Legislators / Brady Brammer
Brady Brammer
Republican · Senate District 21
Hear from them directly
Contact Sen. Brady Brammer
- Email: bbrammer@le.utah.gov
- Phone: 801-709-1790
- Office: 3300 N Triumph Blvd, STE 100, Lehi, UT, 84043
Constituents get priority, so say you live in their district. Writing about a specific bill? Open it and use Take action for a ready-to-send message.
Watch or join a meeting
Every committee hearing and floor session is open to the public and streamed live on le.utah.gov. Each committee's agenda has the link to watch or join online, and how to sign up for public comment.
Brady Brammer serves on:
- Criminal Justice Appropriations Subcommittee
- General Government Appropriations Subcommittee
- Government Operations Interim Committee
- Judiciary Interim Committee
- General Oversight Committee
- Senate Judiciary Confirmation Committee
- Senate Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Confirmation Committee
- Senate Revenue and Taxation Confirmation Committee
- Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee
- Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee
- Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
What they've said
550 remarks on 154 billsH.B. 491 State Highway Designation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents H.B. 491, which creates a review process for selecting one highway designation a year instead of many separate naming bills.
▶ Watch at 2:06Read what they said
Thank you. So every year we have lots and lots of requests to name highways after people. And what this does is this creates a highway designation, bipartisan review committee, uh, for special naming committees, uh, highway name bill. And then, so for example, this year there's been 12 highway name bills. This creates a review process for review and selecting, uh, one name and road a year. It does not prohibit a legislator from still running a name bill, but it does create the process for that. Um, and, but it, what we're trying to do is have better legislative efforts, udot and high, uh, for, um, well, in any event, the person who wrote this does not know …
H.B. 129 Education Board Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that H.B. 129 makes the State Board of Education's rulemaking standard in Title 53E match the more limited standard in Title 60, Chapter 3G, to remove an inconsistency in the code.
▶ Watch at 4:48Read what they said
Thank you. So there's some ambiguity in our code between two sections in Title 60 3G. The State School Board has, uh, has a limitation on rulemaking authority. And then in Title 53 E it has, uh, a looser and less definitive standard on that. And what this does is clarify so that the two standards match. And, uh, and that's it. It just creates that consistency between the, the two sections of code with regards to the rulemaking ability of the Utah State Board of Education. And I'm open to any questions.
H.B. 129 Education Board Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Answers that the aligned standard is the more specific one in Title 60, Chapter 3G, and that the change avoids ambiguity with a more specific provision elsewhere in the code.
▶ Watch at 5:46Read what they said
which standard did you pick? Yeah, so this goes to the more specific of the two standards. So it would be the title, uh, 60 3G standard, which under the current framework, if you were looking at it judicially, you would the, the more specific would typically govern, but it also creates ambiguity if you're looking into the education code. But there's a more specific one somewhere else that you're, you're not thinking about. And so we wanted to align those.
H.B. 111 Wildlife Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Introduces H.B. 539 and describes some of its modifications in the domestic violence area.
▶ Watch at 29:45Read what they said
Thank you very much. This one deals with some of the modifications in the domestic violence space. So here's a few of the things that it does.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that H.B. 539 creates a rebuttable presumption for pretrial detention of repeat domestic violence offenders, adds offenses to the domestic violence list, clarifies sibling, jail release, and venue provisions, expands who may seek a workplace protective order, and defines district as judicial district.
▶ Watch at 29:50Read what they said
So here's a few of the things that it does. First, it, it creates a rebuttable presumption, uh, pretrial detention for repeat domestic violence offenders. Additionally, it adds a pri, it adds privacy offenses and vulnerable adult abuse to a list of domestic, domestic violence offenses. Additionally, it clarifies that an adult sibling committed committing in a domestic violence offense against a minor sibling can be domestic violence. Additionally, it it clarifies several of the issues around, um, around jail release agreements. It the attorney general's office also asked for some clarification on venue for crimes that span multiple jurisdictions. And so it performs that it also expands who may seek a workplace protective order to include a volunteer for …
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the changes broaden the study to include other universities besides UVU and allow it to examine joint projects to develop a law school, if feasible.
▶ Watch at 30:52Read what they said
Yeah. The changes were based on the feedback that I received on the floor here. It opened it up so that the study includes other universities in addition to UVU and allows for, uh, the study to look at whether it there can be, uh, joint, uh, projects to develop a, a law school. And if that's feasible.
H.B. 454 Public Assistance Fraud Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents H.B. 454, which amends criminal provisions on obtaining and using public assistance by fraud, creates an offense for assisting another person in including fraudulent information, adds it to the predicate offenses for a pattern of unlawful activity, and sets a fine schedule based on the value of assistance.
▶ Watch at 50:27Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you. So what this does is it amends certain criminal provisions related to obtaining and using, uh, public assistance. And it, so if somebody is assisting another person and tries to get them to include fraudulent information in order to obtain public assistance, uh, this prohibits that and creates the offense, uh, and adds it to a list of predicate offenses for a pattern of un of unlawful activity. It has a, a fine schedule, uh, depending on the value of the public assistance. And, uh, with that I move HB 4 54 pass under suspension of the rules.
