S.B. 153 Election Amendments: transcript

The, the amendment is from a conversation I had with the elections office last night. Okay. But I've had some conversations with some of the clerks and stuff, and so I, I I think that we won't move that right now. Okay. And, and what I, what I've told people is that I'm, I'm perfectly willing to circle this bill to start with on the, on the floor, but I, I would like to get it passed out so we can get it on its way. So that's, that's kind of my recommendation right now. And then we'll, we will wind that into a substitute bill.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the, the time I have to, to be here. I present SB 1 53 voter registration records amendments. This bill actually solves a straightforward and pressing problem. Utah's voter privacy framework conflicts with federal law and exposes the state to ongoing litigation risk. Last year, federal judge ruled that the National Voter Registration Act overrides Utah's voter privacy restrictions. Judicial watch has threatened litigation based on NVRA compliance, and the Department of Justice has requested Utah's voter registration databases as part of federal review. This is not theoretical. The legal exposure is real and documented. The National Voter Registration Act has been federal law for more than 30 years. And by the way, that was actually a bipartisan law that became partisan, but was partisan because of, of actually the Republican party, not the Democratic Party. Just, I I just wanted to put that out there because, because I, I, I think there's some really important things there. And our current, our current law actually conflicts with portions of that. Okay. The National Voter Registration Act has been federal law for more than 30 years. It requires voter registration records to be available for public inspection. Under current Utah law, voters may opt into privacy broadly, and, and that's the major problem, is it's, it's a broad classification. As a result, roughly 40% of Utah's voters now have non-public registration records. A federal court has already held that this structure conflicts within VRA requirements. While a state avoided an adverse ruling on standing grounds, the underlying legal conflict remains unsolved. SB 1 53 fixes this problem in three ways. First, it restores public access by default, bringing Utah back into compliance with federal law, voter registration records, return to public classification consistent with NVRA and longstanding Utah practice Sensitive personal identifiers remain protected, including social security numbers, driver's license numbers, email addresses, full dates of birth signatures and ballot choices. Voting remains private and secret. So second, it provides, so, so what, what what, what this actually does is it just tightens the requirements for, for withholding your information. So you actually have to show that you have cause for doing that. Second, it provides mandatory targeted protection for voters facing real safety risks. Law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, domestic violence victims, stalking victims, military members and and protected witnesses receive statutory privacy protection. The residential addresses are not publicly disclosed. This protection is not discretionary. County clerks must grant it to qualifying individuals. Existing voters receive written notice and clear opportunity to apply for at risk status if they qualify. Third, it clarifies that petition signing is a public act. The United States Supreme Court confirmed this in Doe versus Reed. Every petition must carry a clear warning that a signer's name and address may be disclosed. What's interesting with this is that, that while we do have a protected status of voters, and you, you know, and, uh, un under current statute, we have about 40% of, of voters that, uh, that are protected in this way. What's interesting to me is that, that that data actually is protected by the county clerks revealing it under, under the current thing. But what's interesting is when people sign these petitions, they, they actually are giving up their privacy because, because the people gathering the signatures actually collect that data and, and disclose it. So it's, so I, this, this petition thing basically says, look, if, if you want to be protected, you need to understand that this is a public record. Okay? And, uh, so every petition must carry a clear warning that signer's name and address may be disclosed even for at-risk voters. This ensures informed consent voters decide knowingly whether to, that this is what the Constitution requires. Okay? This is what the Constitution requires. Sorry. This is what federal law mandates. This is what SB 1 53, uh, accomplishes. I, I respectfully ask for your favorable recommendation. I'm happy to answer questions. I wanted to make that short. So, okay.

