one party putting up a candidate, right.

That's a good question. Yeah. I'm not sure on that one. Okay.

Thank you. Okay.

Yeah. Alright. And that's, and, and that is what I see as the problem is, you know, whether or not we want to admit it, being an incumbent has a huge advantage. And you can have someone step into that seat and gain the incumbent tag and all the benefits that come with it without having earned that from the district. Instead, they're getting it from a small subset of people in the district who are largely self-selected.

Okay. Understood. And, uh, from my perspective, term limits are the voters. I mean, the voters can, can, can do term limits on any representative or senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, uh, had a question that came up as a result of, uh, representative McPherson's line of questioning. So on a special election, do we allow signature gathering as an option to get on that ballot? Currently? Currently, yeah.

We don't, do we? No. And in this new process, there would still be no signature gathering. I, I might have misunderstood the question, but like, there's no signature gathering involved in this, in, in any form. Is that correct? Paul's nodding yes. I did read by Bill. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.

Okay. Uh, okay. It was okay. Um, the next one's not just is, is just me thinking out loud. I, I think this is an interesting bill and, and it's caused the gears in my head to spin quite a bit, we're we have this bill that's trying to tackle gamesmanship and we had another bill that tr trying to tackle gamesmanship. And I think there is a certain amount of gamesmanship that that happens amongst elected officials. And they know when they're leaving and they know who they're talking to and they're trying to stack the deck a little bit. And I think this is a way that eliminates the stacking a little bit. I mean, you can have a lot of people like in Senator Balder's case that that sign up, but there is a lot of times that we've all seen it where the deck has been stacked. So I don't, I don't know how I feel about it yet, but I, I like, I like the conversation.

Good morning, I'm Michelle Quist. I am the chair of the Forward Party of Utah. I appreciate, uh, Mr. Chair and committee. I appreciate the time to be here this morning. Um, I appreciate this bill. I think it is a, um, good attempt to fix our, um, midterm vacancy, um, election issue that we have. These seats belong to the voters and we have had, um, an issue as has been, um, mentioned previously with, um, not only the benefits, there are benefits for incumbencies and, um, as we know, uh, once you are an incumbent, you have a benefit of, of remaining for, could be quite a long time. Um, historically, some of our legislators have been voted in with a surprisingly shockingly, um, number of delegates. Um, some Senator Vickers have been voted in with 52 delegates. Some Senator Vickers have been one Ven that one Ven one senator has been voted in with 52 delegates. One senator has been voted in with 274 delegates. One senator has been voted in with 128 delegates. One senator has been voted in with nine delegates, this bill. Um, and there have been, I don't have the, uh, numbers in front of me for the representatives who have been also voted in, in the current system with the delegate process with, uh, similar shockingly low amount of delegates, uh, in our current process that the delegate replacement process, um, the forward party tried a new process to open up that process to the voters. We believe that is a better process. And we think that this bill does the same thing. We think it's a better process. It opens up to the voters. We believe that voters should be deciding who our representatives are. Alright,

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my name is Philip Boyo. I'm the communications Director for the Board Party of Utah. I'm not gonna repeat anything that, um, Michelle Qui just said. That's fantastic. I do wanna offer two additional pieces of information while you consider this. Uh, we did our own evaluation of the cost related to such a, um, um, a sort of special election or an off-cycle election. Our understanding, um, and you can please speak to the clerks that you know, is that, um, if you run a vote like this through a county clerk's office, the cost is about $2 and 50 cents per voter based on our current processes for how we conduct these sort of mailer or primarily mailer elections. Uh, the forward party was able to do this for only 70 cents using, um, digital tools, but that would require a whole different set of laws. So I would pin that number $2 and 50 cents for your debates. Um, I'll also say that, uh, 25 of 50 states and union already conduct these types of, um, elections for midterm replacements. And, uh, that's all I wanted to add to, um, the commentary today. Thank you for your time.

Sure can. There we're Okay. There you go. Thank you. Uh, my name is Helen Moza. I'm here on behalf of the League of Women Voters to speak in support of the bill. The league supports policies that strengthen representative democracy, increase transparency, and ensure that voters have the strongest possible voice in their government. This bill is an important step towards those goals. When a legislative seat becomes vacant, the people of that district lose representation, and that's clearly been, uh, stated and how we feel that vacancy really does matter. Um, this bill ensures that vacancies in the Utah legislature are filled through a special election process, rather than through appointment mechanisms that can leave a voter feeling excluded from the decision. The bill also establishes a clear and predictable process for the governor to call a special election. It sets reasonable timelines for candidate election and generally aligns, um, with the, um, existing, uh, aligned special elections with existing election dates whenever possible. And that helps reduce cost, improve turnout, and make the process easier for voters to understand and participate in. We also appreciate the bill that the bill provides a pathway for action when a legislature legislators submits an irrevocable resignation effective at a future date that allows election planning to begin properly and helps reduce disruption for voters. Ultimately, the bill reinforces a basic democratic principle. People should choose their representatives. This legislation increases public trust, improves accountability, and strengthens the legitimacy of the legislature. For this reason, we urge you to support HB 4 43. Thank you.

