H.B. 548 Primary Election Amendments

What this bill does

This bill would let cities and other nonpartisan local governments choose whether to hold a primary election when two or three candidates file for an open seat. A primary would be required when more than three times as many candidates as open seats file.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 8 yes, 0 no, 4 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 2 no, 4 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 40 yes, 30 no, 5 absentFinal House vote · Mar 2, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 0 no, 2 absentSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Mar 4, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 0 no, 2 absentSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Mar 4, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 27, 2026 House Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (98 turns)

  1. Committee vice chair (presiding)34:56

     First up, we have HB 5 48 primary election amendments. Welcome Representative Stoddard,

  2. Rep. Andrew Stoddard35:03

     Madam Vice Chair Committee members. Um, can I invite a co-presenter up?

  3. Committee vice chair (presiding)35:07

     Yes, you may.

  4. Rep. Andrew Stoddard35:16

     There we go. Okay. Um, this is a bill that builds on something that is, I think, not particularly used in statute, but is a possibility. So currently under State code, a municipality has the option of foregoing a primary election for special service districts as a nonpartisan race. Um, this is something that could be especially beneficial for some of our smaller races and our smaller, uh, municipalities because primaries are expensive and to whittle three candidates, down to two can be costly and not very fruitful in terms of how many people show up to these elections. So what this bill does is it looks to expand that to other nonpartisan races. So that, say for example, city council races, local school board, things like that, if they wanted to forego a primary, they could.

  5. Jared Tingey, Utah League of Cities and Towns36:11

     Yes. Um, yeah, Jared Tingey with the League of Cities and Towns, and, um, more than anything, this, this bill, uh, allows us and expands the options that cities have, uh, either to hold a primary or to not hold a primary. And, um, what we've seen, and, and, uh, I don't have the numbers for you, but, uh, what we've seen is that, um, there are a lot of jurisdictions, a lot of municipalities that do not hold primaries simply because there's, there's not many candidates to, uh, to, um, require primary. So, um, what this does is it just gives the municipality an opportunity, uh, to forego a primary and, and have the general election. And I wanna emphasize that it, it is a may. This is not a requirement. It is an option as a cost savings method.

  6. Committee vice chair (presiding)37:12

     Okay. Does that conclude your presentation? It does. We'll go to the committee for questions. Chair dunnigan,

  7. Rep. James A. Dunnigan37:17

     Uh, good morning. Today, what, what's the current law for municipalities?

  8. Jared Tingey, Utah League of Cities and Towns37:23

     Uh, the, the current law is that if there are, uh, more than two, you've got hold a primary. Um, so that's the current law.

  9. Rep. James A. Dunnigan37:33

     And for special districts, the current law,

  10. Jared Tingey, Utah League of Cities and Towns37:35

      Current law, I believe is that you don't have to have a primary.

  11. Rep. James A. Dunnigan37:39

      Okay. So representative you proposing to take that concept and apply it to municipalities?

  12. Rep. Andrew Stoddard37:44

      Correct. Okay.

  13. Rep. James A. Dunnigan37:46

      What if, what if you have two open positions and you have eight candidates, and this municipality chooses not to have a primary, that would be their choice, right?

  14. Rep. Andrew Stoddard37:54

      Yeah. And I'm gonna, I'm gonna swap out my co-presenter if that's okay. Yep. And bring up someone who has the elections knowledge.

  15. Lannie Chapman, Salt Lake County Clerk38:07

      Hello, my name is Lanny Chapman. I'm the Salt Lake County Clerk. Um, wonderful to be here with you. Um, so this bill allows for more local control, um, more control over what they have to do, similar to what special service districts already have. So we know that, uh, the current law for municipalities, they have to hold a primary if there's more than double the amount of candidates that that contest will elect. Uh, last year alone, during the 2025 municipal elections, there were eight different municipalities in Salt Lake County alone that, um, only eliminated one candidate because of, um, a situation similar to this that could have easily gone on to the general election, um, and made it a lot more convenient, um, given the municipalities more control over both their budget and what the, the voting population thought, uh, decides on.

  16. Rep. James A. Dunnigan39:09

      So thank you and good morning, Lanny. But let's say you have two open positions and you have 10 candidates, they wouldn't have to hold a primary,

  17. Lannie Chapman, Salt Lake County Clerk39:16

      They would not have to hold up primary. It would go straight to the, the November

  18. Rep. James A. Dunnigan39:20

      Election. So I don't think that's good policy. What if you had five open candidates or five open slots and you had 68 candidates, they still wouldn't have to do it.

  19. Lannie Chapman, Salt Lake County Clerk39:28

      Yes. So we haven't, um, gotten to the point, even in some of our larger contests that we've seen in, in recent years, where we feel as the clerks group that this would go beyond a one card ballot.

  20. Rep. James A. Dunnigan39:43

      O okay. If that's the intent, that's what the bill should say. That's not what the bill says. When I ran for the city council, Utah had no primary law, five open positions, 68 candidates. Now that's extreme, but there's nothing that prohibits that from happening again. So since then we've implemented the primary and I think it's been a good thing. But you've, you've answered my question. Thank you.

  21. Committee vice chair (presiding)40:07

      Okay. Is there anyone else from the committee? All right. See none. Let's go to the public. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this bill? We've got one. Please come forward.

  22. Brian McKenzie, Davis County Clerk40:23

      Good morning, Madam Chair and or vice chair and, and members of the committee. My name is Brian McKenzie, uh, Davis County Clerk. I'm also speaking on behalf of the clerks of the State of Utah. Uh, we are in support of this bill. Uh, now you may ask, okay. Why are the clerks in support of a bill that impacts, uh, primarily cities? Uh, one, we wanna be supportive of the cities and their ability to make local decisions. We think that that's important. Uh, but in many cases, we administer these elections on behalf of the cities. Uh, what we have seen recently, uh, through the years is that primary elections, especially municipal primary elections, tend to have a very low turnout. Uh, and in these cases, we are usually eliminating one or maybe two candidates that could easily be placed on the general election, uh, without any additional administrative concerns. Uh, now to, uh, to the concern that was brought up about the, the number, uh, we, we look at it and we believe that in these cases, it probably would be appropriate to put some sort of a guardrail, um, to make sure if you have this astronomical number of candidates, it probably is best to put it to a primary election. Uh, we would be supportive of, of that kind of a provision. It makes sense, uh, as we look in, uh, election administration. Uh, thank you very much for the time.