Thank you. I, I don't know if I have a question so much as this just seems like another attempt to discourage people from participating in the civic process by telling them that if they sign on to a petition, that if there's already a very high standard in Utah, um, that they are going to be potentially exposed in some way. I think there are valid reasons, and I have my own concerns with how many private records there are and how that's being used. But, uh, regardless if you're on that list, I mean, it seems like that's, that that is information that should stay private. Uh, and, and it just seems like another attempt to kind of make it even more difficult to gather signatures. Of course, again, I'll disclose I'm running for Congress, but there are efforts out there that the Republican party, I think is finding it is also very difficult to, uh, get people to sign these petitions right now. Uh, and this just seems like, uh, it's gonna make that even more, uh, cumbersome for folks, which I think is, is the wrong direction. I've advocated for lower thresholds and that sort of thing in the past. So I'll, I'll, I'll be a no on this bill. And I think, uh, I did hear some concerns from, uh, my county clerk as well. Um, and I, I think, uh, this, this is something we should be careful about.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Brian McKenzie, Davis County Clerk, uh, representing the clerks of the State of Utah. While we do not have an official position on this bill, this bill is very similar to a bill that we worked, uh, proactively with Representative Lee last year, that we were supportive of, uh, we're confident in working with the senator, uh, that we'll be able to address, uh, some minor concerns that we have with this bill. Uh, really what this bill is trying to do is find that fine balance between transparency and privacy for our voters. Uh, I think that that can be accomplished, uh, if we work together to, uh, to meet both of those goals. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Next, Uh, Dr. Ronald Mortenson PhD, as you know, or some of you know, at least I was a driving force behind the provision that allowed all voters to make their voter registrations private. And in 2010, I'd asked the Attorney General what kept anyone from buying the voter list and publishing it to the internet. And his response was, don't go there. Based on that response, I canceled my voter registration and had my entire voter history wiped out. Three years later, the Lieutenant governor sold the entire voter database complete with full birth dates, and it was posted to the internet. Five years later, representative Becky Edwards and Carrie Ann Libe amended a bipartisan bill to allow voters to make their records private. I think that's somebody else's. Yeah. Parenthetically, the senate floor sponsor of the bill was Deirdre Hen Henderson chief sponsored this bill that makes our records private. Hundreds of thousands of Utahans then made their voter records private. Now, this bill will make their, all of their records public. The entire voter list will be sold by the Lieutenant Governor for $1,050. And, and then it'll be posted to voter records.com. Roughly half a million Utahans full names and addresses complete with a map to their homes will be available to anyone anywhere in the world. And this means that a half million additional utahns will be exposed to threats that include doxing, stalking, et cetera. So if you're gonna put Utah's in danger when they register to vote, you should at least warn them of that danger. And when this bill passes, I would encourage individuals who records are classified as private to cancel their voter registration. I'd encourage teenagers not to register to vote, and for as Davis County attorney. Okay.

Necessarily Light it up, I, not necessarily a a question, but I I actually share your concern. I think the doxing is real. That really concerns me. I I've asked some of our attorneys to look at other parts of the code. When that happens, um, I recommend reporting that to law enforcement. That shouldn't happen. Um, it's against the law today, but I, I do think that is a legitimate concern, and I wanna make sure that I put it on the record. I, I support this bill, I support the language. But if anybody is using this voter database to do that, it's against the law today. And we need to be really, really clear about that. Um, I've asked the attorneys to look if we can turn it into a violation and put it in the election code, but that's a real, that's a real concern. I, I've seen it. Um, but it, but it's already a violation today. But, but Ron, I I'm glad you brought it up. 'cause I, I'm concerned about that as well. Right. And the concern with that is, is once they are docs, then they report it. But the records out there that allows the doxing, and so it's already there. You're not wrong. And, and you know, Troy Rawlings, the, uh, county attorney of Davis County said the state's responsibility is to protect our information, not to sell it.

Hi, I'm Marilyn Ney. I live in American Fork. I'm a citizen representing myself. Um, Senate Bill 1 53 is obviously dealing with our voter registration records and accurate voter registration roles form the basis of election integrity. Um, this bill specifies the voter data that should remain public while keeping sensitive and, and other parts of the data private. Uh, the bill is a reasonable compromise. I know there was a whole team of political party representatives, the county clerks and, um, legislators who worked on this over the last couple of years, and there was a very similar bill last year that didn't quite make it through. But I think this is an important bill to have currently. So much of the Utah voter rules are hidden that it causes a tremendous problem, and we've had a lot of conflicts and issues because of it. So I recommend, um, that the committee, or urge the committee to please vote favorably and pass this to the Senate floor. Thank you.

Next. My name is Helen Moser, and I'm speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters. The league has long supported strong voter data privacy protections, because privacy is essential to safe and accessible participation by citizens in our democracy. Voters in particularly those designated at risk, should never be forced to choose between their right to vote or sign a petition and their personal safety. And this bill moves Utah in the opposite direction. So, supporters may note also that the bill preserves a voter's right to withdraw their signature. However, that right does not operate as a meaningful privacy safeguard under this bill. It does not say after certification, after the removal period, or if the signature is counted. It says, if you sign the So disclosures then triggered by simply signing the petition. It contains no mechanism toue disclosure if a voter later withdraws or signature. This is a critical distinction, and once personal information is exposed, the harm cannot be undone. So for the at-risk voters, survivors of domestic violence, uh, stalking victims, judges, law enforcement officers, and others with legitimate safety concerns, it's not a theoretical risk, as we've heard from, uh, Senator Mikhail. And, um, it's a real one. And so publishing home addresses tied to political activity exposes voters to harassment, intimidation, retaliation, um, and online targeting as, as well as doxing. The result is a chilling effect and discourages participation for these reasons. The league urges the legislator to either reject it when it comes to a floor vote, or amend it to ensure that the voter privacy is preserved at risk. Protections is, are meaningful, and civic participation does not come at the cost of safety for the voter or their loved ones. Thank you. Thank You.