I I just wanted to bring up one more scenario or question and I think

Thank you Mr. Chair. In the scenario, uh, uh, like we talked about before, where President Trump recognizes your brilliant legal mind appoints you to a seat in December, the governor calls a special election, but the legislature refuses to appropriate funds, then I believe your seat would be left vacant during the legislative session until the next general election. Is that not correct?

That is correct. And some people might argue that it already is when I'm there, so, but yes, if, if we choose to appropriate no money, then it would just fall on the next election. Whether that be, and it could be, um, could be a primary election, could be a municipal election, could be general election.

But Yes, this seems like it gives the legislature a tremendous amount of power over these special elections and the governor, 'cause the governor could choose to make a proclamation or not choose to make a proclamation. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move no subs or amendments. I don't move any subs or amendments, but I do move that we, um, pass out house bill 4 43 amendments to and to procedure to fill a legislative vacancy with a favorable recommendation.

I would thank you. I, as some of my colleagues were pointing out, um, there could be potential unfairness to, to people when they're not filled. But I think there's already inherent unfairness in the system, and I'd prefer to give that power back to the voters when possible. I, I love and appreciate my delegates. I appreciate the work that they do and they hold, um, a substantial amount of power. And I think that creating a mechanism by which we can get more fair and accurate representation, rather than putting up the most extreme of either party is a good one. And I recognize that there are probably still some questions and I also recognize that we've got a hundred plus bills on the board right now. So I think that there is time to work through any of the questions and concerns that have arisen, um, while acknowledging that we're over halfway through the session. And if we want good policy to pass, we kind of gotta get it moving. So I would like to see this pass out. Um, and I would love to have the committee support.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, you know, this is an interesting, um, idea too. I did a little searching, I don't know how true this is, this is chat GPT telling me. So I'm just gonna put this out there. But according to that, it says that we've got, uh, 12 states right now that fill these, um, vacancies just via appointment. No election of any kind. No, no one at all involved. Um, that we have nine states that do like us, that the party basically get, um, an election and that the governor just approves it essentially. And then according to this, there's nine states that do a, which I think is wild. A uh, uh, where the vacancies are filled by the local, uh, government. The county and city officials act as the, uh, electors to replace those seats. Um, which is kind of interesting. And most the states go do special election, they may allow for a temporary, um, appointment, but, um, I have to go through a, um, through a special election. I, I, I actually just think that this is really, I don't think there's a problem with the bill. I think this is just a question of policy. So I would support moving this to the body of the house and having them make that decision. So for that I'll be a yes.

Thank you Mr. Chair and, and thank you committee members. I, I, one thing I really appreciate this committee is there are good questions asked and good hypotheticals raised. And I think we do a good job as a committee of diving into these really difficult and interesting policy questions. And, and fundamentally that is what this is, is a policy question. And you know, just because I think this is a better way doesn't mean that everyone's going to agree with me and that's okay. Um, but I do think that what this bill does fundamentally is puts the seat back in the hands of the people that we are supposed to represent. Um, you know, to echo what Representative Hayes said, we love our delegates, we appreciate them, they do a great role in our districts and in society. Um, and they'll still have a part in selecting these candidates. But I feel like the right thing to do when there's a vacancy is to make sure we're getting as many eyes on it as possible and picking the right candidate. And this gives us a process to do that, that I think is more what the public would appreciate.

Madam meeting Clerk House Bill 4 43 amendments to procedure to fill a legislative vacancy by Representative Stoddard. This bill was heard in government operations with the vote of 7 3 2.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to move first substitute of HB 4 43.