  23. Committee vice chair (presiding)41:30

      Representative Ward, did you have a question for the witness? Go ahead.

  24. Rep. Raymond P. Ward41:35

      I do. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Uh, what percentage of the time, and I guess this'll just be a gestalt rather than an actual number, um, does it crop up that there's just like only one more candidate than double? I mean, so, and I, and it's not even only one more than double. So in one of the municipalities, um, that I represent, it was only one more than double, but also the extra one that signed up was a person who didn't intend to do anything other than sign up and kind of grouse a little bit. No campaign, no, no other effort at all that anyone could discern other than signing up. And so just simply his act of signing up and doing nothing then caused a whole primary to require to be held that didn't really serve a, a purpose. So I don't, somewhere between the 68 candidates and a person who files and a loan forces a primary at, I don't know how often is it, is it only one extra? Uh,

  25. Brian McKenzie, Davis County Clerk42:31

      Yeah, I, I don't have exact numbers, so I can't ask answer that directly. I can tell you it does happen. Um, it does happen. And, and yet it also happens on the other end where you do have just that one more and they're very active and very engaged in the campaign really hard. Uh, so it does happen. Uh, but what is disappointing is, is when you do have just one more, regardless of whether or not they're, uh, actively engaged or not actively engaged. And, and that one more could have been resolved easily in a general election, uh, without negatively impacting the election process and could have resulted in a significant fiscal savings for taxpayer dollars, uh, to run a more efficient election, uh, and having more involvement and more engagement to help decide who represents the cities. So that's where those benefits come from. Uh, now again, i, i, I think it is important to recognize if you have a case where you have 5, 10, 15 candidates more than the double number of, of the races, I think that's probably where it would make sense to put some guardrail in. Um, but this definitely gives a mechanism for the cities when they have just that one or two more above that threshold, uh, that they could move that into the general election, uh, consolidate their cost and expenses and, and have those, uh, decisions made in a general election when more of their residents, uh, tend to participate.

  26. Committee vice chair (presiding)43:51

      All right. Representative Arthur, did you also have a question for the witness?

  27. Rep. John Arthur43:54

      Yeah. Thank you Madam Vice chair. Just outta curiosity that that provision that you're speaking to there, I feel like does that not already provide a guardrail in that it provides the municipality the option of holding a primary election if the number of candidates for that office exceeds twice the number of individuals needed to fill that office? I mean, in the, in the case that Chair Dunnigan is speaking to, um, or the, the good representative, um, I, I would imagine that a municipality would exercise its option of holding a primary to whittle it down and they're able to, under this provision, they can make that choice for themselves.

  28. Brian McKenzie, Davis County Clerk44:33speaker not certain

      Correct. Madam Chair, uh, currently a municipality talking about our cities, they're required to hold a municipal primary election, right? If the candidates exceed twice the number, they do not have the discretion, right? Uh, this bill provides a discretion, right, uh, to where even if they had twice the number of, more than twice the number of candidates they could choose not to do a primary election. So that's the key difference in, in this bill and what it's proposing. Right.

  29. Rep. Andrew Stoddard45:00

      Thank you. May I respond to that?

  30. Committee vice chair (presiding)45:02

      Go ahead, Madam Chair as well.

  31. Rep. Andrew Stoddard45:03

      Um, and, and I appreciate this conversation. I think these are all really good points. Um, I am happy to put into, amend to put in any sort of guardrail if there's a, you know, less than three times or whatever, whatever the committee would feel is appropriate. I, but I think, you know, we one, want to combat voter fatigue when there's already low turnout and also save money where it, it really isn't a huge deal to have these elections as a primary because we're just knocking off one candidate or, you know, knocking off two if there's multiple seats. So,

  32. Committee vice chair (presiding)45:36

      Okay. We have another public comment, an online comment. We'll go to Seth Stewart.

  33. Seth Stewart, resident45:45

      Alright. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you to Representative Soard for raising this issue. Uh, my name is Seth Stewart, representing myself. Um, this history here is very interesting. Primaries were originally created for partisan races. And so one question I have is, why are we holding them at all for non-partisan races? Uh, holding a primary in a non-partisan race is essentially multiple rounds of plurality voting, which is a form of rank choice voting, which is still prone to the spoiler effect. This is one of the first, uh, issues I've, I've studied since becoming a delegate in the Republican Party. Um, vote SPL splitting can be mitigated by other voting methods such as approval voting. Approval voting is original to the United States Constitution in article two, section one for presidential elections, it's actually a glove fit for multi seat races like city council races, where you have multiple positions. And it's very simple. You just take, take in as many votes per voter as there are seats available to fill, and then you count up all of those votes, and then the individual with the most votes gets the first seat, second most votes gets the second seat and so on until the seats are exhausted. So you can actually do it all in one ballot and just, uh, very simple to count, very simple to audits. The simplest possible, um, election method for, for a multi seat race, there's actually a, there's a minute and a half video by CGP Gray on YouTube, on approval voting. And, um, yeah, there, there's actually also a website I made on this very point called constitutional vote.org to, to try to raise awareness of this point of that we, we don't need these multi-stage elections at all in the first place. And that is one of my concerns about this, is that we'd still have essentially a, um, in many instances up to, what is it, four candidates on a general election ballot. And, uh, that would still, since it's still a plurality vote, um, it would still be subject to the spoiler effect where third parties are, are disadvantaged, or, and, and I know in this case it's not a partisan rate, but race, but, uh, it, it would make candidates who have similar platforms vulnerable to, uh, essentially stealing votes from each other. Stealing is not the right word in this context, but can explain the spoiler effect in greater detail if, if you desire. But, um, uh, anyways, so, so just due to the historical issues, the provenance of primaries, I, I would recommend that we actually, um, set the municipalities free to, to set their own election methods. I think we could gather a lot of data on which methods are effective and fairly representative of the people by, by unbinding the municipalities to set their own, um, electoral standards and experiment with things like, Hey, what is this constitutional method? What's, what's approval voting? It was actually an approval and, uh, plurality hybrid. Um, so, so it could have the best of, of both worlds adapted to the, to the office and to the, to the case there. So with that, I would recommend some, uh, I guess further examination on that topic. Um, but I, I do appreciate the exploration into the space. It's really a fascinating, very worthwhile, um, topic to explore for representative, representative government. And, um, I, I would also recommend talking with Lane Beck. He knows the history of the elections and primaries and how all that came about. And I think it's something we don't talk about often enough in our elections, is how did we get to where we are today? Uh, because we tend to have a very, uh, convoluted system that we're dealing with. And oftentimes I think the best solution is to simplify and just peel back some of those layers and go back to the way things were at some point in time. Not necessarily in all respects, but with respect to the voting mechanics and so on. So with that, I would urge some, uh, some consideration of those points. And, and, and thank you again to Representative Stoddard for bringing this forward.