Last one, Aaron Davidson, Utah County Clerk. Um, I do want to speak favorably to this bill. Uh, and I would like, like to thank Senator Johnson for working with us on this. Um, there are a few things that we would like to clean up about it. Um, but overall I do like it. Uh, currently there's the petition packet to repeal Prop four in Utah County. We have over 20 packets that I'm looking at that have fraudulent signatures in it, and some of the signatures are really close. I called the voter and they agree it was a really close signature, uh, but it was not theirs. They confirmed that they did not sign a packet. And with being able to publish the packet, this would be able to present everybody that could possibly have had their signature forged. It would be out there and they would be able to find it, rather than being hidden behind some other platform. Uh, it's very concerning. I've spent way too many hours, uh, calling voters on this current packet. So it is a good thing to, to put it out there, uh, to identify, uh, what, what is actually happening behind the scenes with the clerks and with the Lieutenant Governor's offices to what, who's signing these packets. Um, so yeah, I just, I, I speak favorably to this, to this bill. Thank you. Thank

Thank you. Alright. Yeah. I'm Seth Stewart. Um, I strongly urge you to oppose this bill because it exceeds the legislative authority and the constitutional authority. Uh, I don't know how many are aware of the history of voter registration, uh, record stewardship in the state of Utah. It was not always, uh, managed by the state government. And, uh, it was ordinarily, originally, uh, all of your credentialing information was kept and held at the precinct level. Participants in Utah's Caucus convention System are aware of the system and how it works, and it works very, very well. Um, uh, a year or two ago at our, uh, our caucus night, uh, things got really bad because we tried to centralize the credentialing system. And so there are issues with that, but also this, this over disclosure system is very dangerous because, uh, it can condition participation in the political process on forfeiture of private information. I believe this is very, uh, important to the redistricting question because you can't gerrymander if you don't have a signal to gerrymander around. And as I understand it, this bill would force disclosure of partisan affiliations. So if you have lots of, lots of blue and red squares, it's super easy to carve up a map and gerrymandering, if you eliminate that signal, then it becomes much more difficult to create unfair systems around that. So get rid of that, and you get rid of, of partisan gerrymandering. But also there are other concerns with over disclosure. By making the information public, we expose it not only to anyone in the state, but also in the nation, which invites out-of-state funding in our elections to try to sway voters as well as foreign interventions. And this, this just opens the whole, uh, can of worms for that. Uh, but also if people can look up and find out people's addresses, uh, and based on their party affiliations, this seems honestly like it's part of a national movement and trends towards, uh, civil War to get people angry with each other and get, and I think this is part of the reason why the doxing issue is so severe, because it exposes literally everyone. And, and it extorts us as with our participation, our right to representation in the political process that we have to engage in this, uh, mudslinging and subject ourselves to, uh, public exposure on account of our political party affiliations. That's just not appropriate. There's no,

Okay. Uh, thank you. Um, I just want to speak in measured opposition, uh, to this bill. My name is Alan Westman. I'm with the Forward Party of Utah. Um, I recognize the tension between, uh, voter privacy and public participation and appreciate the sponsor's efforts in, uh, in trying to address that. Um, in addition to some of the other concerns that have been voiced, I'm concerned about the effect that this has on, uh, those people who are designated in the bill as at risk. These, uh, these individuals, um, who have already made their records private and now would be required to opt back in to an at risk status and to show the county clerk that they're indeed at risk. And I think that that kind of pulls the rug out from under somebody who is expecting to have privacy protections. Um, and for, particularly for people who are facing a domestic violence situation or other, other things that indeed put them at risk. I think there's a real danger here about taking that away and having, you know, requiring them to go back in to prove that they are in that situation. Some of them may not be in that, uh, ability to do that. So that, that's a concern. And I think that maybe there's a better, a better solution to strike in terms of the information that's disclosed publicly. Perhaps just the name and a voter identification number or the last part of a voter identification number. Something that shows that they are a real voter but doesn't disclose their home address or other identifying personal information subject to doxing. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