H.B. 396 Public Project Subcontractor Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents H.B. 396, which requires second-tier subcontractors on public projects to provide employee lists, license numbers, hours, and proof of a zero-exposure insurance policy, and lets Doppel verify licensing.
▶ Watch at 56:05Read what they said
Uh, thank you. So what this deals with is on there are certain, uh, subcontractor, well there're second tier subcontractors on public projects that oftentimes they're not, um, paying into the workers' compensation or unemployment insurance. And so what this does is on public contracts and only public contracts, it requires that they provide to the general contractor a list of their W2 employees, the list, the names and license numbers of second tier contract subcontractors, the, uh, the hours and the written notice of a zero estimated exposure policy. That's their insurance policy. And then, um, and then upon request by Doppel, uh, they can verify the licensing, uh, status of those. Um, it also requires the name, uh, …
H.B. 396 Public Project Subcontractor Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the decision on the social security number request is up to the body and that Doppel's request could be limited to the last four digits.
▶ Watch at 59:52Read what they said
I'll leave, I'll leave it to the will of the body on, on it. This is Doppel requesting information, but if the body doesn't want to have, uh, Doppler request Social security or the last four digits only of the Social security, that's fine.
H.B. 396 Public Project Subcontractor Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Summarizes the bill's intent to increase compliance so that workers on public projects are properly licensed and insured.
▶ Watch at 1:00:54Read what they said
Yeah. Uh, so like I said, uh, well we've, we've gone through the bill. Essentially this is just requesting information so that, uh, employees are employees and workers on public projects are properly licensed and insured. That's the intent to increase that compliance. And with that, I will, uh, uh, unless there's any other discussion, I'm seeing no discussion on the bill, so that I'll take that as a summation. I'm looking for a motion.
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents the bill as prohibiting compelled speech and compelled activities in higher education that violate student conscience, notes it does not restrict professors' lectures on difficult topics, and says concerns from universities and agencies were addressed in the substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:06:11Read what they said
for conscience in medical contexts, in law enforcement context in employment contexts. Uh, what this does is, uh, the bill prohibits, uh, compelled speech in higher education settings, and then it prevents compulsion into activities that violate a student's conscience. What the bill does not prohibit is professors from lecturing on and on difficult, uh, topics. And so we've been working with the various universities and agencies in the executive branch, and their major concerns have been answered in the con in the current substitution. And so what we're trying to do is just get to the idea that the rights of conscience for students can be protected and accommodations can be made whenever possible. And with that, I'm open …
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says he did not hear a question, only a concern, and asks Sen. Riebe to repeat the question.
▶ Watch at 1:07:31Read what they said
The question. I didn't hear a question in that. I heard a concern, But Yeah. Let me, let me go ahead. Would you repeat that question? Senator Riebe?
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the First Amendment protects rights of conscience and that those rights are not set aside just because multiple people claim them.
▶ Watch at 1:07:51Read what they said
Yeah. There, there's a reason why the First Amendment is the First Amendment. We accommodate rights of conscience and belief. And so, uh, you know, we do not steamroll the rights of conscience in America just because multiple people have a claim to a right of conscience.
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says students do not leave their right of conscience at the classroom door when they enroll in higher education.
▶ Watch at 1:08:33Read what they said
Uh, even when people sign up to take classes in higher ed, they do not leave their right to conscience at the door. Back to you, Senator Riebe.
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves to adopt Amendment Four to the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:13:19Read what they said
And I to the bill, I was speaking to the bill with the amendment, but we have not yet adopted Amendment four. And so at this point I would move that we adopt amendment four.
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the amendment clarifies handling of examination dates that conflict with religious belief and provides clarity on what a reasonable accommodation would be.
▶ Watch at 1:13:36Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you. So the primary purpose of the amendment is to, uh, make it so that it clarifies on the dates issues if there's an examination that conflicts with a, with a religious belief, and then if it also provides some clarity around what a reasonable accommodation would be within this context.
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Gives closing summation that student and professor free exercise rights both deserve protection, that students should have reasonable accommodation when conflicts arise, and urges support of the bill as amended.
▶ Watch at 1:14:17Read what they said
Thank you very much. And, uh, you know, I I appreciate the, the commentary on this. One of the things that we do need to remember is there was a comment in one of the questions that, or at least after the questions, that we are invading the sanctity of a college classroom as if that was a place of great sanctity compared with the sanctity of the first amendment of our freedom of belief, of our freedom of conscience, and of our, of the free exercise clause of the Constitution of the United States, as well as Title one article one of Utah's constitution. Um, you know, we, we have not ensconced our higher education classrooms above those of …
H.B. 265 Non-nicotine Inhalation Product Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents the bill as extending the state's vape product registry and enforcement to non-nicotine inhalation products, and as drawing a distinction between CBD products under medical cannabis rules and those sold in vaping products.