  34. Committee vice chair (presiding)49:11

      Okay, thank you. Um, we will close public comment now and come back to the committee for further questions or action. Representative Dunnigan.

  35. Rep. James A. Dunnigan49:25

      I understand. I think what you're trying to do, and I'm sensitive to that, but we don't want to get, I don't think, what I went through with 68 candidates, people were desperate to stand out. So one, there was one woman who's a candidate, she dressed in a kangaroo costume on Redwood Road with her campaign signed, just told to somebody that she would stand out. I, I think it, for me, it's reasonable if you did maybe three times, you know, 'cause if you have this one-off, like Representative Ward said or something like that, that would eliminate those. But there's also a lot of fatigue if you've got a lot of candidates, you know, for limited number of positions that are all campaigning the, the whole time. So I think it's good to narrow it down. That's my perspective. What do you think about the three times? Okay,

  36. Rep. Andrew Stoddard50:09

      Thank you. I appreciate, I was hoping there would be a question there so I could respond. No, I think that's great. And I, and I think a guard rail would be appropriate in terms of narrowing when a city could opt into something like this. If you said in between two and three times, they could choose this because then it's not them playing games of, oh, we want, you know, as many candidates as possible. Possible. Um, but I, I think that is a reasonable amount to make sure that we're not putting too many people on a general ballot, but also that we're giving them the option in case they want to forego.

  37. Rep. James A. Dunnigan50:40

      Thank you. I have one other comment. To me, there's a significant difference between service district elections and municipal elections. They can both have small turnout, but service districts can be extremely small and municipality and their elections, I, I think, are a different animal, have the potential to impact more lives in more ways. So I think it's reasonable to have a different standard for them. What do you think about that?

  38. Rep. Andrew Stoddard51:06

      Yeah, I mean, I would, I would agree. I think that they do impact pe people on like a base level. You know, I look at what we do here and we all appreciate the policy that we pass, but, you know, in terms of effective daily lives, really municipal is, is where it's at. And, you know, I applaud you for actually having that experience in, in doing that. Um, I lost my race for city council, which is how I ended up here. So I, I guess condolences to you guys. 'cause I could have been on Midvale city council in a different world. Um, but I, but I do think that voter turnout in these elections is just an issue that we've gotta grapple with. And I know it's something in our government operations committee that we've been talking about and have recommended as an interim study, and we see bills on it every year. How can we get more people involved? How can we get people to actually care and show up for these elections? We, you know, I look at my own city and then the number of people that turn out and it's not a lot. And so this, this is one way to try to address it. Not saying it's the best or the only way, but, but I do think it's an issue we need to work on.

  39. Committee vice chair (presiding)52:06

      Keep Representative Arthur.

  40. Rep. John Arthur52:09

      Thank you Madam Vice chair. I'd like to make the motion that we pass out favorably HB 5 48.

  41. Committee vice chair (presiding)52:15

      The motion is to pass out favorably HB 5 48. Would you like to speak to that motion?

  42. Rep. John Arthur52:20

      I would. Thank you. I think that the issues raised by, by the chair are, are important. And I also believe that the, the sponsors shown his willingness to, to work on an amendment or a sub between here and the floor. And I, I feel like there may be some work happening on the other side of the room, but just, um, no matter how long it takes to get it right, I feel like this is a solid foundation where small tweaks can get it to the right place. So, um, for that reason, I, I'm making this motion to pass it out favorably.

  43. Committee vice chair (presiding)52:53

      Okay. To the committee on the motion to pass out favorably Representative Ward, I'm calculating for a second. He's calculating, I dunno if he should be nervous or not. Okay. I don't have any other lights on. Uh, Representative Dunnigan. Oh, okay. Rep Representative Ward. Oops. Uh, there your,

  44. Rep. Raymond P. Ward53:35

      I know there's a motion. Can I still ask a question to the sponsor? Okay. So right now it can be held only if two conditions are met and both conditions have to be met because it says, and so if authorized by the body and the number of candidates exceeds twice the number of individuals needs to, to fill the seat, so can the, can the municipal body right now just choose to not authorize a primary election in any circumstance and then you wouldn't fulfill condition one?

  45. Rep. Andrew Stoddard54:10

      I don't think that's the case under the law. I'm looking back at my clerk friends or the league friends, but I think it is just solely with special service districts that they can make that. But this just as a municipal office. What, sorry, if I can ask what line you're looking at.

  46. Rep. Raymond P. Ward54:28

      I three 10 through three 15. So a primary election for a particular municipal office may be held if two conditions are met. Okay. If it's authorized is the first condition, and also the number exceeds twice the number of individuals needed to fill that office.

  47. Rep. Andrew Stoddard54:47

      And that those lines are the insertion that are copied off of line. Sorry, scrolling back up, because

  48. Rep. Raymond P. Ward54:54speaker not certain

      That says candidates, they

  49. Rep. Andrew Stoddard54:56

      Can still choose lines 180 2 to 180 7 that already exist in code for the special service district. So

  50. Rep. Raymond P. Ward55:04

      Are these lines that I'm looking at not for the city council, or are these ones just only for the special service district?

  51. Rep. Andrew Stoddard55:09

      Those, those are, those would be for the city council. But those are the insertions. So that's not currently in place.

  52. Rep. Raymond P. Ward55:18

      So is it within a city council's ability right now already to just not authorize a primary election?