So there's actually, there's actually a list of categories. Okay. And, and all, all that has to happen is that they do have to document that they're at risk, right? So if you're, if you're a victim of domestic violence, you do have to demonstrate that that's true. It under our current system, we just, we, we just check when we register to vote to say, I want my voter records to be private. That's why we have 40% of them that way. And, and let me just add, and, and this is kind of in response to that, is that actually the, the way we do it right now, if, if the judge had ruled differently in the last case, one of the problems we have is that would've revealed all of this information, right? And, and the idea, the idea is, okay, we wanna protect at-risk people, okay? And, and so we wanna have a documented way to do that, and we want to protect them. And, and under, under the way we do it right now, a judge at any time could say, well, no, this, this is wrong. We, you can't do it the way you're doing it. So this is just responding to that and saying, okay, people that are truly at risk, they need to be hidden. Okay. And this, this enforces that, actually.

Yeah, I, I'm ready to make a motion if that's okay. And, and just to clarify the motion, I'm just gonna make a motion to pass this bill out with a favorable recommendation with the understanding, as Senator Johnson has said that he's gonna continue to work on it as it moves forward to, to the Senate, and that there are some minor changes that it sounds like he's working with some of the clerks on. So I'm gonna make the motion subject to that.

Okay. I just, I just wanna sum by, by reinforcing that I've already, you know, I, I did have an amendment to this bill, but what I, what I decided is it would be better to put all these together in a substitute. I will, uh, when this gets to the floor, I'll circle this bill until, until we have those conversations Okay. And be, because I know I I, I mean there were a lot of interesting things that ca that, that were testified to. And I, I, I mean, like Senator Mikel said, I think it's very important for us to address those issues. Okay. In sums, SB 1 53 is a compliance and integrity bill. Federal law requires voter registration records to be public publicly inspectable, and a federal court has already ruled that Utah's blanket privacy structure conflicts with the NVRA SB 1 53 restores transparency by default to bring us into compliance, while providing mandatory targeted protections for voters with documented safety risks. It preserves ballot secrecy, aligns with Supreme Court precedence on petition disclosure applies neutral rules prospectively and strengthens deterrents against misuse. In short, it protects people without hiding the system and restores public verifiability as the foundation of trust. Thank you very much.

Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Uh, great to be here. Thanks for having me. So, sb uh, could we move the sub? Yeah, yeah. You have a third sub. So if you, if you speak to that senator, then we'll move that. Uh, the third sub basically just up updates some of the dates, some of the languages. There was an addition of the, uh, the fact that the, uh, that our, our attorneys will draft the, uh, language on the, uh, on the ballot. And, uh, there were some dates up, updated. And, uh, that's basically some things that the clerks wanted were put in there. So pretty, it, it didn't change the meaning much, just some of the dates and, and, uh, the possibilities that they have. So, but, uh, let's just, so if we could just move that sub Yeah, no, no, we, we will do that when we Okay. Oh, At the end? Yes, sir. Okay. So go ahead and do the entire Bill. Okay. Okay, I'll do that. So, SB 1 53 brings Utah into faster national voter records, uh, ACT compliance while strengthening protections for abuse victims, cleaning voter rolls, enforcing privacy through criminal penalties, and simplifying implementation for counties. SB 1 53 is, at its core, a privacy, safety and federal compliance bill. It's not a bill that restricts voting. It is not a bill that creates new barriers for lawful voters. Instead, it addresses three real responsibilities. We share across party lines to protect vulnerable people, safeguard personal data, and keep Utah in compliance with federal law. First, the bill strengthens protectors protection for survivors of domestic and dating, uh, dating violence. Under the substitute, a survivor can obtain at-risk voter status by submitting a designation form together with a sworn affidavit confirming victimization or threat. That means no police report requirement, no court order barrier, and no re-traumatizing documented documentation process while still maintaining accountability through an oath under penalty of perjury. This is a survivor-centered standard that expands access to privacy protections rather than restricting them. One of the problems under the, uh, under the current, uh, law, uh, I don't know if you know, we have over 40% of our voter records that are private or withheld. And, uh, you know, the, the access was way too broad, way too way, way too easy to obtain. But we, but we wanted to protect the privacy of those that need to be private and, and their records need to be private. And so, by, by opening up this thing so widely, before we were actually putting these people at risk, since we were violating the National Voter Re Records Act. And so this, this bill simply, uh, tightens down who can apply so that we can comply with federal law, but yet protect those that need to be protected. So third, the BRI bill brings into clear compliance with na, with the Federal National Voter Registration Act, accelerates the timeline for a lawful record classification and requires direct notice to affected voters ensuring transparency and due process by acting. Now, the legislature keeps Utah not federal courts in control of our election framework and avoids litigation that could impose far more rigid remedies. Compliance here is not partisan. It's responsible governance. Fourth, the bill improves voter roll integrity without limiting voter access. It adds safeguards to ensure the timely removal of deceased individuals from registration list. Not through broad purges, not through new identification mandates, and not through barriers to participation, but through targeted lawful maintenance that protects confidence in our elections. Integrity and access are not opposing values, they're complimentary ones. Finally, SB 1 53 was carefully narrowed to reduce administrative burden, including removal of prior requirements to reassign statewide voter identification numbers, avoiding confusion for counties and voters alike. So reasonable people can disagree about many aspects of election policy, but I hope we can agree on this. We should protect survivors, defend personal privacy, follow federal law, and maintain accurate voter roles, all without making it harder for any eligible Utah, Utah to vote. That's what SB 1 53 does. And that concludes my presentation.

