S.B. 194 Election Modifications: transcript

I will be speaking to the sub, but knowing that we have the representative from Lagoon, I wanna start with a bit of political history. We're talking about elections, and I, I think it's important to recognize that in an election, our fourth governor of the state of Utah was, his name was Simon Bamberger. He, he came from Utah County Chair from where, where you and I reside. And he was, he had a silver mine in Eureka, and he used some of his wealth to develop a railroad. And he developed a hotel Monaco, and he was smart. And he dec he decided, how am I gonna get people to ride the railroad from Salt Lake to Ogden? And he built Lagoon and, uh, for the representative from Lagoon, his name's Simon Bram Berger, he was our fourth governor. That's what I said. I said it right. And he was the first Jewish governor in the state in the entire country. So, and he, he was elected in a, in a pretty cool guy. But for history, since we're talking about elections, I thought that was interesting. So now we all know where Lagoon came from. An elected governor. Okay. So I am talking about the fourth substitute. Um, I appreciate the, the chair working with me on this, this bill and I will talk to the fourth substitute. We've, we've got a, we've got a pretty good bill. Um, I do wanna 0.1 thing out in the fourth substitute, and this is something that's been consistent, and this is for you, Representative Cutler and probably for Ron Mortenson as well. I, I think some of the, the good, the good pieces of, um, Senator Johnson's bill, I supported that. But some of the concerns is, um, could be that folks could use the information that voter data, data file to harass, um, voters. And I think that's a legitimate concern. So, so you'll actually see just in the short title that we establish a crime of electronic communication abuse of elected or elected office in this bill. Um, the purpose of that, it's already illegal to dox somebody and use that list and harass somebody, but we actually pulled the language from the existing code and we brought it over into the election code to try to address that concern. Um, having watched the last couple election cycles, I not only do I think it's possible that, that your concerns could play out in reality, I think it's very, very likely. So we actually pull a, we, we pull a criminal penalty that already exists in the code. It was already against the law, but we we move it into the election code to make it clear. So, so that's in the bill. So lemme just run through, um, what, what's important in this bill? Um, first, first and foremost, we, we deal with, we deal with a couple issues. We create a conflict of interest avoidance plan anytime a lieutenant governor runs, runs an election for, for somebody who's on the ballot that, that he or she could be running with. Um, I think our elections are very, very effective. I think our elections are very run very well in the state of Utah. Um, when Governor Herbert ran, um, Spencer Cox at the time had to run that election, he created a conflict of interest plan. And, uh, if you follow up into to this last election cycle, Spencer Cox was running for governor. Uh, the lieutenant governor created a conflict of interest avoidance plan. We put that into this bill to make sure it's clear. What do we do when we have, when we have, have the lieutenant governor running an election for, for some, for, for a, a person who's they're running with. And we make sure that that's, that's clear that that is something that's happened in the past. So it's not, it's not a, not a big deal. We follow that process. The other thing that we deal with is we, we, we deal with, um, ipu computation of time. We do have some elections that fall on the weekend. We push that back to the next business day. I think that's important. Um, lemme tell you the worst part of this bill for sure. Um, we allow lawmakers to use their campaign accounts to pay for some security services. Um, I've talked about this in the Senate. Um, Jake Andre, uh, during legislative session had two cars, uh, vandalized extensively at his home That same night. I had three windows broken out in my law office. Nate b Bwin had his wife's car tires slashed. Mike Kennedy had his house, um, vandalized her horrifically. Kara Berkland from your body at one point had highway patrol basically camping out, living at her house because of, because of actions we were taking in the legislature. Um, interestingly enough, right now, NCSL actually is creating a grant, a a, I don't wanna say grant program, a program to help lawmakers help cover some of that security. We're also allowing lawmakers to use their campaign accounts to do that. Arguably, we could have already done that, but we also wanted to clarify, um, we also have some language for county, county clerks. We don't want county clerks County and their opponent's signatures. We wanna make sure that that conflict of interest is, is taken care of. But with that, I think we've got a, we've got a really good bill that we've worked on. Um, you'll see this bill has changed. Representative Malloy had some really good language and we, we pulled his language out early on. Um, Senator Johnson had some really good language. We pulled his his language out. But with that, I'm open for questions.

So go ahead, uh, Ricky, your mic is on. Thank You Mr. Chair and members of the committee for, uh, uh, being here and, and, uh, debating these bills and, and considering the bills. Uh, sub four just came out last night, so we don't,

Us Ricky Hatch. I'm the Weber County Clerk, auditor and chair of the Clerk's Legislative Committee. Alright, uh, speaking on behalf of the clerks, uh, and on behalf of the Utah Association of Counties, um, uh, sub four just came out last night. Uh, we've worked with the senator and really appreciate his, uh, willingness to communicate and hear our concerns. We do have a couple of small changes that, uh, that we've discussed with him that will, uh, uh, appear like they will be implemented into a new substitute. But, uh, uh, we don't have a position on, on this bill, um, not, uh, taking a position of sup, uh, support or oppose. Um, we are, yes, we are neutral. I guess that is a position, isn't it? Um, mm-hmm. As far as, uh, the addition of clerks names the clerks are hypersensitive to anything that, uh, might appear like we're self-promoting, uh, on official documents. So this codifies the, the attitude of the clerks already. Um, uh, as far as a fiscal note, this bill does have a fairly sizable ongoing fiscal note for, for counties. The bulk of it relates to, uh, county clerks, um, needing to verify the last four and the signature. Um, we understand this is an unfunded unfunded mandate. Um, there are several bills that have that this year. Uh, this will make it more secure. Um, the, the beauty of the, the current system in Utah is that we have multiple layers of authentication that is given to a voter. They have to have physical possession of the ballot. They have to provide something that they know, uh, which is the last four of their, uh, social or driver's license. And they have to, uh, provide something that they know and physically can do, which is a signature. Uh, the combination of those makes for a pretty robust verification process. Um, and, uh, that's one of the reasons why, although this is an unfunded mandate of almost, you know, $800,000 ongoing to counties, it does improve the security posture and the, uh, verification process for counties. And, and we appreciate that. So that's a long way of saying the clerks are neutral. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Perfect. Can you hear

Good morning. Members of the committee. My name's Amaya Mueller with Sutherland Institute. We're supportive of SB 1 94 and wanna thank the sponsor for bringing this bill forward. We believe that this bill will strengthen public confidence in Utah's elections by promoting transparency and eliminating the potential of bias among election officials. We also believe that this will help ensure, you know, the public perception of elections, that they're reflective of the impartiality of election officials, that their trustworthy and civic minded individuals seeking to really protect the institution of voting from harmful outside influences. So the measures in this bill will help ensure Utah's elections remain trustworthy, insulated from outside influence and bolstering fair and secure elections in the state. So for these reasons, we encourage you to support Senate Bill 1 94. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize f that I'm a little late on this, but I do have a question for the good senator if he would indulge

Bet. The, Um, section, um, I think it starts online line 1739 and it's the electronic communications abuse of elections or elected office. Is this a new, um, criminal, uh, section being added here? Do we not already have something like this in code?

Yeah, this a clarification. Great question. So it is in code already, and what I asked Tom Vaughn to do is take it from existing code and put it in the election code as well. Uh, a lot of the concerns that Representative Cutler had, we, we heard those concerns in the Senate as we start to release more voter voter data. And, and, and the same concern that Ron Mortenson talked about. I wanted to make sure it, it, it is an existing code, but we brought it, we brought it into the election code as well to make sure it's clear that you can't use this information to show up and harass people. And unfortunately I think people will do that with that information. I I'm almost certain that they will.

And I guess my, my follow up to that Mr.

Would be, um, so, uh, but I understand that this, this carries a, a heavier penalty than in this section of code. Is that right? At least that's what the, the code itself says is that carries a more serious penalty, uh, and should be charged under this section. Is it, does that seem correct? Based on your,

Um, Of this, I, I'd probably need to phone a friend. What I asked, um, Tom Bond to do is just bring those penalties over from the existing code. 20 A does have some, some unique penalties. Um, a violation of 20 a, if it's a significant violation of 20 A. Um, there is a scenario where you couldn't actually hold public office and that's already in section 20 A today. Okay. Yeah. This is a class A misdemeanor and then for subsequent offenses, a uh, third degree felony and uh, or second degree for subsequent, um, uh, violation. I was just curious if that was the same penalty in the previous section or if this has been aggravated in this section of code. Yeah. And and my understanding is that's the same language that came from the regular code, but I can get you clarification on that after I I'll, and that's a good question. Hopefully Tom Bond's listening.

Okay, thank you. Okay, Very good. That's what he says and very good

Thank you. I, I, that prompted another question. Could you, could you explain how someone will be guilty of this electronic communications abuse? If, if someone takes the list? I mean, what we're seeing now, someone's taking the list of those who signed Prop four and then going and contacting them and asking them to change their, uh, signature. Does, does that qualify as, uh, abuse or what, what, what, how do you, how would you say that?