  53. Rep. Andrew Stoddard55:25

      They are required if there's more than twice the number of candidate, twice a number of candidates than that spot. Yeah, I'm gonna let a clerk explain this better than I can. So Is that okay, madam? Go

  54. Lannie Chapman, Salt Lake County Clerk55:38speaker not certain

      ahead. Uh, so provision of code 28 9 4 0 4 requires the municipal elections, um, shall be held consistent with, and then it gives some codes here. Um, but I think what, what we have is that, that we do have a provision statute that actually requires that maybe that authorization that you're referring to representative. Um, but yes, municipal primary elections are required to be held if it exceeds, um, more than two, more than twice the number of available seats. So if you have two available seats and you have five candidates, then that triggers that requirement for the primary election. And I apologize, that may or may not be the correct code reference. We're we're scrambling trying to find the exact code reference just, uh, for the committee's sake. But, uh, but yes, that, that is our understanding that primary election must be held if you have more than twice the number of candidates, uh, for any given municipal race.

  55. Rep. Raymond P. Ward56:30

      So what is the purpose of the line of three 11? That also says that it only can be held if it's authorized by the municipal legislative body Opposed?

  56. Lannie Chapman, Salt Lake County Clerk56:50speaker not certain

      So representative that is the, the inserted or the proposed wording of that. And so if this bill went into effect, then yes, it would have to be authorized. So I I I'm answering the question as to current code versus, uh, what is proposed. And so if, if you're asking about the proposal in this bill, my understanding what this proposal in the bill would do is that you'd have that triggering mechanism of twice the number. So in other words, the, the, the municipal municipality would not be able to have a primary election, even if they authorized it, if they didn't meet that secondary category of more than twice the number of candidates. So under the proposed bill, you'd have to meet both of those criteria. One, twice the number or I, and be authorized.

  57. Rep. Raymond P. Ward57:32

      Okay. So then an amendment would be kind of tricky because an amendment on, on the fly, it would need to say something that, that it could be held if it was between two and three times and it was authorized and it must be held if it was over three times the number of candidates who would need to have, uh, so we're not gonna be able to put that together here, I guess is the point. Okay. So I don't have an amendment to offer.

  58. Committee vice chair (presiding)57:54

      Okay. Chair dunnigan.

  59. Rep. James A. Dunnigan57:56

      I offer a substitute motion. My motion is to strike line three 11. And then on line three 12, delete the word twice and insert three times the number of individuals needed to fill the office. May I speak to it? Yes, go ahead. And my intent, so for me, three 11 doesn't work at all because you could, you could have an, a large number of candidates and the, and the municipality say, we're still not gonna have an election. So I just don't think that's, I hope that's not where you're going because that, I don't think that works. But if you're comfortable with three times that it has to exceed three times, then that gives a, a reasonable amount of wiggle guru, I think, to the municipality. But that's my motion.

  60. Rep. Andrew Stoddard58:50

      Can I ask a question on that? Um, I, I see what you're trying to do. Would we need to duplicate that in the special service district language on 180 4 or do we just leave that as is 'cause that's existing code, or do we just do it differently for the city council?

  61. Rep. James A. Dunnigan59:14

      180 4, did you say? 180 4? So the primary election's authorized by,

  62. Rep. Andrew Stoddard59:22speaker not certain

      Because essentially these are mirror. Yeah. And, and I'm fine with,

  63. Rep. James A. Dunnigan59:31

      So, so I, I, I would leave the special districts alone and just do the municipal fix. I'm personally, I'm not that concerned about special districts. I mean, I love 'em, but I'm not that good. And, okay. So that's, that's my motion.

  64. Committee vice chair (presiding)59:51

      Okay. So the motion is to strike line three 11, and then in line three 12, we change twice to three times, is that correct?

  65. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:00:02

      Yes. Okay.

  66. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:00:05

      Now we, we may, we may, I I turned to staff. We, we may need, or maybe we need to keep lines. No, we still have line three 10. Do we need to reword that Nathan?

  67. Nathan Brady, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel1:00:31

      Sorry. Nathan Brady with the office of Legislative, uh, research and General Counsel. So I, I've have an online conversation going on with the attorney, and we'll try to get this fixed here. But, um, so as I understand the motion, we would strike lines three, line three 11 little sub I, which says the, uh, primary election is authorized by the municipal legislative body, Sam. And, and then we would go to little two I, which I think is, is no longer needed. If we strike, uh, uh, sub I, so we would strike two I so that the entire two sub A would read a primary election for a particular municipal office may be held only if, and strike this, the, the, the colon there, the number of candidates for the municipal office exceeds three times. So strike twice and insert three times the number of individuals needed to fill that office.

  68. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:01:22

      May I respond to that? Yes, I'd like to modify my motion. And on line three 10, delete the word may and insert shall, so it should read primary election for a particular municipal office shall be held. If take strike the word only shall be held. If and what that, the intent is, if they have more than three, not just three times, but more than three times, then they shall have a primary election.

  69. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:01:52

      Okay. So we have a substitute, a motion to amend the bill to change in lines three 10. Um, the word may to shall so shall be held. If so, we're also striking the word only striking line three 11. And then in line three 12, we're changing the word twice to three times. Is that

  70. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:02:12

      Correct? Yes.

  71. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:02:13

      Okay. Um, technical changes. Uh, with technical changes, thank you, uh, to the maker of the underlying motion.

  72. Rep. John Arthur1:02:24

      Thank you Madam Vice chair. I, I support those changes. Um, but I do have a question. May I, may I ask one or go ahead. Is that all right? So within, in the case in which you have one seat open and three candidates running for it, and the municipality wants the flexibility not to hold a, a primary election because it would just be easier to hold a general election with three candidates on it, would they still now have the flexibility to, to go ahead and forego a primary? So

  73. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:02:58speaker not certain

      If a primary election is not held, May I respond?

  74. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:03:02

      Yes, you may. Yeah.

  75. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:03:03speaker not certain

      Under, under the, under the substitute with that amendment, that would be Allowed. Yeah, because it wouldn't, it wouldn't get triggered until there was a fourth candidate, there was a fourth

  76. Rep. John Arthur1:03:12

      Candidate For that. So they could forego the primary, put all three on the general ballot, and, and all, all would move forward. Right? I'm both looking at you as well as the, the, the vague heads behind you for like nods and shakes. So I, I, I would support that motion.

  77. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:03:29

      Okay. Uh, Representative Stoddard?

  78. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:03:32

      No, I think that's a great motion. Um, I, I appreciate the, the discussion and, uh, cleverness of the committee. And I like amendments and committee. I think this is fun. So yes, support the motion.