Th Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is my impression is this is quite similar to the bill that the clerk supported last year. I think we started in the house last year, right. Uh, uh, with, uh, Representative Lee. Can, can you explain the differences between the bill last year that the, the clerk supported and what you're proposing this year?

Uh, I think it's actually pretty close. There's a few things that the clerks are gonna speak to. I, I think, but, uh, uh, we tried, we tried to stay pretty close to where that was. And so, uh, if, if this passes, uh, we had, we had significant problems in the past at caucus night and other activities where a political party does not know who the members of that political party are. Would this solve that problem? Yes. That's, that's some of the, that's some of the updates that, that we actually made. Uh, where, you know, there's some things that the clerks can do right now. There's some things that are gonna take just a little bit longer, and that's why the timeline is stretched out just a bit. Thank, But yes, it, uh, one of the things that, uh, we, we added was the ability to, to, uh, to know when somebody changed their voter record last. Right. So the parties can look that up and there's a lookup tool where they can actually, there, there's going to be a lookup tool where they can actually look up a voter ID and then know whether they're registered to the party.

Great. And, and could you point us, I know my recollection is last year we narrowed the amount of the information that was going to be made public, the name, the address precinct, but there wasn't much beyond that. Could you remind us where we, where the bill specifies what is public and what is not?

Phone numbers are not gonna be released, Correct? Well, the phone number, the on on the voter record, you can check if you want to share your phone number, uh, with the party. But you'll have to check that to, to make that possible. But they'll be able to do that if they want to. That's, that's a piece of information they don't have to share though. Thank you. It's Just the voter ID and the dates. That's For the petition. So that was, that was an addition. Now it's optional is the same thing with the email address. Yeah. They, they have to be, they actually have to check to say they can, because if they don't, then, then we have to go through all kinds of compliance. Then the party would have to reach out to them and ask them if they could use that email or that, that information to send them information. Especially the, the phone number where you've got a text number. So by default it's just name and address and precinct. Yeah. Name, address. Party precinct.

Party precinct. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, thank you. So on lines two 30, uh, nine to two, uh, 41, it, it talks about, uh, if you, it, it, it's a warning

that if you sign the petition your voter ID number and the date you signed Yes. Is what's available. You have to, you have to No, That will go, that will go public.

Right. So that'll be posted publicly, which it isn't now. And there'll be a notice on the thing that says, see, here's the, here's the thing before, you know, if you signed a petition before, right? I mean, you assume that your information's being held public, but you just turned it over to the signature gatherer.

Right. And so this gives you a notice. But, but what, what we did in order to protect the privacy, this is something that the, the clerks wanted. When it's posted online, the only thing that's posted online is their voter ID number and, and, uh, when they signed it. Right. So, so it's like, but if, if, if whoever is challenging the signatures wants to know who that is, they can go in and look at the record. We just don't want it out there publicly for everybody to see. But, but you can get access to that information.

Oh, Sorry. The good, the good Senator brought up one more question. So I think it's more a philosophical question that we've been, uh, all of us in gov ops have been trying to, to work through that. If is it, why is it better to post people's information publicly when they sign a, a petition or a referenda, rather than if we now have the capability to easily notify them and notify the party? Why do we need to make that public and put it on the internet? Uh, we can send 'em a text message, we can send an email. We can make it available for candidates to review the record. What, why, why do we wanna put it on the internet for people to potentially go and, and Access?

I mean, we wanted, we wanted to cut down the amount that we did, but there, but these are, that's a public action by signing a petition. And so that's kind of, that, that's where we landed on that.