Yeah, good, good question. And you're going to see the elements in the other part of the code. I wouldn't see that as the abuse. I think it's taking that, taking that information show, showing up on somebody's porch and then then aggressively kinda that aggressive harassment. It's simply asking to, to remove a signature or a name. I, I don't, I don't think that would ever qualify. I think it's that aggressive behavior where you're, where you're doxing and that aggressive harassing what,

What about publishing, uh, taking that and publishing it on social media and saying, asking other people call these people and ask them to change their signature or their vote?

Yeah, I I, I'd have to get you clarification.

I don't know. Thank you. That's a good question though. Uh, I, I wanted to ask about line 6 48, uh, which is the, uh, around the timing, if this solves the problem we have, uh, this is, uh, uh, it, if the deadline described in this title ends on a weekend or a holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day. Does this solve the problem we have today where clerks are, are and are having to pay overtime to have people come in on, on Saturday and Sunday to, to be in an elections office?

Yes. So this would save some money. Yeah. The intent was to solve, solve that issue. Oh, that problem.

Great. And, and the last, I I don't understand the, the, the large fiscal amount about additional things being printed. And I mean, $800,000 is a lot of money. That's more than hiring a lot of people to stand by election boxes.

Lemme, can I address it? Yeah, Please. So that part of the fiscal note is gonna be updated as it moves to your floor. Originally I had this same language as Senator Johnson, the bill you saw before. If you look at his fiscal note from before that the bill, you just, um, favorably recommended I had that same language. That's the process. That fiscal note ties directly to the process in Senator Johnson's bill. It just needs to come out of the fiscal note. So I had that same process dealing with that exact same issue. And when that fiscal note got updated, that part of the fiscal note did not get taken out. So I'm working with Yvonne to make sure we remove that part of the fiscal note. Um, Ricky is right that there's still gonna be a, a fiscal note because we're gonna verify the signature and we're gonna verify those four, four digits. But if you look at that portion of the fiscal note, it talks about, it talks about that list, that five day removal that, that part of the fiscal note should no longer be included and it'll be updated as it moves to the house floor. Thank you.

Yes, correct. A motion adopt fourth substitute SB 1 94.

I'll waive. Alright, we'll place the motion.

You. I'll continue. Yes. Uh, uh, motion to pass out favorably. Fourth substitute SB 1 94.

Yeah, just briefly. I do have, uh, a little bit of concern still on the, um, the, the language being brought in here with the additional penalties. I know it's existing code and I'm, uh, but I do have some questions about just the, the, the clear language when it comes to the intent to retaliate, uh, threaten and interfere or influence a person in relation to an election process. And I wonder if that, uh, if we're seeing something like that today and if we're inadvertently adding some additional penalties in a place that might be used as, as a, as a cudgel. But I think, but I think overall, I really, really appreciate this bill and I know that, uh, we've gotta move this process along and maybe Tom can even clarify in your saying.

Oh boy. We'll, we'll just, uh, Question, but otherwise I favorably recommend the bill. Alright,

Yes. Uh, I was eliciting upstairs, so I followed it. Uh, Thomas Vaughn from the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel give my, uh, disclaimer. I always give, we're a nonpartisan office. I'm not here to speak in favor of or against any bill, but to answer questions as the drafter. Um, when I moved the, when I copied the doc scene information over, I added one element, um, to the crime. And that was, it had to relate to this election information. Um, it was difficult to do the penalties exactly the same because the structure with sentencing enhancements in, uh, the existing doxing statute is a rather unique one. And, uh, so instead of trying to do exactly the same thing, I tried to do something similar. Uh, so I think you'll see the penalties are similar. I also had to, uh, anytime I do this, I have to keep in mind what the penalties are in the existing election code, uh, and how those work together. So, um, I can provide, uh, Senator Mikel with more detailed analysis of how they compare, but I was trying to keep them as, as similar as I could, taking into account all those things I just mentioned.

Can I ask a question? Yeah, you

So there's a, a, a specific line in here under 1771 where it says, if an actor can, for the same conduct be charged under this section, and I'll skip down a little bit. Um, the actor shall be charged under this section, um, unless a charge, uh, carries a more serious penalty. So are, are you saying that, that the intent is, is if, if it's related to elections to charge it here in this section unless they could be charged for a greater penalty somewhere else that's unrelated to elections?

Yeah, basically what it's saying is, unless, what it's really pointing out is, unless it can be charged under the existing doxing statute at a greater penalty, because there's, like I said, there's a weird sentencing enhancement structure. And at first I was trying to make them work together and it would've been a, a nightmare to try to make 'em work together. And so instead I just said, okay, whichever's a higher penalty wins because the courts have said that if we're gonna go with a higher penalty, legislature has to make it clear. That's the intent. And so

that's why I added that language. Got it. Thank you. Alright.

Okay. Thank you. And, and, and I will tell you there are two technical changes that we're gonna work on with Rookie hack. If you wanna look at that, I'm happy to look at that as well. Um, I, I don't love, I don't love the, the higher felony sometime. So we, we, we can look at that. Um, I'm gonna end with a random fact for Lagoon. I appreciate the, appreciate the discussion that we've had. Um, if you'd like to see the Bram Berger monument, uh, while he, while he started in Eureka Built Lagoon Monaco Hotel, we did give him a monument. Okay. The monument is on Emma Park Road and Highway 1 91 down by price. So I have no idea and almost nobody's seen it, but without I'd urge support and thank this committee for a wonderful morning.

I'll waive. Alright.