  79. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:03:42

      Okay. Um, uh, Nathan, did you have something else? He looks

  80. Nathan Brady, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel1:03:46

      Unsure. One more thing. Sorry. Nathan Brady with the Office of Legislative Research General Counsel. As we have ongoing discussions online with the drafting attorney, he brought up one more technical change that would need to be made with the, uh, substitute motion. And that is online three 14 changing, authorized to held so that three 14 would read if a primary election is not held under subsection two A, the candidates for the office are considered nominated. Just trying to make this as clean as we can.

  81. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:04:14

      Outstanding. Okay. Um, representative ano,

  82. Unknown speaker1:04:19speaker not certain

      Yeah, I don't know if we're too deep into this process for this, but I would be interested in hearing, um, whether the clerks and or the league, um, have any change in position with this proposed amendment. Is that appropriate or not Good, judge?

  83. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:04:34

      Uh, yes. Would you like to come up and respond to that

  84. Brian McKenzie, Davis County Clerk1:04:42

      Brian McKenzie Davis County clerk? We would be supportive of that amendment

  85. Jared Tingey, Utah League of Cities and Towns1:04:50

      Tini with the League of Cities and Towns, and I think the same, we would be fine with that amendment.

  86. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:04:56

      All right. Thank you. So we'll go back, um, to the maker of the substitute motion chair, Dunnigan.

  87. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:05:03

      Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to modify my withdraw and replace my motion. So I replaced the motion I just stated on line three 14. Switch out the, delete the word authorized and insert the word held so that we've on above. We've already on line three 11, we've proposed to strike the word authorized. So we need to change that. So it reads, if a primary election is not held, the candidates for the office are considered nominated.

  88. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:05:31

      Okay. I'm gonna go to Mr. Brady to restate the entire motion for us to make sure we're clear.

  89. Nathan Brady, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel1:05:36

      Okay. One last time, members, just to be clear for the record, the motion is to, on line three 10, change may to shall, um, on line three 11, strike And, And, and strike only. And strike only. Yep. Okay. Uh, striking three 11. And on three 12, uh, change strike twice and insert three times. And then on line three 14, strike authorized and change that to held and then technical corrections, removing a semicolon and, and changing the numbering.

  90. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:06:19

      Okay. So the motion is to amend the bill as Mr. Brady just stated. Uh, further discussion. That motion Representative Arthur,

  91. Rep. John Arthur1:06:27

      I'll just say very quickly, when I made my original motion, I imagined this happening over some span of time in another location. I'm blown away by the, the effectiveness and efficiency of the staff and the, the team. So I, I support this motion. It's impressive.

  92. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:06:46

      Okay. All in favor of the motion to amend as stated by Mr. Brady. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. That motion passes unanimously. Uh, chair Dunnigan.

  93. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:07:00

      Thank you Madam Chair. I move that we recommend favorably house Bill 5 48 as amended.

  94. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:07:07

      The motion is to recommend favorably House Bill 5 48 as amended. Um, is there any further discussion to that motion Representative Walter?

  95. Rep. R. Neil Walter1:07:18

      Thank you, Madam Vice chair. I'm supportive of the, uh, amendment that we just passed. Um, but I'm gonna be a no, just because I recognize that it does give discretion, but it all also could set up plurality still. Um, where, because, uh, some, because the, uh, government entity thinks that there might not be interest in supporting a particular candidate, but then there could be tremendous support for a particular candidate. And we end up, uh, we end up instead of a head-to-head primary, we end up with a polarity. So I'm supportive of the underlying motion. I think it's better than the original bill, but I'm gonna be a oath.

  96. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:07:53

      Okay. Thank you. To the sponsor. To some

  97. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:07:56

      Thank you. And, and I truly appreciate the work this committee has put in. Um, if nothing else, for me to be able to watch Nathan's face during this process, it has been fantastic. Um, I think our communities function best when we get the maximum amount of turnout. And so that's the intent with the, with the bill. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to work on it. Thank you.

  98. Committee vice chair (presiding)1:08:19

      Okay. Thank you to the maker of the motion, a wife. All right. So the motion is to pass out HB 5 48 as amended. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Those in favor say no. No. Raise your hand if you're a no. Okay. So we have two nos. That's Representative Walter and Representative Hansen. So that passes. Thank you. Representative Stoddard.

• Mar 2, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (27 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker1:00:43speaker not certain

     House Bill 5 48 Primary election amendments by Representative Stoddard. This panel will assert in political subdivisions with the Row 6 2 4

  2. Speaker (presiding)1:00:52

     Representative Stoddard.

  3. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:00:54

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to move to adopt substitute number one in my name. That motion is an order representative.

  4. Speaker (presiding)1:01:02

     Would you like to speak to it?

  5. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:01:04

     I would. Uh, Mr. Speaker, there were some amendments made in committee, which I think make the bill stronger, uh, than the drafting attorney approached and said that there were some changes they need to make to adequately convey what the committee was seeking to do.

  6. Speaker (presiding)1:01:20

     Thank you. Representative Discussion to the Motion to Adopt first substitute on HB 5 48 under Representative Stoddard's name, we will go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House adopt first substitute on HB 5 48. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? While that motion passes, the bills substitute in before the body for further consideration to Representative Stoddard.

  7. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:01:46

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. So this is a bill that actually does something that I think is quite exciting, uh, in that it gives municipalities the option of not holding a primary election. So currently the majority, the vast majority of our primary elections for municipal candidates are used to eliminate one person. For a lot of our smaller municipalities, that's a huge burden cost-wise. So this is a bill that I worked on in conjunction with the league and they're in supportive of it and the clerks have worked with me as well and they're also supportive of it. But what it allows the cities to do is that if there is a number of candidates that is more than two times the vacancies, but less than three times, they can opt not to hold a primary election. It's not saying that they have to or that they don't have to within that two times to three times range. Uh, if it's just two, they don't have to have one. Obviously, if it's more three, or excuse me, if it's more than three times, then they do have to hold it. Uh, just making sure that we don't have chaos in our primary elections. But, uh, if the municipality for whatever reason does not want to hold a primary because there's only one extra candidate, this would allow them the option not to do that. Uh, it's something we already do for special service districts and it just moves it over to municipal office elections. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

  8. Speaker (presiding)1:03:09

     Thank you Representative Stoddard discussion

  9. Rep. Troy Shelley1:03:11

     to the bill Representative Shelley. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor, yield Representative, will you yield

  10. Speaker (presiding)1:03:19

      Always, unless you're from Paradise? Yes, Representative Shelley.