Maryanne Give Director of Utah Legislative Watch. I'm here to speak in favor of the bill. I think that we have swung a pendulum way too far. We have way too many records protected. We belong to part of a, a political society, and part of the responsibility of that is to, um, publicly participate in our society. There are some circumstances where we need to be protected, but it shouldn't be a matter of, I checked a box at my voter road, my, my motor voter registration, and now I'm completely private. Um, we've gone too far. I think this bill does a good job of swinging that pendulum back where it should be. And so I urge your vote on the bill. Thank you.

Uh, Dr. Ronald Mortenson PhD. And as some of you may know, I was the driving force behind the, uh, 2018 bill that allowed Utahans to make their voter registration private. And I know there is extreme pressure, pressure to pass this bill, but I still wonder why the state requires me to make my personal information available to all political parties and to all candidates, including nonpartisan candidates as a condition of exercising my constitutional right to vote. In any case, according to this bill, a notice advising people that the records will be made public must be mailed by April 8th, and action on the part of the person must be by May 6th. So what happens when the mailing is returned as undeliverable that's been sent to someone whose record is private and is now gonna be made public? What happens if a victim of domestic violence or another at risk person doesn't get their mailing or is unable to take action by May 6th because their record will be be made public? What about individuals who are out of the country? And if an election official denies an at risk request, is there an appeals process and will it be completed before the records are made public? If this bill passes, I personally will encourage individuals with private or withheld records to cancel their voter registrations immediately, just to be safe. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Brian McKenzie, Davis County Clerk, also speaking on behalf of the clerks of the State of Utah. Uh, fundamentally, the clerks do still have a concern with this bill, uh, in that it, it does change and, and remove this, right, that our citizens have to protect their data. We think that that is a fundamental right. Uh, however, we are extremely grateful for the sponsor of this bill on the work that he's done to try to bring some of those protections in into place. Uh, there are two remaining concerns that we hope that can be addressed, uh, in an amendment. And that has to do with two qualifiers that have been removed, uh, from the at risk individuals. Uh, the first is, uh, the ability for an individual who resides with a victim of domestic violence. Uh, they no longer qualify for protections. We think that that's an important protection, uh, in order to protect the victim of the domestic violence. The second is the qualifier for our armed forces. Uh, the current proposal would only allow deployed armed forces to pro to, uh, qualify for those protections. Uh, anybody who's been involved in armed forces, especially some of our special forces, uh, know that there's an inherent risk based upon their assignment and their duties regardless of whether or not they're deployed. We hope that those two qualifiers for our at risk individuals can be considered, uh, prior to this passage in the house and, and address these final concerns in this bill. Uh, thank you for the time to speak with you today.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. I I wanted some clarification. If, if the clerks are asking to change the definition of a protected individual or Juab to, to include those new categories, or just say for the purposes of disclosing this voter data, we think those two things should be added to the protected person's definition. Or how, how are you viewing this? A permanent change for everyone or just for voter records? Uh,

Thank you. Uh, this, this is specific to voter records. Current statute allows individuals who reside with a domestic violence victim to also qualify for what is considered the withheld status of our voter registration records. Um, the other qualifier is our armed forces currently under statute, uh, an individual in the armed forces qualifies for that withheld status. Uh, this bill removes those two qualifiers. We're asking for those two qualifiers to put, be put back in and, and maintain that in-state statute.

Thank you. I am Jason Jolly in Orem, Utah, representing myself. Um, I first want to appreciate, uh, the sponsor of the bill for putting a consent and a warning, um, that would be on the form for people that are protected. Um, the only objection I have that I think would need to be worked on is as a, as a personal voter, I am not opposed to somebody that is running for office that wants to see the records of a petition or, um, or something having access to that. But I still would not want that, uh, my data online, including my voter id. Um, particularly, um, there are, uh, people within a community that might be antagonistic towards people of a certain political party or another. And so, should a candidate or a reviewer have access to that Yes. Should the entire public I disagree and think that needs working on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd make a motion to adopt the third substitute of, uh, SB 1 53.

Thank you very much. I, uh, do you, you just want me to sum, is that Oh,

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we pass with a favorable recommendation. Third substitute SB 1 53 voter registration records, amendments. That's an order. Would you like to speak to that? I'll waive. Alright.

Yeah. Maybe a question or to speak to the motion. I'd, I'd, uh, I'm very interested in the protections that, uh, the clerks mentioned, especially the, uh, those who reside with the members of domestic violence. I wonder how, how the sponsor feels about that. I, I, I'm completely open to that. If that's something the house wants to add to it, that's, I have no problem with it.