Okay. So Mr. Chair, um, I, I'm gonna talk a little bit about the substitute and I'm gonna talk about the main bill. Um, but I, I do wanna start with, with one item on, on the, the main bill itself. There is a house bill that, that Mr. Chair, you're the sponsor of House Bill 2 0 9. It's made it through the house. It's Representative Malloy's and it deals with verification. Um, I, I've talked to the election office about his language. I've talked to stakeholders and Representative Maloy does a really good job in that bill, and we had a lot of similar language. So, um, what I'm gonna ask this committee, we'll, we'll go through the entire policy, but, but that, that language that you're gonna see in House Bill 2 0 9, that you're the, the floor sponsor to, we're gonna decouple that language from this bill. Um, and, and I bring that up right from the start. This bill has been called an omnibus bill. Um, I've never had a bill that's been called Omnibus, um, to make a lot of changes. Obviously we impact a lot of code sections even when those policy changes are not significant. And I think we've all, we've all seen that. But there are some important things that this bill does, and I wanna walk through some of the, some of the things that this bill does and make sure that we're clear. Um, when I get done with a presentation, what I'll want to do is pass the substitute. Um, when we decouple the language from 2 0 9, I, I talked to the drafting attorney. He's tied up with a lot of projects today. Today. I think that's, I think that's fair to say Devin was in the room and we're gonna let him decouple that language as if this bill moves forward. But that pri that, that language, that voter registration language, I think he does a good job with it in his bill. The language today in house Bill 2 0 9 and in Senate Bill 1 94 is very, very similar. So we're gonna, we're gonna pull it out and let Representative Malloy move forward with his language. And I think he's done a good job. And, and I did verify with the election office, they, they're, they're comfortable. They and I talked to our lieutenant governor and she, she was very grateful for the opportunity she's had to work directly with Representative Malloy. Okay. So let's run through, let's run through some of the main policies in this bill. Now are you speaking to the substitute, I'll, I'll speak, I'll speak to the, the bill itself, the substitute. Um, what the substitute does is add some additional safeguards, and you'll see that in the end of the short title. And we're worried about certain conflicts of interest. So we also want to deal with county clerks and some of the conflicts of interest that happen because there are situations where, where clerks are up for reelection and having a county clerk be able to verify, or, uh, signatures for an opponent. We, we wanna make sure there's a process in place. Um, we're worried about transparency in the state. We're worried about election integrity. And, uh, we, we've talked about conflicts. That conflict goes all the way down to those administered the election. So we wanna address that as well. So that's, that's what the substitute does. But outside of that, um, let me run through what the bill does itself. Um, the first, the first issue we address is, we're gonna call it a conflict of interest avoidance plan. And, and if there are really technical questions, the good news is I get to phone a friend and Tom Vaughn just walked in, so this is good. Um, we deal with conflicts of interest with an avoidance plan. Um, Spencer. Spencer Cox was a lieutenant governor, and he got to run an, run an election for his running mate at the time. And it was, it was Governor Herbert, and they put a plan in place. I think they did it right. I think they did it with, I think they did it in a very appropriate way. Um, fast forward, uh, Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, her running mates, Spencer Cox ran for governor. They put in place an avoidance plan, a conflict of interest plan. I think they did it the right way, but the framework for that is not in the code and best practices. Uh, when we, when we learn best practices, we find ways to alleviate and eliminate that conflict. I think we should, I think we should all pay attention and follow along. So that, that's the first thing this bill does. It's gonna require a conflict of interest avoidance, avoidance plan. Um, thankfully we have a pretty good model of doing that already. So this isn't something that's new. It's something that's been done in the past. The second thing this bill does, and, and I have nothing but respect for my new Senate colleague from Senate District 11, but it does deal with vacancies, um, in elected office. When, when, when a, when a party member switches, when, when an elected of official switches, switches, parties. And in this situation, what, what the bill simply does is it says the party that originally elected the individual, um, gets to make the replacement regardless if that, that elected official switches party later on. Um, the big part of the bill in the middle, middle section of the bill that goes back to House Bill 2 0 9, that the good chair is going to work on with Representative Maloy. Um, the next, the next part of the bill we saw, we saw very similar language dealing with voter records. And I know there, there's groups here on both sides of the voter record issue. But to do a good job, to be transparent, I think it's important that we re release these voter records, uh, for parties to do their work, to be able to contact our members. I think there is a situation where we do need to release, release those, those voter voter rolls and voter records. Um, I did, when I walked in, I saw that Ron Mortenson was here. As this bill moves forward, I, I do, I am committed to making sure that if somebody abuses that there, there are already penalties in the code. But as this bill moves forward, I do wanna move over some of those penalties into the election code itself. I, I am worried about doxing. I am worried about harassment. All of that is illegal today. It's in the code today. But I, but I think we need to make that clear in, in the voter file if, if folks are using those voter records to harass or hurt or hurt somebody in any, in any way. Um, the other thing the bill does is it drops signature thresholds in counties. Um, if you run for a countywide office right now, the standard is 3%. Uh, there are over 600,000 people in Salt Lake, registered voters in Salt Lake County. If somebody were to run for an auditor position, a position where fundraising would be nearly impossible, that candidate, if that candidate chose the dual path and chose to collect signatures, would be required to collect over 18,000 signatures. I think that's egregious. I think that's way too high. Um, as a sitting state senator, we're required to collect 2000 signatures. So what we do is we look at countywide offices, we drop that signature threshold amount from 3% to one point a half percent, but we cap it at 2000 signatures. So in Salt Lake County, instead of over roughly, you know, 18 and a half thousand signatures, it would be 2000 signatures. And I think that, I think that's important. Um, the bill also changes the way we do, the way we do auditing, and we allow audits as needed so they could be more frequent. And, and the last thing the bill deals with is security. And we make, we make a campaign finance change where we allow, um, lawmakers to use their campaign accounts to pay for home security. Um, a few years ago, we, we had a, my, my own, my own law office was attacked. I had three windows broken out that exact same night. Um, Senator andReg had two vehicles that were, were, were damaged. I think they broke out every single window. Senator Kennedy had his home targeted. I I know rep, I know Senator Lewin's wife's cars, tires were slashed. Um, I hate this provision in my bill. This is the provision that I dislike the most. I wish, I wish it wasn't necessary. I wish we didn't have to worry about security. Um, but, but I think we do. And this, this is gonna allow us to do that. Um, that that's what the bill does. It is, it is a work in progress. And there is, there is a commitment. Some of that verification language that Representative Malloy has really taken the lead on. It is gonna, is gonna be decoupled as this bill moves forward. But that concludes my presentation. And, and at some point, I just request that we move the first substitute.

Thank you. Um, in thinking about using campaign funds for security system, is there, uh, is there a provision in the bill that says that, uh, immediately as you are left office, you'd have to then pay for it on yourself? Or, or, or disable assistant? Or is there some period after that we need to look at to say within a certain amount of time? Well, things we've done still, yeah. Matter to people. I don't know.

Um, I, I don't think it's addressed, but that's something where I, I think we should look at it. I think that, I think that's a fair question. I think we, we ought to look at that. And, and I will note for the public, um, the National Conference of State Legislatures, NCSL, they are concerned about this issue that is a bipartisan group. They are working with a grant program to offset some of the cost as well. And, and again, I think this is the, this is the provision that I dislike in my bill the very most. I wish, I wish we weren't there, but as Senator Sandall, I think that's, I think that's a good, a good policy question. And if this bill moves forward, I think, I think we ought to, we ought to answer that question. At what point does that, does that cut off

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a, maybe a technical question and then just a couple of other questions too on, I'm trying to figure out why. Well, may, not necessarily why, but what's the impetus behind this? Uh, on lines 4 23 through 4 39 talks about this documentation of proof of citizenship. And then through, then there's two or three other places during the bill where it says that the lieutenant governor, if they find, if they can't prove that they're, you know, have that citizenship, then they're only allowed to vote in a federal Election. So I

to Tom is here, and I'm gonna have him correct me if I'm wrong, um, it, it's called a bifurcated ballot. And what we would be doing is making sure that we don't get out of compliance with federal, federal law. Federal law is actually more lax on this issue than state law. So our law is going to be, is going to, to, is going to elevate elevate security. It already, it already does. And, and, and just so everybody knows, there, there, there's been an audit and I applaud the Lieutenant governor for the audit. I mean, so far we've found that one un undocumented, uh, individual registered. And, but that, that's, that's why, and if Tom, if I'm wrong, come up here and correct me, but the Fed federal law and state law, um, we are gonna have a law that's more strict.

So lemme just ask you, is that something you really need in there?

Um, one of the things I started with Senator Vickers is I, this is a policy that Representative Maloy has, has fleshed out and worked on. And, and that language is in house Bill 2 0 9, and it's gonna be decoupled from this bill. I, I support the bill, the policy of 2 0 9. Um, I think they've done a good job. I've, I've, I've talked to the Lieutenant governor about the language, and she's comfortable. She feels like, um, representative Malloy has done a good job. Um, what, what I, what I was conveyed back to me is they learned through this, this audit of citizenship that they learned a lot. They learned that they do a lot of really good things, but they, they learned that, you know, they learned the kind of the edges where they could improve. And a lot of those improvements show up in that, in that language that is being worked on through that house bill.

Okay. Thanks. If I could follow up another question, Mr. Chair. Sure. Um, I get, you know, in the bill you're talking about, uh, making, uh, voting information public. Yeah. And specifically what information is public?

I, I'm gonna, I am gonna phone a friend on this one. Tom, I, I come, come give the ex explanation so I don't say it wrong. Okay. There's a definition. Okay. That's a good question. You

Ask Thomas Bond with the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel as a drafter of the bill. I'm here to answer questions. As you know, we're non-partisan office. I don't take a position for or against any bill. Uh, let me find that provision. So when we're talking about, uh, this is, uh, this was addressed in a different, somewhat different way last year at a bill, uh, that was run by, uh, uh, Trevor Lee. Um, but this is done in a little bit different. Um, but basically if you look on page, or I can give you a line number, might help three line number 3 0 6 4 in the substitute. Oh, lemme go to the substitute. I'm sorry. 3 6 3 0 6 4. It's a long bill. Yeah. By the way, if this is not an ominous bill, I've never seen one. So, well, I, I, I blame, I blame the drafting attorney. Are you there, Senator? This Is like a tax bill, you Know. Oh, don't say that. Um, are you there? There? Okay. You see, there's a definition of standard voter data. No, 30 seconds of scrolling and I'll be there. Yeah. So, uh, there's a definition on Lime 3 0 6 4 called standard voter data. So that is the data that will be released for all voters unless they have filed a document that's, you know, with the, the proof required of reasons. Their records need to be kept private for safety reasons, like domestic Violence. Is that like a risk voter? Yeah. Yeah. That's what they ask for risk voter. But if you're not an at risk voter, this is the list of the information that's provided publicly for the people who are on the voter list.

Thanks. So this, I guess this is where I've had kind of an internal battle. Oh, you're good. An internal battle on this. So for years up here, we have many, many organizations have been focused on protecting people's privacy. Uh, your driver's license, your address, you know, your, your social security number and everything else. And now all of a sudden it's like we've flipped a switch and said, oh, we were just kidding. Yeah. When it comes to elections, and often, oftentimes I see the same faces that have been hammered on me for privacy now on a public, and, and I've heard conversations. Well, yeah, but up to 40% of the people that have chosen to have their, their voting information private. Well, that's true. And they did it for a reason. And, uh, you know, now we're just saying, well, we're going to take that option away. So, like I said, I'm having an internal struggle with that portion of it, just because I've been so focused on protecting privacy. Now I'm being told, no, you can't protect privacy anymore. Right. And by the way, if we want to harass you, we can, you know, so anyway, that, that's just a commentary, I guess. Yeah. Soap box, that's my soap box on it. So

Can can, can I respond Mr. Chair? Sure. I, I, Senator Vickers knows I've had the same, same concern. I've had the exact same concern. And, and that's why if this bill moves forward, I do wanna look at, make sure those penalties that do exist in the code, we move them over. I, I know that, that at risk voter is, is, I mean, it's a concern. There will be people from the public that'll talk about it from both, both sides. I think the consensus is the parties can't do their job without knowing who their voter voters are. But I, but I, but I, I did hear when, when Ron Mortenson, who's here, talked about it during the last committee hearing, and and I, and the concerns he has are the same concerns I have, and I think we need to be aware, aware of that. Um, and it is against the law. And, and this is where Senator Sandall got to put something on the record. It's, it is against the law to use the voter file to harass a voter. And we need to remember that. But I'm going to, as this moves forward, I'm gonna drag those penalties and put 'em in 20 A. So they're also in the election code.