  11. Rep. Troy Shelley1:03:23

      Thank you. I'm from Paradise, but it's not named that. Uh, so my, my concern with this bill is that, uh, you know, especially in smaller communities, um, once a couple of people have filed for an office, then there'll be a chilling effect for other people to want to file because you know, particularly the county clerks wouldn't want to necessarily deal with a new election. And so they would probably or could possibly discourage other people from filing and by, by doing this, by not requiring an election, um, it would kind of be incumbent on, on people to discourage others from filing after the first two get in. So that, can you address that? Maybe give me some insight on that?

  12. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:04:13

      Yeah, thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Um, I don't think there's anything in the bill or in the policy that would discourage people from running. And again, it doesn't require a municipality to do anything, um, other than gives them the option if you're within that sweet spot to not have to hold it. So for example, if you've got one count, uh, city council spot and you've got three people running, normally we would have a primary because there's more than two times. Um, but if this bill were to pass, then they wouldn't have to. Um, you know, we've got a lot of voter fatigue that happens when we have too many elections and a lot of these small cities don't want to have to pay for another election and also wear voters out just to get rid of one candidate.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:04:55

      Thank you. Thank you representative, uh, star or Shelly further discussion to the bill Representative Shepherd.

  14. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:05:06

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I raised with a concern on this bill and the concern is that the reason we have primaries and then we have a general election is that we would like to see how these candidates perform and if what they have to say in their arguments and as they go out their campaigns, if they're the same thing as I value primaries for that purpose. And if we're saying you don't have to have one, we're eliminating the voice of the people one time that we shouldn't have to, the cost on the primaries is not anything compared to the cost of losing the voice of the people. So therefore, I I rise in objection on this bill for those purposes. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

  15. Speaker (presiding)1:05:47

      Thank you Representative Shepherd. Further discussion to the bill Representative Boxer.

  16. Unknown speaker1:05:51speaker not certain

      You, Mr. Speaker, will the sponsor yield to a potential series of questions?

  17. Speaker (presiding)1:05:55

      Representative Stoddard, we yield to a series of questions.

  18. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:05:58

      Always rest. Yes, representative.

  19. Unknown speaker1:06:00speaker not certain

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. So just to clarify, let's say there were three people who decided to run for one office for one party and there were two people in the other party at the general election, you're saying we would have five people on the ballot to choose from, is that right?

  20. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:06:16

      This is, thank you Mr. Speaker. This is only for non-partisan races, so this is only for city races, so we don't have people from different parties.

  21. Unknown speaker1:06:24speaker not certain

      Okay, thank you. So, um, just to clarify again, um, let's say that you have your three people that are running. And so usually in the primary it you most voters can look at them across each other and decide and then, you know, kick out one and then there's the two left to go back and forth and, and really decide between. So I do feel like it's taking away voter choice by having this option of multiple people instead of narrowing down to the best candidate. It's just widening the field and diluting votes instead of being able to, um, to narrow down to the best one. So I am in opposition to this. Um, bill,

  22. Speaker (presiding)1:07:16

      Thank you Rep Sand Baier. Further discussion to the bill rep. Sam Re

  23. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:07:22

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I want folks to know that sometimes in a little town of 200 or 300 people, everybody's had a turn being the mayor or the city councilman and, uh, they may not want it again. And, uh, so I think, um, I don't have a problem with the bill. It's doesn't mandate anything. And if the little town doesn't have enough money to run an election, you know, it hurts their budget somewhere else, you need to consider that as well. Thank you.

  24. Speaker (presiding)1:07:59

      Thank you Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none, back to your Representative Stoddard for summation.

  25. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:08:05

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I, I want to be clear, um, this bill does not require a city to hold or not hold a primary election. That's completely up to them what they wanna do. Um, but like the good representative from Richfield said, a lot of our rural cities operate on shoestring budgets, and if they can save thousands of dollars without having to kick off one candidate only, um, then we should allow them to make that choice. Um, elections are expensive. They require a lot of work. Uh, it doesn't, I I I'm gonna push back. I don't think that this affects a voter's ability to be able to talk with the candidates, to vet them to make the right decision. Um, a lot of times we don't need one extra election just to kick someone off because the choices are few and that's, that's what this bill does, is it just gives cities the option. And I'd ask for your support.

  26. Speaker (presiding)1:09:01

      Thank you, Representative Stoddard. Uh, let's see. Voting will now be open on first substitute. All the house is, uh, in motion. If 10 or more will stand, we will be in call the house. We call the Senator. Cullimore. Would you like to lift the call The house seeing the call, the house has been lifted. All in favor say, aye. Call The house lifted. Voting is now closed.

  27. Speaker (presiding)1:14:24

      First substitute HB 5 48 passes this body with 40 yes votes, 30 no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Madam Reading Clerk

• Mar 2, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (24 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)1:00:56

     to adopt substitute number one in my name. That motion is an order representative. Would you like to speak to it?

  2. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:01:04

     I would. Uh, Mr. Speaker, there were some amendments made in committee, which I think make the bill stronger, uh, than the drafting attorney approached and said that there were some changes they need to make to adequately convey what the committee was seeking to do.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:01:20

     Thank you. Representative Discussion to the Motion to Adopt first substitute on HB 5 48 under Representative Stoddard's name, we will go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House adopt first substitute on HB 5 48. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? While that motion passes, the bills substitute in before the body for further consideration to Representative Stoddard.

  4. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:01:46

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. So this is a bill that actually does something that I think is quite exciting, uh, in that it gives municipalities the option of not holding a primary election. So currently the majority, the vast majority of our primary elections for municipal candidates are used to eliminate one person. For a lot of our smaller municipalities, that's a huge burden cost-wise. So this is a bill that I worked on in conjunction with the league and they're in supportive of it and the clerks have worked with me as well and they're also supportive of it. But what it allows the cities to do is that if there is a number of candidates that is more than two times the vacancies, but less than three times, they can opt not to hold a primary election. It's not saying that they have to or that they don't have to within that two times to three times range. Uh, if it's just two, they don't have to have one. Obviously, if it's more three, or excuse me, if it's more than three times, then they do have to hold it. Uh, just making sure that we don't have chaos in our primary elections. But, uh, if the municipality for whatever reason does not want to hold a primary because there's only one extra candidate, this would allow them the option not to do that. Uh, it's something we already do for special service districts and it just moves it over to municipal office elections. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:03:09

     Thank you Representative Stoddard discussion to the bill Representative Shelley.