Yes. Thank you. Um, colleagues, if you've read the bill, you know that this deals with what occurs when we have a legislative vacancy. Uh, there were some concerns about having a seat that was unfilled during a legislative session. So what the first substitute does is it addresses that and makes it so that no seat goes unfilled.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, and I'd like to thank my colleagues on the floor for their enthusiastic support of the substitute. Uh, that was just really great. Um, colleagues, this bill addresses an issue that is very common. Uh, approximately 28% of our house started their terms in an appointment. And in the, or sorry, 28% of the Senator Vickers started their term in an appointment. And 21% of the house, we have a Senate district, Senate District six that has had, has been 39 years since a senator was first elected in an open seat. 95% of our elections are won by incumbents. And that's why this bill is important. When someone is appointed, we go through the caucus convention system where delegates pick the replacement when there's a vacancy, and that's a great process. But the problem is, is these people are getting the incumbency bump when they're not vetted through a general election. And that's the problem that HP 4 43 aims to correct. So under this bill, if there's a legislative vacancy, then it will be put onto the next election and go through the normal election process. If the vacancy occurs at a time when there is not an election, that will happen before the general session, then it goes through the regular caucus convention system until it can be placed on the regular election cycle. So really all this bill does for house members is it adds the possibility that if someone resigns midterm, that we could have an election for the seat on the municipal election calendar. I'm open to any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. So I represent an area that recently had a senator resign and then, and the people that voted them well before he resigned, he changed parties and then the people who voted him in initially did not get the opportunity to vote in his replacement because of that strategic move. And we have another bill that we have already passed through this body that addresses that so that people, if they elect somebody in and somebody resigns, those same people that elected in their person still has a, have a voice. And what this would do is this would just make it so that the people who voted somebody in for a certain period of time would now be forced to go back into vetting in a full general election as opposed to vetting through the caucus system, which is what has been in the Constitution for a long time. So I feel like that this is maybe just a move to try to dominate a political process and, and I hope that we will vote against this.

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

I would be honored, Yes. Representative Wilcox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I'd really just like to understand, and, and I I think I've got, uh, what you're going for, but, um, in an interim scenario we just went through a few years ago where we had a member of our body that joined the executive branch and we had to update our code for midterm replacements. So in an interim scenario, say in an election year, if we were to have, uh, somebody resign with this mean that that district would be without representation between say, you know, April and November.

Hey, thank you for that question. Um, no. So under the substitute that we just adopted, it addresses those concerns. So if there is a vacancy, then the person will get put in, in the meantime until an regular election could be held. And, and I just want to take this opportunity to clarify that it is the caucus convention of the party when the person was elected to address the, the good representative from Twila's concerns so that we don't have a, another Thatcher situation as it were.

Okay. And then if I could follow another question, Mr. Speaker,

Thank you for not rejecting that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Um, so the, the follow up question really is, uh, in this scenario where somebody, um, somebody were to resign that say is on the ballot, but is it has not, uh, you know, taken office kind of situation yet where we passed that law here a few years ago, um, can they be replaced still by that party? And would this, this second one, I'll just let you answer at the same time. Does this apply across all elections, whether they're municipal or school board or anything else?

Thank you for the question. This bill only applies to legislative vacancies. So I think you're talking about a Box Elder representative. So what would happen in that situation if it were to play out under this bill, is whoever won the election at that point, then that party would be able to fill the spot because there wouldn't be enough time to fill the vacancy through another election until the following year.

Thank you. I I appreciate that answer. I, I think I'm still opposed to the bill. Um, but, uh, I appreciate, I appreciate that the thought that's gone into the substitute. Uh, generally speaking, um, as long as we fix the issue that those, you know, who have, who have nominated that person through their party system or otherwise have had a chance to weigh in for that replacement, I think that's where it should go back to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker with a sponsor yield to a series of questions. Representative, uh, started, will you yield to a series of questions?

I, I will blanket yield unless you're from Paradise.

I have, yes. Representative. I thank you Mr. Speaker. I have visited Paradise and it's very nice in the summer. Uh, I'm not sure that, that I want to live there this time of year though. Uh, Mr. Speaker, if someone changes their party affiliation, uh, during the legislative session and then resigns, uh, how does, how does their, uh, seat get filled in the, under this scenario, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you. So the seat would be filled initially through the party process of the party at the time that person was elected.

Thank you. And, uh, uh, can you go over again the scenario? If, if a, someone resigns, let's say, uh, right before in, in the months before a legislative session, uh, November, October, November, December, uh, how that, uh, when there's not time to hold, uh, a special election, uh, election, how will that differ from what happens today? Um,

Thank you. So really the only difference here is if it occurs and there's time to hold a general, uh, special election on a municipal calendar. So same situation, whatever party that person was when they were elected, they would get together, go through their normal route through the delegates, and they would fill that seat. And then at the next chance there is to have a special election, uh, whether it's on the municipal calendar or just the regular calendar that would go through the normal election process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I appreciate the sponsor working with us to make some improvements and I think this is an improvement to our current, uh, situation. Fills some gaps. Thank you.