If I could follow up just one more, uh, yes. Thought so at the es the at risk voter, you know, we, we actually, and this one in another bill we discussed the other day. Yeah. Um, we're asking them to go through a lot of hoops to prove that they're at risk. Really, essentially what you're gonna do is, I would guess that a high, high percent of those, those individuals are just gonna choose not to vote because they've already gone through a lot of trauma to get, become an at-risk voter. Right. And then to have to prove that again, just so they could vote, I'm guessing that a big, high percentage of those people are just not gonna vote. So you're gonna take some people, some voters out of the, the voting process.

And, and I'll go back and look at the policy. I hope that doesn't happen. And, and if it looks like that's where the policy's going to go, I mean, would, would need to correct this. I I will, I will say this. Um, I had a chance to just review this, this policy with, with, I mean, Brian McKenzie, whose last session we worked on house bill 300, was a really, really good voice, really helpful, just understanding election policy. And I, and I know they've worked closely on this, on this language and, and got it to a place that that was, you know, a good place. So I do appreciate the fact that the, the stakeholders that administer our elections felt comfortable with, with the language. But if we get to a situation where, where voter turnout drops for that reason, I, I, I, we, I certainly don't want that.

Okay. I do have a question. Going back to the signatures. Yeah. I don't have a problem dropping it down there, but you've made it, if this is gonna be standard across the state. Mm-hmm. Okay. DI County got 250 voters there. Yeah. So that means that they only have to have like four signatures. To me, it seems like the other, you know, 20 of them will, will all get signatures to be on the ballot. Yeah. Have you considered that?

I, look, let me, I'll, I'll just, I'll just say this. If, if that becomes a sticking point as this bill moves forward, um, the current law is 3% of registered voters. And in a county like Daggett County, I, I, I'm not concerned about the 3%. I'm, I'm far more concerned about the cap. I'm concerned about the 19,000 voters in Salt Lake County, almost 19,000 to 7,000 signatures in, in Utah County. Um, when we, when we talked about it, we, we looked at other states, we looked across the country, 3% is, is certainly higher than average. And, but if, if this, if that's a sticking point where we want to go back to the leave it alone at 3%, that that's a, that's a pretty simple fix. That that's one that, that, that Tom can do. And less than, less than a page. So,

No, I was just wondering about the mentality behind,

But, but in like, Daggett County, you're, it, it's, it's whatever, it's, you know, the 2000 wouldn't apply. It would be the th the one point a half percent. One point a half percent, yeah. Okay. And, and today it's 3%.

Um, can you clarify which lines are being removed, uh, that are, uh, coincide with Senator Malloy's bill or Representative Malloy's? Bill,

I, if you look at the, just the short title of this bill, Senate Bill 1 94 on the substitute, um, it, it, there's gonna be a lot of, lot of lines. And this is where I would phone a friend with, with Tom. But when you, when you look at like, line 16, that, that's where we start that language from Senate, from House Bill 2 0 9. And if you pull up House Bill 2 0 9, that's, that's the language that's gonna be removed. It's, it's a lot of the bill that would be removed. Um, specific lines, I would, I would phone a friend, but it'd take him a minute to figure it out.

So is it removing everything that sounds like it's allowing racial profiling?

Um, it, it, it's definitely, it's removing the voter verification stuff. If there's something in the voter verification language that concerns you, is removing the voter verification portion of the bill. Okay. Thank

Yep. As a member of the committee, I would move that we delete, embody and title, um, Senate Bill 1 94 and replace it with first substitute Senate bill 1 94.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Phillip Bolo, spelled B-O-I-L-E-A-U. That's a hard one. Uh, and I'm here representing the four party of Utah today. I'm the C Communications Director. Um, I'd like to, uh, request to submit some data regarding the midterm replacement process. I believe many of you have received copies. I don't know if that's been officially, um, Um, yeah, I'll allow me to continue my comment. Yeah, go Ahead and continue. Yes. But, uh, Yes. So I, I come to you in good faith today, um, and I with a belief that you will do what you feel is right in regards to this bill. Um, I would like to proudly announce myself as one of the architects of the Forward Party's, uh, Senate District 11 midterm replacement process. Um, this is a process that clearly inspired, um, certain components within this bill, um, that Senator Mikel referenced. Um, I would also like to proudly call myself a friend to Senator Daniel Thatcher, who served this committee and the Senate with a great deal of dignity in years past, I can say with certainty that Senator Thatcher did not want any political party to select his replacement, not the Republican Party and not the forward party. He wanted the people of the district to choose his replacement, and that is what the forward party decided to deliver on the materials I'm submitting today. Document that this principle, that fairness in elections should be measured by how effectively the electorate can make their voice heard. More Republicans voted in our process. 696 registered Republicans voted in our version of a midterm reelection than any recently. GOP led midterm replacement via closed delegate vote by a measure of more than two and a half times, I believe. Senator, um, correct me if I'm wrong, let me look at my notes here. Senator Brammer was the one that was last elected by this way. Yeah, about 230 people submitted his this data that I'm providing offers to try to elaborate a little bit on the decision that you have today. And I thank you with that

Good afternoon. My name is Malia Bliss Coleford. I'm a citizen of Salt Lake County, and I'm a member of the Forward Party. In Senate District 11, we saw clear signs that Utahans are hungry for more collaborative consensus based options. At the ballot box, we proved that there is a path forward that doesn't rely on the same old partisan friction. But today we see that the Empire ish seems to be striking back. SB 1 94 is a direct move to protect the partisan status quo and to shut down the very innovation that we have been working on. First, let's look at the vacancy clause. This bill mandates that if a seat becomes vacant, the replacement must belong to the party the official was in when they were last elected. Think about what that message sends. It treats the legislative seat like a corporate franchise owned by a political party, rather than a position of public trust held for the constituents. This is a sore loser clause. Plain and simple. It tells every Utah that your representative's integrity and evolution don't matter. Only their jersey color does. It is an attempt to legally mandate the party control that they are worried about losing. At the ballot box, we should be electing people for their character and their ideas, not just a party brand. Finally, we must address the bill's misuse of the word transparency. I am a firm advocate for government transparency. The people's right to see what the state is doing. But SB 1 94 flips, its on its head by forcing voter transparency, making private voter records public is not accountability. It is exposure. Forcing a citizen's personal information and political leanings into the public's square creates a tool for profiling and intimidation. The government should be a glass house. The voter's home should be their castle. I urge you to oppose SB 1 94. Let's keep Utah a place where we innovate towards the future rather than legislating to protect the past, keep the power where it belongs with the people. Thank you. Thank you.

I have several, uh, concerns about the impact that the bill will have on Utah's safety. Uh, first in line 1957, I think I'm talking to the first sub now. I quickly looked at it. Uh, it adds a year of birth, the items that will be made public. Uh, this means that anyone can buy the entire voter list, uh, and then sort it by year of birth and have a senior scam. List lines 2054 to 55 limit the fee that can be charged to obtain an electronic copy to a maximum of $200. This means that it virtually anyone can buy the entire voter data list, uh, registration list, and post it to the internet, or use it to track down someone that they want to find. Uh, lines 30 51 to 30 55, uh, allow only members of the armed forces to make their records private when they're deployed. Well, if you wait until then the horse is already out of the barn because their information is already public, it's too late. And lines six 15 to six 18 give you the same ability to make your records private, but only after you've been threatened. Again, the horse is already out of the barn. Your records are out there. So what's the solution? Well, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 only requires that the full voter registration list be available for public inspection and photocopying. So therefore, restrict access to the voter list, to political parties, and possibly to their candidates while making it available for inspection by any everyone else in a controlled environment. Quit selling the whole cursed list and therefore that would bring Utah into line with 32 states that do not sell their entire voter list and would stop anyone from buying the list and posting it to the internet. Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Chair and committee. I'm grateful today to have the opportunity to share my comments. I'm Amanda Rus. I'm a citizen from Lehi, Utah, representing myself. Um, I'm opposed to this bill specifically in regards to filling vacancies. I do not think this bill is written with the best interests of Utah voters like me. I don't want to be told who I can vote for. A bill that prioritized voter choice would not look like this. I think this bill will restrict my choices as a voter with no benefit to me. So please consider first unbundling this, these issues as it is an omnibus bill. And second, consider the negative impacts on restricting voter choice. Uh, please do not move forward with this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Vickers. My name is TJ Ellerbeck. I'm I'm co-director of Stewardship Utah. We work on, uh, we're a nonprofit organization that works on a variety of, uh, conservation related issues as well as, um, election and voting access issues across the state. Um, I appreciate the sponsor of the bill. Uh, I was able to have a great conversation with him today about many elements of the bill. It's very big, but two pieces that we'd like to stress our support for are, one, uh, changing the signature thresholds for county races. We believe that's very important to give candidates, uh, access to the ballot. As Senator Mikel said, it, it's an absurd number, um, that candidates need in some counties, but also for, um, de privatizing voter records. Um, as was stated earlier, up to 40% of the voter file is totally private, and that's, uh, partly an artifact of just a checkbox that was added to the voter registration form. And so it has often more to do with when a voter registered than whether they actually want their information private or not. I believe that's one of the, uh, primary, uh, roadblocks to having a transparent, fair and secure election process. And, uh, I hope the committee includes that provision of the bill when they move it forward. Thank you.