I, I received a list of things last night. We, we tried to get as many of 'em as we could in the substitute. And so, uh, those, those weren't, those two things weren't addressed. I, I don't have a problem with them if that's something house members want to do. Uh, you know, with a, with a bill as complex as this, uh, one of the things that we, we have to remember is this is in response to, uh, lawsuits that have happened. Uh, we, we are out of compliance with the National Voter Records Act. I I think protections are really important. Uh, I I think it's also important that people need to understand if they're, you know, if they're going to turn their information over to, that's why the notice was put on there. If they're gonna turn their information over to a signature gatherer or a petition gatherer, they need to know that there's some risk in that because we can't, we can't protect that right now. Right. But I, I, I'm open to the idea of what we do to the online one, you know, and how we, how we reveal that as long as, as long as the parties have access to that. And, and what we find in these petitions is that, that that's, that's a bipartisan effort. The NA National Voter Records Act was actually a bipartisan effort, uh, until the, actually, uh, it was a Republican president that rejected it. And then the next year it, it, the next year it came up again and, and, uh, bill Clinton signed it into law. So it's, I I think this is a, I think this is a bipartisan issue. I think I do. I I think that it's, it's important to be transparent in elections, to, to have transparency of the Rover records so people can, candidates can have access to them, but, uh, those should be used for voting only. And that's why we put, uh, penalties on there. We actually upped the penalty to, uh, uh, to, to people who use the data that aren't supposed to be using the data. And so I, I think that clamped it down, I think the idea that we allowed domestic violence, uh, survivors to basically just sign an affidavit to have their, uh, records. These, these were negotiations that I, I think were pretty bipartisan, honestly, in the, in the Senate. So, but I am open to these additional things and, and, uh, Trevor's running that here. He can, uh, do a, a substitute for him.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If the sponsor's willing to let me work with, uh, Representative Lee on that, on those changes the clerk suggest, I think those Im improve it. While I'm fundamentally against, uh, publishing people's information on the internet, uh, I think it's more important that, uh, political parties need to know who's a member of their party. That's important. We, our system doesn't work if nobody knows who's a member of what, uh, of what party, and they can't communicate to them. So I think there's more good things in this than, uh, and challenges. And, uh, I'll be supporting the, the motion and working on those changes to improve privacy for our members.

I'll waive to the maker. I'll waive. Alright.

Alright, thank you, Senator.

Okay. So, uh, what we did with the, uh, first substitute hold on, is that, uh, we accelerated the, uh, national Voter Registration Act compliance and record reclassification. We removed the mandatory new view voter ID numbers. We strengthened at risk voter protection framework. So this is where we allowed an affidavit for abuse victims, uh, that that submission can take place through the county clerk. Uh, there's a disclosure shield for at-risk voters. So, uh, so on a, uh, on a petition, uh, you know, there is a disclosure on there that says if you sign this petition, your, your data could be compromised. But we also, we also created a system where those petitions wouldn't be shared online, but merely the voter IDs and, uh, the party that somebody was in and, uh, the date that they signed it. And then people could go in and, and look at the additional data if they wanted to. But, but that keeps everybody's voter date off of there. And then, uh, so there's a balance between the petition transparency and the privacy. And, uh, there's a statewide reporter, uh, report of at-risk voters added stronger criminal and civil penalties for misuse. I thought that was an important thing where, uh, the, these, uh, these lists, these records, uh, should only be used for elections. And that's, that's what that add. And then there's, uh, deceased voter removal safeguards that were added. Um, and so that's, that's pretty much what was changed in this first substitute.

Okay. So SB 1 53 substitute one brings Utah into faster, uh, national Voter Rec Records Act compliance while strengthening protections for abuse victims, cleaning voter rolls, enforcing privacy through criminal penalties, and simplifying implementation for counties at its core. Uh, SB 1 53 First substitute is a privacy, safety and federal compliance bill. It's not a bill that restricts voting. It's not a bill that creates new barriers for lawful voters. Instead, it addresses three real responsibilities. We share across party lines. We want to protect vulnerable people, safeguard personal data, and keep Utah compliance with federal law. So first, this bill strengthens protections for survivors of domestic and domestic and dating violence. Uh, I, I explained that before. Uh, second, the bill creates real enforcement for voter data privacy. Third, the BRI brings Utah and to clear compliance with Federal National Voter Registration Act. Fourth, the bill improves voter roll integrity without limiting voter access. So colleagues, uh, there's reasonable people can disagree about many aspects of election policy, but I hope we can agree on this. We should protect survivors, defend personal privacy, follow federal law, and maintain accurate voter rolls all without making it harder for any eligible Utah, Utah to vote. That is what SB 1 53 substitute one does. Thank you very much. I'm is there discussion to this bill?