Further discussion to the bill Representative Teuscher. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I, uh, as I've been thinking about this idea, I'll say I don't think it's the worst idea in the world, um, that, that being said, I, I, I think there's a couple concerns that I have. One is that you have lower turnout during the municipal election. I don't think the voters are really thinking through or expecting to see someone running, um, for the house or the Senate on that municipal election. So it would be a little bit odd. I I think two, it's gonna increase cost for elections, um, which I don't think is a good thing. Uh, generally I think we want to get more people involved in the process. This is just gonna force some people to, to jump in and have to raise a fair amount of money just to get some name id, name ID before you, you have that election in the missile election. And then the third thing that just kind of, uh, ways with me is I, I'm not sure what problem we're trying to solve. I know the good representative, um, has talked about that there's a, a, a certain percentage, maybe a fourth of our seats that have been replaced through the delegate process. But as I've looked at those representatives that have served and then go on to run for election again, they usually get elected. And so I don't think there's this big disconnect between the process that we have now where the delegates are selecting, uh, the replacement and who they would select if an actual election was being held. And so for those reasons, I'm a no on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you're not alone in that sentiment. Uh, to quote the good representative from one of the Jordans, I don't remember where. It's not the worst idea. I contend that there is a problem, colleagues. We've got elections that are being, or vacancies that are being filled through delegate elections where we're getting less than 20 votes and they're winning with that. And then they get to represent the whole district. And if that's what we need to make sure that it's not an open seat, that is okay, but then these people are getting an incumbency bump where they're getting, you know, the additional resources, the additional, um, name recognition, everything that comes with it, without having a thorough vetting process through as many as people as possible. I know our municipal election turnout is low and I don't love that. But I think this does solve a problem where we're actually getting more eyes on our candidates. We're going to have better vetted candidates and we're going to have better legislators as a result of passing this bill. And so I'd ask for your support.

Yes. Thank you. Um, colleagues, if you've read the bill, you know that this deals with what occurs when we have a legislative vacancy. Uh, there were some concerns about having a seat that was unfilled during a legislative session. So what the first substitute does is it addresses that and makes it so that no seat goes unfilled.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, and I'd like to thank my colleagues on the floor for their enthusiastic support of the substitute. Uh, that was just really great. Um, colleagues, this bill addresses an issue that is very common. Uh, approximately 28% of our house started their terms in an appointment. And in the, or sorry, 28% of the Senator Vickers started their term in an appointment. And 21% of the house, we have a Senate district, Senate District six that has had, has been 39 years since a senator was first elected in an open seat. 95% of our elections are won by incumbents. And that's why this bill is important. When someone is appointed, we go through the caucus convention system where delegates pick the replacement when there's a vacancy, and that's a great process. But the problem is, is these people are getting the incumbency bump when they're not vetted through a general election. And that's the problem that HP 4 43 aims to correct. So under this bill, if there's a legislative vacancy, then it will be put onto the next election and go through the normal election process. If the vacancy occurs at a time when there is not an election, that will happen before the general session, then it goes through the regular caucus convention system until it can be placed on the regular election cycle. So really all this bill does for house members is it adds the possibility that if someone resigns midterm, that we could have an election for the seat on the municipal election calendar. I'm open to any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. So I represent an area that recently had a senator resign and then, and the people that voted them well before he resigned, he changed parties and then the people who voted him in initially did not get the opportunity to vote in his replacement because of that strategic move. And we have another bill that we have already passed through this body that addresses that so that people, if they elect somebody in and somebody resigns, those same people that elected in their person still has a, have a voice. And what this would do is this would just make it so that the people who voted somebody in for a certain period of time would now be forced to go back into vetting in a full general election as opposed to vetting through the caucus system, which is what has been in the Constitution for a long time. So I feel like that this is maybe just a move to try to dominate a political process and, and I hope that we will vote against this.

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

I would be honored, Yes. Representative Wilcox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I'd really just like to understand, and, and I I think I've got, uh, what you're going for, but, um, in an interim scenario we just went through a few years ago where we had a member of our body that joined the executive branch and we had to update our code for midterm replacements. So in an interim scenario, say in an election year, if we were to have, uh, somebody resign with this mean that that district would be without representation between say, you know, April and November.