Okay. This, my name is Marilyn Ney. I live in Utah County and I am in agreement that this bill consolidates a lot of different issues and probably needs to be split apart. Um, I, I commend, uh, Senator Kel for using House Bill 2 0 9. It's already passed the house. That's the one on the citizenship issues, but even in the sub one, that wording is still in there. So there has to be another sub to actually take that wording out. Um, John Johnson was before this committee, um, Senator Johnson last week and presented Senate Bill 1 53, which deals with the voter privacy issues, almost identical to what Senator Raquel has in this bill. And just to answer some of the questions, I did some research on numbers of voters added and removed from the voter rolls. And in 2020, a quarter of a million voters were added to our roles. The population committee says that 60,000 people moved into the state. And that's the kind of issue that makes myself and a number of us very nervous about not being able to inspect. I thought the previous gentleman that said, we should, maybe instead of selling the voter, uh, registration records, just make them available for public inspection and only available to the parties and the candidates. I think that's probably a good compromise on that one. But how did we add a quarter of a million people and half of them we can't see. So we don't know how all that happened. There's some unusual things with voter records being removed and I've tried some grammar requests and being told that I can't have access to them or they don't make those kind of reports, or there's zero records available. So it's difficult to get the information. The conflict of interest section line 7 42 to 7 4 7 89, um, Senator McKell mentioned that it has to do with also the counties, but I don't see anything in that section that deals with counties. It looks like it's dealing just with the Lieutenant Governor. So, and having a plan doesn't mean we're not gonna have a conflict of interest. So I would suggest that we break this bill apart into the various topics so they can be discussed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. Alamos are representing the League of Women Voters and to, uh, tie back to, uh, the last speaker, um, we're also concerned about the approach to this. Uh, an ominous bill is incredibly difficult. So we've taken unresolved elements of HB 360 1, HB 2 0 9, HB 25, SB 1 53, and a single patch package that makes sweeping changes when combined. And it's really difficult. It's not only difficult for us, but for you as legislators, stakeholders to really firm fully, uh, understand the cumulative impact. So I would highly support, uh, again, decoupling all of this. Uh, so now that the sponsor is decoupling the bill, uh, enabling HP 2 0 9 to move forward, we'll have to, uh, leave most of our comments associated with a documentary proof of citizenship to, uh, further, uh, deliberation on that bill. But I, I do wanna get clarity whether the, it appears that the date of implementation may be pushed out to January 1st, 2028. If, um, the sponsor of HB 2 1 9 will be amenable to doing that. Just to give, uh, the county clerks and the Lieutenant Governor's office the time that they're going need to go through, audit the records and, uh, where possible proof citizenship, um, and then notify voters so they can have an opportunity. Uh, regardless, it's going to have a huge impact, this bifurcated voting system that creates two classes of voters. So we hope that we'll also give time to actually reconsider that, simply because, you know, there is no evidentiary reason to, as we've seen with the information provided in the Lieutenant Governor's, uh, audit, uh, where we should be concerned about non-citizens voting. The findings were very demonstrable that the SY safeguards are working. Um, lastly, we are very concerned about, again, the reclassification of voter records, the 40% that have been, uh, mentioned. We would, um, actually support some of the, uh, suggestions that were made by other speakers in terms in terms of having people, uh, ly inspect in a room in which they cannot take, uh, any information aside from just double check on that. So other than that, we just urge the committee to reject, uh, or substantially amend SB 1 94 to ensure that election security doesn't come at the expense of voter access, participation, or trust. Thank you. Thank

Thank you, chair. Uh, my name is Christy Henshaw and I am with the Utah County Republican Party. Um, uh, there are, uh, I'll try not to repeat. There are a, a lot of issues that were brought up. Just as you can see, um, SB 1 53, N 2 0 9, uh, deal with most of this stuff. And so I want to address, uh, a part of the bill that I am in favor of, and that is the replacement. Um, I, I think, uh, particularly as a chair of a, uh, the, the Utah County Republican Party, um, when the voters have spoken and they send a party, uh, a person that represents a party, they represent a certain set of values. And when they vacate office early, those voters expect that those values will be represented till the end of that term. And so to be able to switch party affiliation with different representation to finish out that term is violating what those voters and a set of standards that those voters are, we're hoping to, um, elect that person to office. And with that, um, I just wanted to say that I am, I am here to, to speak in favor of representative government and also freedom of association. The part of the bill that I very, very much disagree with is the part, uh, that reduces the signatures in the county. Um, if we are to, um, go back to the original, and I know it sounds trite, but SB 54 argument, if you are going to send somebody with a set of values, um, and you're going to let them to go gather signatures in the public at large, um, then, then they need to not have a party affiliation by their name if they're going to do that. And I just wanted to quote, uh, the platform, which is something that our Republicans do come, uh, uh, having be that set of standards. And it says the Utah Caucus System, oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for bearing with me. The Utah Caucus System is in alignment with representative government and guards against the dangers inherent and direct democracies. Political parties have the right to select their nominees through their own processes. We oppose any efforts to subvert these rights and those efforts are in line 41, 31 through 41 34. Other than that, we support this bail.

Hello, my name is Russ Rampton. I am a candidate for Utah County Clerk and I am seeking the nomination of the forward party. I'm speaking for myself. I do not represent my employer. I am seeking the nomination of the forward party through both the convention and the signature route, which means that I need to have my employer, who is also my political rival in charge of verifying the 10,000 signatures that I'm required to submit under current Utah law. Uh, I'm arguing against this bill for two reasons. The first is everything that's been said about the omnibus version of it. There's things I love, there's things I hate. There are things that other people in this room, they hate what I love, and they love what I hate, makes it very hard to have a good decision and good debate and public comment on all of these elements of the bill. Most of them exist in different bills that have already been introduced in the legislature. Let them have their individual hearings, let them all pass or fail on their own. The second reason is, again, as a member of the forward party, I will echo the thoughts of others. Don't double down on letting the parties control the representation. The forward party showed a better way. We held a special selection process open to all voters. If the forward party can do this, what would stop a competent county clerk from doing an even better job of holding a special midterm replacement? Every time that we have someone that leaves the legislature, as you are well aware, more than a third of the current state senate started their senate service as someone who was appointed as a midterm replacement. Many of them have gone on to be elected in their own right, but with the powerful, uh, supportive incumbency, don't just, uh, favorably recommend this bill.