  6. Rep. Troy Shelley1:03:15

     Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor, yield Representative, will you yield

  7. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:03:19

     Always, unless you're from Paradise?

  8. Speaker (presiding)1:03:22

     Yes, Representative Shelley.

  9. Rep. Troy Shelley1:03:23

     Thank you. I'm from Paradise, but it's not named that. Uh, so my, my concern with this bill is that, uh, you know, especially in smaller communities, um, once a couple of people have filed for an office, then there'll be a chilling effect for other people to want to file because you know, particularly the county clerks wouldn't want to necessarily deal with a new election. And so they would probably or could possibly discourage other people from filing and by, by doing this, by not requiring an election, um, it would kind of be incumbent on, on people to discourage others from filing after the first two get in. So that, can you address that? Maybe give me some insight on that?

  10. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:04:13

      Yeah, thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Um, I don't think there's anything in the bill or in the policy that would discourage people from running. And again, it doesn't require a municipality to do anything, um, other than gives them the option if you're within that sweet spot to not have to hold it. So for example, if you've got one count, uh, city council spot and you've got three people running, normally we would have a primary because there's more than two times. Um, but if this bill were to pass, then they wouldn't have to. Um, you know, we've got a lot of voter fatigue that happens when we have too many elections and a lot of these small cities don't want to have to pay for another election and also wear voters out just to get rid of one candidate.

  11. Speaker (presiding)1:04:55

      Thank you. Thank you representative, uh, star or Shelly further discussion to the bill Representative Shepherd.

  12. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:05:06

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I raised with a concern on this bill and the concern is that the reason we have primaries and then we have a general election is that we would like to see how these candidates perform and if what they have to say in their arguments and as they go out their campaigns, if they're the same thing as I value primaries for that purpose. And if we're saying you don't have to have one, we're eliminating the voice of the people one time that we shouldn't have to, the cost on the primaries is not anything compared to the cost of losing the voice of the people. So therefore, I I rise in objection on this bill for those purposes. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:05:47

      Thank you Representative Shepherd. Further discussion to the bill Representative Boxer.

  14. Unknown speaker1:05:51speaker not certain

      You, Mr. Speaker, will the sponsor yield to a potential series of questions?

  15. Speaker (presiding)1:05:55

      Representative Stoddard, we yield to a series of questions.

  16. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:05:58

      Always rest. Yes, representative.

  17. Unknown speaker1:06:00speaker not certain

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. So just to clarify, let's say there were three people who decided to run for one office for one party and there were two people in the other party at the general election, you're saying we would have five people on the ballot to choose from, is that right?

  18. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:06:16

      This is, thank you Mr. Speaker. This is only for non-partisan races, so this is only for city races, so we don't have people from different parties.

  19. Unknown speaker1:06:24speaker not certain

      Okay, thank you. So, um, just to clarify again, um, let's say that you have your three people that are running. And so usually in the primary it you most voters can look at them across each other and decide and then, you know, kick out one and then there's the two left to go back and forth and, and really decide between. So I do feel like it's taking away voter choice by having this option of multiple people instead of narrowing down to the best candidate. It's just widening the field and diluting votes instead of being able to, um, to narrow down to the best one. So I am in opposition to this. Um, bill,

  20. Speaker (presiding)1:07:16

      Thank you Rep Sand Baier. Further discussion to the bill rep. Sam Re

  21. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:07:22

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I want folks to know that sometimes in a little town of 200 or 300 people, everybody's had a turn being the mayor or the city councilman and, uh, they may not want it again. And, uh, so I think, um, I don't have a problem with the bill. It's doesn't mandate anything. And if the little town doesn't have enough money to run an election, you know, it hurts their budget somewhere else, you need to consider that as well. Thank you.

  22. Speaker (presiding)1:07:59

      Thank you Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none, back to your Representative Stoddard for summation.

  23. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:08:05

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I, I want to be clear, um, this bill does not require a city to hold or not hold a primary election. That's completely up to them what they wanna do. Um, but like the good representative from Richfield said, a lot of our rural cities operate on shoestring budgets, and if they can save thousands of dollars without having to kick off one candidate only, um, then we should allow them to make that choice. Um, elections are expensive. They require a lot of work. Uh, it doesn't, I I I'm gonna push back. I don't think that this affects a voter's ability to be able to talk with the candidates, to vet them to make the right decision. Um, a lot of times we don't need one extra election just to kick someone off because the choices are few and that's, that's what this bill does, is it just gives cities the option. And I'd ask for your support.

  24. Speaker (presiding)1:09:01

      Thank you, Representative Stoddard. Uh, let's see. Voting will now be open on first substitute. All the house is, uh, in motion. If 10 or more will stand, we will be in call the house. We call the Senator. Cullimore. Would you like to lift the call The house seeing the call, the house has been lifted. All in favor say, aye. Call The house lifted. Voting is now closed. First substitute HB 5 48 passes this body with 40 yes votes, 30 no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Madam Reading Clerk

• Mar 4, 2026 Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (30 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:51:25speaker not certain

     first substitute house bill 5, 4, 8 primary election amendments.

  2. Unknown speaker1:51:30speaker not certain

     Are you educating us too? That is a good question. Uh, I feel like I have been educated sitting on through this committee this afternoon. We

  3. Committee chair1:51:39

     Have amendment online. Do you want that moved or, yes, please. Do you wanna speak to it first?

  4. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:51:44

     And, um, it was just a drafting error. The word in the, the in the sub is file, but it should be filled. So that's all the changes. Oh, That's a really tough one.

  5. Committee chair1:51:53

     Yeah. Okay. Important. All right. I would entertain a motion then to, um,

  6. Unknown speaker1:51:59speaker not certain

     Um, Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion that we approve amendment number one to first substitute hospital 5 48 and Representative Sauder's name.

  7. Committee chair1:52:08

     Okay. All those in favor of that motion to amend say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, the bill is amended then. So go ahead.