I move that SB 1 53 First substitute, uh, be read a third time

Senator Vickers Spery Lewin Brammer bus a Colmore Escamilla Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Aye. Hankins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson. Aye. K. Juab McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Musman Owens pitcher Thumb Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton

Uh, first substitute brings Utah into faster NVRA compliance, while strengthening protections for abuse victims clean voter roles, enforcing privacy through criminal, criminal penalties, and simplifying implementation for counties at its core. Uh, SB 1 53 first substitute, uh, is a privacy, safety and federal compliance bill. It's not a bill that restricts voting is not a bill that creates new barriers for lawful voters. Instead, it addresses three real responsibilities we share across party lines. Protect vulnerable people, safeguard personal data, and keep Utah in compliance with federal law. And with that, I'm open for questions.

Senator Filmer, are you up?

I, I would like to call the Senate.

So Senator Johnson, I move that SB 1 53 First substitute pass.

Thank you Mr. President ProAm. I would love to circle this for just a moment as I have a sub coming out.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt the fourth substitute.

Yes, I would. So, after, uh, discussion with other stakeholders, those who had some, uh, concerns with, uh, aspects of the bills pertained to who was considered an at risk, uh, voter, this expanded that class from not just the person who may be considered domestic violence victim, but also to their family. And then within the military, if you're not just overseas and serving and deployed, uh, you can still be considered an an at-risk voter, uh, to have your information private here, uh, when you're not deployed, uh, in the states as well.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this bill's a, uh, a two year process that we have going on here. Now as it pertains to the voting records that the parties receive and also we as candidates receive when we go to campaign. Uh, currently right now some of us have upwards of 40 to 50% of our voter roll are considered private or withheld, and we have no way of knowing and contacting who they are in the state of Utah. Um, that creates problems and issues with us being able to campaign and, and know who we are supposed to talk to, uh, specifically within the party primaries, uh, primaries that we have. Uh, we also have had some issues, uh, in the past with the parties being able to access the information to know who they need to, uh, speak to, uh, try to engage them with, uh, increasing their party memberships. And this is going to help clarify and go back from what was very good intention Bill back in 2018 with voter privacy and just narrow that scope to certain individuals. And with that, I'll end the presentation.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt the fourth substitute. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to it? Yes, I would. So, after, uh, discussion with other stakeholders, those who had some, uh, concerns with, uh, aspects of the bills pertained to who was considered an at risk, uh, voter, this expanded that class from not just the person who may be considered domestic violence victim, but also to their family. And then within the military, if you're not just overseas and serving and deployed, uh, you can still be considered an an at-risk voter, uh, to have your information private here, uh, when you're not deployed, uh, in the states as well.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this bill's a, uh, a two year process that we have going on here. Now as it pertains to the voting records that the parties receive and also we as candidates receive when we go to campaign. Uh, currently right now some of us have upwards of 40 to 50% of our voter roll are considered private or withheld, and we have no way of knowing and contacting who they are in the state of Utah. Um, that creates problems and issues with us being able to campaign and, and know who we are supposed to talk to, uh, specifically within the party primaries, uh, primaries that we have. Uh, we also have had some issues, uh, in the past with the parties being able to access the information to know who they need to, uh, speak to, uh, try to engage them with, uh, increasing their party memberships. And this is going to help clarify and go back from what was very good intention Bill back in 2018 with voter privacy and just narrow that scope to certain individuals. And with that, I'll end the presentation.

Yes. There I, there there were just some things we overlooked. Uh, for instance, uh, victims of domestic violence, uh, their families would also be able to be hidden. Uh, and military members, uh, they, they would still be able to have, uh, private voter records even though they aren't deployed, if they were deployed. So, and, uh, one further thing. In order to protect a little bit more privacy, uh, signers of petitions, uh, you would only have, uh, the voter ID the date they signed and the party they were part of that. And that would be all that would be done online and then they could look up the other things. So that, that's the changes.

Vote. Senator Spery Aye. Lewin Brammer Bus Colmore Escamilla Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Aye. Juab McKay Aye. Mikel Milner a Musman Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton 10.

Yeah. Um, motion House bill three. It's a fiscal note. Bill, I circled right before lunch. I we're on the concurrence calendar. Oh, I'm so sorry. I apologize. Thank you. Thank you.

Motion to Concur. Uh, there are only two small changes.

To Concur.

We have a call the Senate five or more standing and this bill needs an immediate action date if it's gonna pass.

Senator Wilson. Uh, motion to Concur. Mr.