Aaron Davidson, you, Utah County Clerk. Um, you know, there's many aspects of this bill that I really like. I support a lot of it. Uh, but I am talk, gonna talk in opposition to it because I feel like making it an ombudsman bill and taking all of these aspects of election integrity and putting 'em into one bill minimizes the importance of all the different concepts that are being presented in this bill. They need to be addressed individually. 'cause as you can see from all the comments that have been made, uh, that they have, a lot of people have very, very different opinions of all the different concepts. So I do believe that this does need to be broken up and presented as it, there are current bills in, in place right now. Um, so this one just needs to be, um, opposed and let the the parts be argued separately. Uh, so that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you

Ahead. Thank you Mr. Chair. Can I say one of the things in addressing Vicar's, uh, question about, uh, the at risk. I know you just left, but, um, if they, if they, all the people that were private before 2020 were moved into withheld and anybody that submitted an application after 2020 to be withheld, those people will be moved into at risk automatically. So it's only the people that were grandfathered in, um, to the withheld category that were private will be moved to public. So those people that were at risk will continue to receive that classification.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Ricky Hatch representing the, uh, county Clerk Association. Um, I think instead of calling this bill an omnibus bill, we should call it the Magic School bus bill. Okay, good. And I don't mean that in a bad way, of course, that I, we, we appreciate working with the senator. Um, he's been good to reach out with us and work with us. The clerk's, uh, organization does not have an official position on this bill, uh, and will continue to work with Senator. Uh, um, Mikel on, on the bill. We, the provisions with Senator Johnson's bill, were in a bill last year that were, was extremely similar to this. And the clerks did take a position of support on that bill. Um, and, uh, there will likely be some costs to this bill that, uh, will come out in the fiscal note regarding Senator Harper's concerns. We do have, uh, some suggestions, uh, as clerks that we'll discuss with the sponsor to, to see how we can fix that. And we just, uh, express support for Senator IL's attempts and our willingness to continue to work with him. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Let's see. Can you hear me? We can hear you, but we can't see you. Okay. Um, I'm getting my camera right here. There you go. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for taking my comment. Fred Hayes, um, Bear River Precinct of Box Elder County. Um, speaking for myself, I agree with many of the others that this is way too big of a bill. It needs to be unbundled. There's way too many, um, conflicting opinions that can come when you bundle it up like this. Um, I, I research elections and have for the past six years, and, um, recently, I, I investigated 175 people in the last major election. Um, and they were in a certain class and I realized that, uh, about 45% of these people were invisible to me. And voting against unknown or un unseen persons is not, uh, something that, that, uh, is. It's, it's incompatible with a safe and protected, uh, suffrage. And, um, may I suggest that, um, I, like I say, I hope this, we, we split this up, but, um, there is so much that can be done with an electronic registration system where registrations can be dynamically activated and deactivated by computers. Um, and, and additionally to, you know, if we're going to get let people, a lot of these people went into the, um, protected statuses because the administration improperly Im, uh, uh, implemented the, the Utah State Code and the motor voter, and they got put in there as protected when they shouldn't have, without paying, without submitting, uh, the required documentation. And so we really need to, um, for those who want withheld status, they should, they should provide additional documentation and probably have a, a second person witness that they're who they're just to prevent, uh, fraudulent, um, uh, photo id. Okay. Thank you for your time.

Thank you Mr. Chair Committee. I appreciate you having me. Michelle Quist, Salt Lake County. I am chair of the Forward Party of Utah. First, the logic of the two vacancy provisions in this bill directly contradict each other as the first seeks to honor voter choice, while the second fills the vacancy of an elected nonpartisan representative with a partisan legislator, which does not honor voter choice. Second, sorry, I have a visitor. Please stop. Second, if a party doesn't have the principles and value to keep its legislators interested in staying in the party, then it should not get to appoint replacements. If those legislators decide to leave the party parties do not own these seats, voters do. Third, the legislature should be looking at overhauling the entire midterm vacancy appointment system, not resorting to protectionist policies that hoard power and abuse democracy. Ideally, every vacancy should be filled by special election so that the voters of the district have the opportunity to choose who represents them, not party bosses. Forward honored this principle, and I'm proud of what we accomplished. The legislature shouldn't need to keep changing the rules in order to maintain its power. Thank you very much.

Thank you. If they're not questions, I'll, I'll make a, a motion.

You. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I'm gonna

Uh, I just had a question about the, uh, protected class. What are you defining as, uh, the proof that's required for domestic violence?

Um, I'm going to phone a friend and, and ask Tom,

Sorry Again. Thomas Vong with the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. And I'm gonna remind myself what I wrote by turning to the page. Um, okay. So, um, an at-risk voter, the process is discussed in 28 2, 6 0 6 in the bill. Okay. So there's def several different, uh, statuses, um, where you could qualify for at risk. But I think you asked specifically about domestic. Is that what you asked about? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So you submit a form, uh, that, and you indicate on that form that either you or someone, uh, who resides with you is a victim of domestic violence or dating violence or likely is to be. And then, uh, find the next part. So on that particular one, that's all you have to do. You've gotta, you basically, you have to, you have to sign something that says that that's true. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And, and I know when we were looking at it, we wanted to make sure it was

Yeah, just for clarification, in the substitute, it begins on line 34 16. Mm-hmm. And it runs down through, it looks like 34 35. There's also an affidavit that you have to sign, it looks like. Yeah. On a second. 34 16 in the sub.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I missed that part. Um, it's been a while since I wrote this, and there's been a lot of different versions, so I apologize. Uh, yes. So the, so the voter applies for the, for the designation. Uh, they indicate that they're, they are someone they live with is or is likely to be. Um, and then, yeah, there's a sworn affidavit I'm applying for designation, uh, uh, as an at risk voter because either myself or someone who resides with me is a victim of domestic or dating violence or is likely to be. Uh, and so I was forgetting that there was a specific language with an affidavit, but what I was referring to is just that they do have to sign and allege they are, but they do have to affirm it. They have to swear it that it's true. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay.

I just had one other concern about the voting records. Um, I have a lot of concerns that with how polarized, uh, politics has become, we're basically giving everyone an access to, this is where everyone who voted this way lives, this is where everyone who voted the other way lives, and that makes everyone's information available in that sense. Um, and yeah, that was my, one of my biggest concerns with that.

Yeah, my motion. We, we favorably recommend for substitute Senate Bill 1 94

Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, this is one of those bills when it isn't a big bill, whether you wanna call an omnibus or whatever you wanna call it, it's just got a lot of items. There's things you like and things you don't. And I think in this case, uh, you know, I think you understand some of the things I have concerns about. Yeah. And I, I, I guess I just wanna keep moving forward and, you know, working on it. So I guess I'll raise my hand halfway when I vote. So anyway, appreciate your work on it. It though.

I appreciate that.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I similarly, the more lines there are, the more likely you are to find things that you're okay with and things that you're not okay with, and things you're cheering for and things that you're screaming about. And I fully, um, came in here with the intention to be a firm. No, but I, I also feel like when we speak to one another and bring up concerns and those concerns are addressed, that that is worth, that is worth something. And, and my concerns about voter suppression concerns and about voter id and, and i, I, it's, I guess what I'm saying is I appreciate feeling heard, and I do think there is some work to be done, but I, I wanna give a nod to that. Um,

You to the motion. Uh, I'm, I'm gonna be a yes with the understanding. So the public knows that in this process, there are a lot of other bill files that deal in this section of code, uh, before we're done in this session. Um, there will be pieces that get added and subtracted, and we're gonna deal with a lot of those things on a one by one basis, uh, individually. Um, this is, I think, the senator's intent to try to put 'em in a, put 'em in a package and, uh, bring 'em all to us. And so I'm gonna be a yes. Uh, a little bit like with Senator Vickers. Um, just, I, I understand how this process works. And before we're done, we will debate each piece of this Yeah. And, and get a, a majority vote on each piece of it one way or another.

Yeah, I, I'm just gonna sum and and I really appreciate Tom Vaughn. I know our attorneys are, are nonpartisan, but it, it's nice having him here. When, when you look at all of the, the, the bill and the concepts in here, he's drafting all of these bills and not, not just the bill in front of you. I think our staff do a good job. Um, I appreciate those comments. We're, we're gonna keep working on it. Um, before, before today, we, I, I met with our drafting attorney about House Bill 2 0 9 and, and, and pulling that, that language out, um, I, I do wanna go back and review the voter privacy issue. I, I, to me, that that is a real, it's a real issue. And, and I heard that issue from the public today. It's an issue that I share that concern. I share it with Senator Buss and, and Senator Vickers. Obviously it's a, it's a contentious time. Um, I'll, I'll just sum by the worst part of my bill is the fact that we would be able to use u use some of our campaign dollars for security. And I think it highlights exactly what you said. This is a, this is a difficult time to be elected, but with that, I appreciate the support and would urge a, a favorable recommendation.