  8. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:52:20

     Okay, thank you. So, um, this is a bill that is based off of section of code that we already have currently for our special service districts. There is the option to waive a primary. So this bill was worked on with the clerks with the league, um, and with the house committee that heard it. And what it says is that if a municipality is filling a spot, um, if they have between two to three times the amount of candidates for the open spot, they may choose to hold a primary or they don't have to. If there's more than three times, they do have to though. So for example, if you have one city council spot and you have either two or three people, they can choose or not choose to hold the primary election, but if there were four, they would have to have a primary election. And, and the reason I bring this bill forward is because there's a lot of cities that are having these primary elections that are knocking off one candidate. We see turnout in municipal races as being really low already. And for people to have to go through a primary and a regular election, we're getting just massive amounts of voter fatigue. So this isn't something that cities have to do, it's something that they can do. And, um, I think, I think we should give cities the option, especially some of our smaller cities that, you know, elections cost a lot of money. And I have someone here who can speak to that actually. And why, why this bill is a good thing.

  9. Unknown speaker1:53:50speaker not certain

     Is this part of your presentation, Gloria? It's, yes.

  10. Lanny Chapman, Salt Lake County Clerk1:53:53

      Good afternoon. My name is Lanny Chapman. I'm the Salt Lake County Clerk. Thank you so much for allowing me to say a couple things. So, last year during the 2025 municipal primary elections, there were over eight municipalities in Salt Lake County alone, who only reduced the number of candidates because of a primary, because of a required primary by one individual. The rest were able to go on to the general election. So that was eight different municipalities that had this bill, uh, been a law at that point, could have made that decision for themselves to decide whether or not they wanted to expend that money to have their, their citizens vote, uh, during the summer during a primary versus wait and have everybody vote during the general election that year. Um, and again, this has some really great guardrails on it to make sure we are not having contests with 50, 60 candidates per contest. Just go on to the November election. This makes sure that it has to be within that ratio.

  11. Committee chair1:55:00

      Okay. And with that open to any questions? All right, Questions from The committee? Senator Vickers?

  12. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:55:09

      Okay, so, you know, I actually, I was reading the bill and I was trying to figure out, you know, I was put in my mind. So if, help me understand if I got this right. So, uh, if municipality had, you know, for like one city council seat had, um, or a mayor seat, that'd be probably better. If you had three or four, then you could choose whether to go on or If there were three, because it's up to three times. Okay. So if you had four, you would have to have a primary. Okay. But if there were only three, the city could opt out of the primary. So if there's an election with three council seats open, and they're not district, like, you know, like in Cedar City, they're not district. So three, how many, what would the numbers be there?

  13. Unknown speaker1:55:53speaker not certain

      So it could be up to nine. So anywhere between six and nine, they could choose whether or not to have a primary but 10 on, they would have to hold them. Okay, Thanks. Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, interesting.

  14. Committee chair1:56:07

      Let's, uh, open this up to public comment. Are there any individuals that would like to speak to this spiel? We've got one. Okay. And we have one online. Ricky Hatch. We'll put you on deck then.

  15. Carson, Utah League of Cities and Towns1:56:25

      Awesome. Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, Carson AERs with the Utah, Utah League of Cities and Towns, I'll be brief. Uh, we think this is a great bill. It preserves the local, uh, local community's ability to figure out within reasonable parameters when to hold a primary or not. Um, this helps potentially save buddy or it may a situation where they think no, a primary is helpful here. We feel more comfortable with that for our community. So we appreciate the sponsor bringing this bill forward. It again, preserves local control and just helps the elections run a little bit smoother for, uh, low turnout municipal races. Thank you.

  16. Committee chair1:56:57

      Thank you. Okay, Mr. Hatch.

  17. Ricky Hatch, Weber County Clerk Auditor1:57:02

      Uh, good afternoon. Uh, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you so much, uh, for hearing this and for your work. And we're almost done. I'm Ricky Hatch. I'm the county clerk auditor for Weber County and here representing the Clerk's Association of Utah. And, uh, we appreciate Representative Stoddard and his work with us. And, uh, for the example that, uh, um, clerk Chapman gave, uh, we are in full support of this bill. We, we like the guardrails that are in place, and we think it'll be a savings for, um, municipalities as well as, uh, reducing the impact and workload of county clerks. Thank you.

  18. Committee chair1:57:42

      Thank you. All right. Close public comment, we'll come back for further consideration.

  19. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:57:47

      Senator Vickers? Yeah, I've got a question I just thought of. Um, is this an help if, is this something that the municipality would make at each election or would it be something that, uh, decide and then keep that in perpetuity?

  20. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:58:05

      Or how does Yeah, It, it would be election to election. They could decide. Okay.

  21. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:58:11

      I didn't, you know, and I don't know, I was just wondering if, you know, if the difference would be on who, who the candidates were or something. I don't Know. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

  22. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:58:21

      Okay. And, and it could be, you know, based on fiscal year considerations could be based on candidates. Yeah. So we, you know, we wanted to give maximum control to cities to decide. Okay.

  23. Unknown speaker1:58:31speaker not certain

      Mr. Chair, I would make a motion. Let see, we've already moved the amendment, right? Yep. I would make a motion that we fa we recommend for substitute hospital 5 48 as amended.

  24. Committee chair1:58:41

      Great. Motion or discussion to that motion? Let's go back to the representative for summation.

  25. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:58:49

      I appreciate the time of the committee. Thank you.

  26. Committee chair1:58:51

      Okay. Senator Vickers

  27. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:58:53

      Kind of intriguing idea. You know, I like it. It's Too sensible. We've gotta make things difficult here. I actually said to somebody yesterday, rationality and common sense often doesn't mean a thing in legislation, but I think it does today.

  28. Committee chair1:59:10

      Okay, we'll call the question then. All those in favor of first substitute house bill 5 48 A as amended out favorably, say Aye. Aye. And he opposed? That is unanimous.

  29. Sen. Evan J. Vickers1:59:22

      Thank you committee. And can I just put on the record that, um, my Senate floor sponsor is dead to me because he didn't even show up to this committee. So I like you all a lot more. Actually, he's next door presenting in the judiciary, so they're beating the crap out of him. So

  30. Committee chair1:59:35

      Don't worry about some slack then.