Hey, thank you for that question. Um, no. So under the substitute that we just adopted, it addresses those concerns. So if there is a vacancy, then the person will get put in, in the meantime until an regular election could be held. And, and I just want to take this opportunity to clarify that it is the caucus convention of the party when the person was elected to address the, the good representative from Twila's concerns so that we don't have a, another Thatcher situation as it were.

Okay. And then if I could follow another question, Mr. Speaker, Representative Star will yield to a series of questions.

Always. Yes. Representative Wilcox.

Thank you for not rejecting that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Um, so the, the follow up question really is, uh, in this scenario where somebody, um, somebody were to resign that say is on the ballot, but is it has not, uh, you know, taken office kind of situation yet where we passed that law here a few years ago, um, can they be replaced still by that party? And would this, this second one, I'll just let you answer at the same time. Does this apply across all elections, whether they're municipal or school board or anything else?

Thank you for the question. This bill only applies to legislative vacancies. So I think you're talking about a Box Elder representative. So what would happen in that situation if it were to play out under this bill, is whoever won the election at that point, then that party would be able to fill the spot because there wouldn't be enough time to fill the vacancy through another election until the following year.

Thank you. I I appreciate that answer. I, I think I'm still opposed to the bill. Um, but, uh, I appreciate, I appreciate that the thought that's gone into the substitute. Uh, generally speaking, um, as long as we fix the issue that those, you know, who have, who have nominated that person through their party system or otherwise have had a chance to weigh in for that replacement, I think that's where it should go back to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker with a sponsor yield to a series of questions. Representative, uh, started, will you yield to a series of questions?

I, I will blanket yield unless you're from Paradise.

I have, yes. Representative. I thank you Mr. Speaker. I have visited Paradise and it's very nice in the summer. Uh, I'm not sure that, that I want to live there this time of year though. Uh, Mr. Speaker, if someone changes their party affiliation, uh, during the legislative session and then resigns, uh, how does, how does their, uh, seat get filled in the, under this scenario, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you. So the seat would be filled initially through the party process of the party at the time that person was elected.

Thank you. And, uh, uh, can you go over again the scenario? If, if a, someone resigns, let's say, uh, right before in, in the months before a legislative session, uh, November, October, November, December, uh, how that, uh, when there's not time to hold, uh, a special election, uh, election, how will that differ from what happens today? Um,

Thank you. So really the only difference here is if it occurs and there's time to hold a general, uh, special election on a municipal calendar. So same situation, whatever party that person was when they were elected, they would get together, go through their normal route through the delegates, and they would fill that seat. And then at the next chance there is to have a special election, uh, whether it's on the municipal calendar or just the regular calendar that would go through the normal election process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I appreciate the sponsor working with us to make some improvements and I think this is an improvement to our current, uh, situation. Fills some gaps. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I, uh, as I've been thinking about this idea, I'll say I don't think it's the worst idea in the world, um, that, that being said, I, I, I think there's a couple concerns that I have. One is that you have lower turnout during the municipal election. I don't think the voters are really thinking through or expecting to see someone running, um, for the house or the Senate on that municipal election. So it would be a little bit odd. I I think two, it's gonna increase cost for elections, um, which I don't think is a good thing. Uh, generally I think we want to get more people involved in the process. This is just gonna force some people to, to jump in and have to raise a fair amount of money just to get some name id, name ID before you, you have that election in the missile election. And then the third thing that just kind of, uh, ways with me is I, I'm not sure what problem we're trying to solve. I know the good representative, um, has talked about that there's a, a, a certain percentage, maybe a fourth of our seats that have been replaced through the delegate process. But as I've looked at those representatives that have served and then go on to run for election again, they usually get elected. And so I don't think there's this big disconnect between the process that we have now where the delegates are selecting, uh, the replacement and who they would select if an actual election was being held. And so for those reasons, I'm a no on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you're not alone in that sentiment. Uh, to quote the good representative from one of the Jordans, I don't remember where. It's not the worst idea. I contend that there is a problem, colleagues. We've got elections that are being, or vacancies that are being filled through delegate elections where we're getting less than 20 votes and they're winning with that. And then they get to represent the whole district. And if that's what we need to make sure that it's not an open seat, that is okay, but then these people are getting an incumbency bump where they're getting, you know, the additional resources, the additional, um, name recognition, everything that comes with it, without having a thorough vetting process through as many as people as possible. I know our municipal election turnout is low and I don't love that. But I think this does solve a problem where we're actually getting more eyes on our candidates. We're going to have better vetted candidates and we're going to have better legislators as a result of passing this bill. And so I'd ask for your support.