Okay. There is going to be an amendment to the substituted bill as well, but let me, let me just make sure everybody realizes what the third substitute does as well. Sorry, we, we probably missed that in the discussion. There is a house bill, um, Representative Maloy house bill 2 0 9. We have stripped out that language that's, that's dealing with identification and, and he, he worked with the Lieutenant Governor's office. That language came out of the bill. Um, Senator Johnson has been working on language dealing with the voter voter data database. And that voter file, that language has come out. So those two provisions have come out of the bill. So what remains is still significant. So lemme just run through what the bill does without, without those provisions. So the first part deals with conflicts of interest. It requires Lieutenant Governor to create a conflict of interest avoidance plan. Um, we, this has been the model. Um, when Governor Herbert ran for governor, um, then Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox, he created, he created a plan and got somebody in place to make sure there wasn't a conflict. When now current Governor Cox ran for governor, current Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson did the same thing. We're putting, we're putting the process in the code. I think that's important to do. The second thing we deal with is computation of time. It enacts temporary provisions, correcting certain election deadlines that end on week, week weekends or holidays, and it moves those to the next business day. Um, ironically there was a decision even, even over the weekend dealing with that issue. But this is just a common sense approach. Um, the next thing we, we, we deal with is verification of a voter voter identity. This is going to require the election office to, to identify the signature as well as the four, four digits of your id. The next part of the bill is important. It, it prohibits a clerk from taking any action there. Capacity as a clerk that shows partiality or discrimination in, in election, I think that that's an important part of the bill. Um, the next part of the bill deals with vacancy. We, we, we deal with vacancies in, in this, in this bill. Um, the next part of the bill. I think that's important. When we talked, when we've, we've had discussions about that voter database. One of the concerns I think was brought up was, what do we do with doxing when people are using that voter database to harass folks? So we create, we create a crime of electronic communication abuse, just to make sure that if you are abusing somebody in that context, that that happens. Um, the next part of the bill, there's gonna be an amendment where it'll, where it'll come out. Signature thresholds. That was a part of the bill that I had in there, that, that part is going to come out in amendment, but I just wanna flag that, um, the next part of the bill is my least favorite. Um, and I wish, and I wish it wasn't in, in, in the bill, but we allow ourselves to use our campaign accounts to pay for security. And the reason that's my least favorite part of the bill is it, it's a real issue in this state. Um, I, I recognize that we had, uh, representative former Senator Kennedy here who had his house vandalized. Senator Andre had two cars severely vandalized. I had three law windows in my law office broken out. Um, I, I know Senator Bain's wife had her car tires slashed. Um, I remember Kira Berkland, representative Berkland had highway patrol living at her house for an extended period of time. Um, I, I wish that that wasn't in the bill. And, and Mr. President pro tem, I, in your role as, as, as a leadership member at NCSL, I'm grateful that there is a grant program and NCSL is working on it, but that's why that language is there. Um, I wish that wasn't part of the bill, but I think it's an important, uh, an important piece and important to recognize. The last thing the bill does is we, we did change the language on election audits. We went back to the original election audit language where there's a requirement to do that af after election. Um, with that, I'm open up, I'll, I'll open for questions.

Yeah, I I would move amendment one in my name.

the, the substitute and the previous substitutes adjust the qualification process for county officials. This, uh, removes that and keeps the current process in place.

Yeah, I, I, I'm fine with the motion to amend. Um, I, as I've, as I've talked to, to folks on both here in the house, I, I mean obviously we have two chambers. There's just, there's just not significant support today to, to lower those signature thresholds. So I, I'm willing to concede on, concede on that issue. I think there's a lot in this bill that's really, really helpful. And I, I know that provision was causing some, some consternation for some

Thank you, Mr. President ProAm. Um, as I look at the signature gathering process that's happening right now, um, I have all the faith in the world of our county clerks, but this system is flawed and I think our ability to have a higher number of signatures is actually causing some of this fraudulent behavior. Big money coming from outside the state and just creating undesirable outcomes. And so to decrease the number of signatures in future, not my race in the future would be a betterment to the process. So I will not support this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President ProAm. I, I understand why the Amendment's going to pull that out and keep that. I do recognize though, there is a, uh, some isolated situations or certain counties where the signature threshold is quite high because of the way the definition is. So I wish we could fix that. Uh, but I also understand why, um, you know, politically maybe right now is, is better to, to not, and so I'll support the amendment just with the caveat that we just rec that doesn't solve a problem. There is a problem out there, and we need to fix that in the future so we can have further discussion about it. Thanks.

Yeah. Uh, this bill has a lot of good in it. I think that, uh, and I, and I wanna make sure that the good parts move forward. I think if this is retained, uh, you know, what's going to happen is it's either going to be amended out in the, in the house or the bill will likely fail. And so this amendment is meant to help the good parts of the bill move forward. Thank you.

President Pro tem. Um, you know, we've been pretty active in, uh, election, reviewing our election process and passing, you know, and reviewing a lot of bills. Posing a lot of bills the last couple of years, you know, for, you know, for election law. Question, I, I do have a question for the sponsor. If he would yield, Will you yield Senator McKell?

So the question I have is, and it's related to, you know, I've continued dialogue with people in my, my constituency in my area. They, you know, a couple of themes have come forward is, uh, please don't make it harder for me to vote. Please make it, don't make it more difficult. And we talked about that last year. Uh, we certainly don't have a problem with trying, you know, protect people and make sure they don't cheat. But we don't want to, we don't want to make it harder to vote. And one of, one of my colleagues, I heard him say this the other day, and I I have to, I really appreciated the comment. It says, couldn't we displease give the voters the same experience they had a year ago? Um, and so my question to you as a sponsor, Mr. President pro tem is, is how much harder does this make it for the public to vote?

And, and I appreciate the question. So in, in this language for the public, there, there's actually, this won't make any change for the public. The verification of the voter's identification. Uh, there's a little confusion of whether or not after, after you vote, whether or not we needed to verify the signature and the four digits. It cleans up that issue, but the voting process itself will remain intact from a year ago.

Uh, um, I have a lot of concerns about the poll workers being able to independently challenge citizenship. Can you, um, help me understand how that isn't going to encourage racial profiling of the polling place?

Thank you and I appreciate the question. So in the third substitute, that language has actually been removed and, and, and it's probably just, just, I just wanna make sure we state that again, that citizenship stuff, that citizenship language you're referencing was in one of the original bills. Um, that bill has been worked on with Representative Malloy. That language is still in Representative Malloy's bill. That language in the original bill is no longer in this bill

Uh, okay. I thought I was seeing it on line 29, 28 still, or am I looking at the wrong version?

Yeah, I just, I just respond that, that, that's one of the previous versions. If you'll look at, if you'll look at the third substitute before us today and, and this third substitute's been, it's been out for quite some time in in lines the, I guess 28 29, that, that's, that's, those are the lines just dealing with allowing us to use campaign accounts for security. But I I, I understand, I understand your concern. That was a concern brought to me. Um, I actually took that, that language out because, because of those concerns and, and the fact that Representative Malloy, I think did a good job working on that language independent of this bill, so that that language is no longer in the third substitute.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'm looking line 2, 2, 4, 8, and it says that we can send an image to electronically remove our signatures. Um, but this, you know, this, this is, um, it's great that we have made that process easier, but when you think about gathering signatures, we haven't really worked enough on electronically allowing people to give their signatures. Uh, I have many people that are, um, older disabled, um, don't really have access to cars, work full time working two jobs. And when we think about electronically taking office signature, we should be working on electronically putting on a signature. Is there any, um, thing in here that would make it easier for people like that to put signatures on as well as take them off?

Senator Mikel? Yeah, I, I appreciate that question. Um, this, this bill doesn't address that I either way. So this, this bill, this third substitute doesn't deal with, with putting signatures on or off.

Okay. So may I follow up? Go,

Thanks. So on line 2 22 48, is this current practice or is this a enhanced practice for taking your signatures off?

Senator Mikel, Let me, let me look. That is a What lines again, Senator?

It's a 2, 2, 4 8. And it says, um, requesting the removal of a signature from a signature packet for the race electronically send a clear image of the document to the other county clerk described in section subsection one. So does this make it easier to take your signature off?

So yeah, Senator McKell A great question. I'm looking at this language now and, and I, and I think that's, I think that's exactly right. It does make it easier. And I know they wanted some clarity on how to do that. This isn't a, this isn't a shift in policy. I think this is just a technical cleanup.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. And, and just in summation, I I, I really appreciate the questions. I think this is a work in progress and if there's still things that we need to look at in this bill, I'm happy, happy to do that. But, uh, I, I do wanna just, just make sure I'm super clear, um, to Senator Bus's question that, that, that language from House Bill 2 0 9 is not, not in the bill, the language that Senator Johnson was working on, on the voter database that's not in the bill. We really wanted to focus on some of these key elements and, and, and I appreciated the question from the good Senator in Cedar City. Um, my intention going into this bill is, is, is not to make it harder, is to create some stability and what we're doing right now. I think this bill does that, but it does address some of some of these technical changes. Um, with that, I would, uh, move that this bill, uh, be read for a third time.

Thank you. I'm a little frustrated with this because this bill had a, a great piece coming in that would've lowered the signature threshold for county races, which I think was really important. Uh, it came through committee with that bill, and we actually had a similar discussion about a bill where, uh, something skipped committee and then was added on the floor. And this is kind of the inverse of that, just the other day. And, and we killed that bill and committee. Uh, and yet we are asking to pass this one in a, in a different situation. So, uh, I think we, we've taken the good part out here. Uh, we have, uh, done a bunch of things that don't actually do much to change our elections in a, in a good way. And, uh, so I'm gonna know

Um, I just wanted to explain my vote. Um, I feel like these sections that have not been discussed, that were about how I was, uh, pointed, um, really make it come across that Senate seats belong to the party, not the people representing them. Um, and my seat belong to a Democrat, a Republican, and now a Ford Party member. And for that reason, I'll be voting no Thank you.

to deleting title embody Senate Bill 1 23 and replace with second substitute Senate bill 1 23

with language that's not in the bill. So, just, just to be clear, the, the language in Representative Malloy's bill, which I, which I support House Bill 2 0 9, that is, that is not in this bill. Um, the language dealing with the voter database, which I also support is not, is not in this bill. So this bill is narrowed to complex of interest, computation of time, um, Vernal verifying identity when, when folks, when folks vote. And, and the verification of voter identity that that's done by the poll poll workers that's looking at the signature, that's looking at the four digits. We've got some conflict language for county clerks. We, we deal with vacancies. Um, we've added some language of electronic communication abuse. Um, if we, when we pass Senator Johnson's bill, we had some penalties if that information's abused. Um, we also removed the signature signature thresholds where I had, where I had changed those thresholds. That's not in the bill. Um, campaign funds can be used for security services. And then we went back to the original language on election audit that happens after the, after after an election. And that's, that's back to the requirement. We changed it to as necessary, but we put it in as a requirement, but without it, it, it's a great bill. Again, those pieces that were more controversial where there were concerns expressed, those pieces are no longer in the bill without I open for questions. Thank you. Seeing no questions today on the bill, I'm gonna go to you for a motion. Thank you. I move that this bill pass. Thank you.

Senator Kwan. Thank you Mr. President. I wanted to explain a piece of this for, for, um, that explains my vote. Um, there's a part in this bill that talks about the House of Representatives being able to, um, make a nomination when there is an office holder who's not a member of a registered political party. And it doesn't say it doesn't include the Senate, uh, but I'm sorry. Uh, Mr. President, now that I read it again, it looks like that got taken care of. So I'm gonna be an eye on this.

Representative Burton. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt fifth substitute.

I would, uh, it simply adds technical changes to ensure that this bill doesn't conflict with other election bills. It adds, uh, implementation dates and it clarifies penalties for electronic communication abuse in elections and, uh, using election data.

Thank you, Ms. Speaker. Uh, this bill, uh, I would call it a, a good cleanup bill for elections this year. It, uh, a couple of provisions that to be aware of, it prohibits county clerks for election officers from having their names on the ballot materials unless they're a candidate. And it requires Lieutenant Governor to create a written conflict avoidance plan, uh, particularly in, in terms of, uh, running a campaign that, that she's, uh, running as a member of a, of a team and how she's gonna handle that conflict. It also, um, with regard to poll workers verifying a voter's identity in relation to the ballot by mail. The poll worker. In addition, looking at the four digits is also required to, uh, examine and cure the signature if need be. And, uh, finally, uh, it permits campaign funds in certain cases to be used for election security purposes. And that's essentially the bill. I'm open to questions.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question or two? Representative Burton, will you yield to a series of questions?

I, I guess if I have to, uh, no, I'm, yes, I will. Yes.

Thanks. I I was going through the changes, um, in the, uh, substitute four, and it looked like they were pretty minimal, but it is a pretty long section. Can you, can you go over that one more time as far as what, what was the specific change between sub four? Yeah, I can do that. I mean, I'm, I I just talked about sub five, but going back to sub four, sub five, sorry. Um, there's a line in there on line, um, 6, 6 4. This is a clerk may not alter election procedures or process to favor discriminate, uh, again against, for, for another candidate. It adds language also at 7 23, uh, from, from section 20 A on midterm vacancies in the office of the United States Senator. Um, this, this was already in code, but it just adds it to this bill. Uh, it adds midterm vacancies in the legislature. Same thing, uh, 20 from 20 A. Um, it was just felt that that needed to be in the bill. Uh, let's see, dropping down to see if there are any more that, that's a significant amount of additions from 20 a disregarding vacancies. And, and that's, that's the majority of what's in the fourth sub.

Okay. Thank, thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I make a motion to adopt six substitute in my name

Uh, motion to circle, uh, sorry. Dismiss the motion. To substitute a motion to circle the bill.

Yes. I'd like to wait till we get the chance to look at the substitution and then we can debate that.

Uh, I would violently oppose the motion to circle. Um, I, I don't, uh, I haven't talked to this representative. And, and furthermore, uh, I do not think this is the place to, to, uh, make this motion, uh, for a, for a substitute. So I, I oppose the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I would support the motion to circle violently, not really violently, but I would, I would, uh, encourage us to circle, um, I'd like to take a little bit deeper look on that. Uh, we passed a bill just, uh, if we're in the Senate about 20 minutes ago, one of my bills that has much of the same language in it. And, uh, also, um, a bill that's passed through this body, uh, house Bill 3 91 that deals with the languages of, and the parties and, um, vacancies in the parties. And so I'd just like to take a quick look at the substitute six and see if it addresses any of that as well. So I would encourage us to circle.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, yeah, I'm not too keen on the violence that is being portrayed for a circling motion, but, um, I guess I'll leave that to the body.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, uh, again, this bill, uh, I think there's nothing in here that's terribly, uh, surprising. It helps clean up some of the issues with election code, and I appreciate your support on it. Thank you.

I would, uh, it simply adds technical changes to ensure that this bill doesn't conflict with other election bills. It adds, uh, implementation dates and it clarifies penalties for electronic communication abuse in elections and, uh, using election data.

Thank you, Ms. Speaker. Uh, this bill, uh, I would call it a, a good cleanup bill for elections this year. It, uh, a couple of provisions that to be aware of, it prohibits county clerks for election officers from having their names on the ballot materials unless they're a candidate. And it requires Lieutenant Governor to create a written conflict avoidance plan, uh, particularly in, in terms of, uh, running a campaign that, that she's, uh, running as a member of a, of a team and how she's gonna handle that conflict. It also, um, with regard to poll workers verifying a voter's identity in relation to the ballot by mail. The poll worker. In addition, looking at the four digits is also required to, uh, examine and cure the signature if need be. And, uh, finally, uh, it permits campaign funds in certain cases to be used for election security purposes. And that's essentially the bill. I'm open to questions.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question or two? Representative Burton, will you yield to a series of questions?

I, I guess if I have to, uh, no, I'm, yes, I will. Yes.

Thanks. I I was going through the changes, um, in the, uh, substitute four, and it looked like they were pretty minimal, but it is a pretty long section. Can you, can you go over that one more time as far as what, what was the specific change between sub four? Yeah, I can do that. I mean, I'm, I I just talked about sub five, but going back to sub four, sub five, sorry. Um, there's a line in there on line, um, 6, 6 4. This is a clerk may not alter election procedures or process to favor discriminate, uh, again against, for, for another candidate. It adds language also at 7 23, uh, from, from section 20 A on midterm vacancies in the office of the United States Senator. Um, this, this was already in code, but it just adds it to this bill. Uh, it adds midterm vacancies in the legislature. Same thing, uh, 20 from 20 A. Um, it was just felt that that needed to be in the bill. Uh, let's see, dropping down to see if there are any more that, that's a significant amount of additions from 20 a disregarding vacancies. And, and that's, that's the majority of what's in the fourth sub. Okay. Thank, thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I make a motion to adopt six substitute in my name

Uh, motion to circle, uh, sorry. Dismiss the motion. To substitute a motion to circle the bill.

Yes. I'd like to wait till we get the chance to look at the substitution and then we can debate that.

Uh, I would violently oppose the motion to circle. Um, I, I don't, uh, I haven't talked to this representative. And, and furthermore, uh, I do not think this is the place to, to, uh, make this motion, uh, for a, for a substitute. So I, I oppose the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I would support the motion to circle violently, not really violently, but I would, I would, uh, encourage us to circle, um, I'd like to take a little bit deeper look on that. Uh, we passed a bill just, uh, if we're in the Senate about 20 minutes ago, one of my bills that has much of the same language in it. And, uh, also, um, a bill that's passed through this body, uh, house Bill 3 91 that deals with the languages of, and the parties and, um, vacancies in the parties. And so I'd just like to take a quick look at the substitute six and see if it addresses any of that as well. So I would encourage us to circle.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, yeah, I'm not too keen on the violence that is being portrayed for a circling motion, but, um, I guess I'll leave that to the body.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, uh, again, this bill, uh, I think there's nothing in here that's terribly, uh, surprising. It helps clean up some of the issues with election code, and I appreciate your support on it. Thank you.

of the implementation date that was more, more than anything. We kicked it back. Um, there was an issue of whether or not a clerk would need to, to sign a, a ballot or not. And that was, that was cleaned up with consensus. Um, nothing that was done in the house was not agreed to and it was a consensus change with an implementation date that was delayed. With that I'd urge the body to concur.