▶ Watch at 1:20:17Read what they said
So in 2024, this body passed legislation by the Good Senator Plumb and a representative who shall not be named, that created Utah's electronic cigarette product registry and strengthened enforcement against flavored and un unauthorized vape products. And this legislation has been effective. It created a registry for, um, um, for a lot of our vaping products. And what this is doing is it's shutting one of the holes that was, uh, that then the industry pivoted to. So some of the things that this does, uh, would be primarily there are these flavored products that are marketed as healthy vape products, natural or wellness. There's no evidence that they do anything healthy or wellness, you know, delivering hot particles …
H.J.R. 26 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence to Address Machine-Generated Evidence · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents H.J.R. 26, which amends the rules of civil procedure to apply expert-evidence standards to machine-generated evidence, matching upcoming federal rules, and explains the reliability requirements for admissibility.
▶ Watch at 1:59:15Read what they said
Alright, thank you. I appreciate this. So, uh, this, uh, this amends the rules of civil procedure to match what is going into place soon in the federal rules. So with the, uh, rise of machine generated, uh, work product, we need to figure out how to deal with that in the courts. And so this applies the standard that we use for expert evidence to that and other methods to try to make sure that if it is used, that it is reliable and that it is looked at for what it is, which is machine generated evidence. And so essentially what it does is when determining admissibility, uh, if it's, uh, through an expert, then it needs to, …
H.J.R. 26 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence to Address Machine-Generated Evidence · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks for questions on the resolution, notes it requires a two-thirds vote, and moves the question.
▶ Watch at 2:00:26Read what they said
Say none. Senator Brammer Motion. All right. Uh, this is a joint resolution under Article eight, section four. We do have to have two thirds. I'm not gonna call the Senate, but um, but you know, we may leave the vote open a little bit. So come on in and vote. Uh, and so with that, I would move the question.
H.C.R. 9 Concurrent Resolution Addressing the Great Salt Lake · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks the sponsor whether he believes agriculture is hostile to the Great Salt Lake.
▶ Watch at 2:16:08Read what they said
Uh, to the substitute sponsor. Do you believe that agriculture is hostile to the great Salt Lake?
H.C.R. 9 Concurrent Resolution Addressing the Great Salt Lake · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says many people dispute the two-thirds figure and asks where the sponsor got it.
▶ Watch at 2:16:54Read what they said
Um, I think a lot of people dispute it, and that's why I was asking where exactly you're pulling it from. Uh, Senator.
H.C.R. 9 Concurrent Resolution Addressing the Great Salt Lake · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Opposes the resolution as divisive and as assigning blame to the agricultural industry, and recommends not supporting it.
▶ Watch at 2:17:01Read what they said
Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, and then with regards to, so it looks like, and, and I'll just speak to it. I, I think the concern that I have with the resolution is that it's trying to pick fights as to, uh, and it's trying to assign blame with regards to the Great Salt Lake and sim. It's simply not helpful. It's divisive and it's not, uh, you know, and I don't think that the assignment of blame is warranted in the way that it's being done. Um, you know, and, and I think that it fails to it, it's in many ways it smacks a little bit of hubris with the idea that the agricultural industry that brought us here …
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents the bill on the unauthorized practice of law, describing remedies, enforcement, criminal provisions, and a private right of action, and says it does not remove the right to self-representation.
▶ Watch at 2:26:22Read what they said
of individuals who are not attorneys who are, uh, engaged in the practice of law by, uh, and oftentimes what happens is they're using AI to give themselves, uh, to give themselves advice. And then they, they pass that on to someone who is, who needs that legal, who needs legal advice. And so they, and, and people can do that for themselves. But once they do that for others, they are engaged in the practice of law. And that's created some problems. Uh, we've been seeing this in Utah County related to trust and will trust and wills in particular. Um, these individuals are helping draft wills that are not properly executed and so they're not enforceable. And so …
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains vexatious litigation under the Utah rules and says it can compound the problem of unlicensed practice of law.
▶ Watch at 2:30:07Read what they said
So if you're not familiar with vexatious litigation, um, Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 8 0 3 discusses what vexatious litigation litigation is. And it's when a party is, a party is continually taking action that is, uh, due to cause increased cost delay, unreasonable and unreasonable action. And so it can happen when they keep bringing claims, they can be designated a vexatious litigant or within an action. If they do three things within that action to increase the cost of litigation, cause unnecessary delay, kind of follow that unreasonable process, then they can be designated a vexatious litigant. And the problem with vexatious litigation is it can cost people hundreds of thousands of dollars just to have someone …
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Responds that AI will change legal research and practice but cannot change attorneys' duties of confidentiality and loyalty, and explains the purpose of the bar.
▶ Watch at 2:34:11Read what they said
Well, I, when I just want to, I'm gonna try to, uh, understand your question. I assume you're saying what will AI do to the profession and then what will does this bill create another barrier? And so I think that's where you're going with the question. I just wanna make sure, um, what AI will do for the profession is, I think it will be very similar to what internet searches did, to what, you know, research, online research did. It used to be. And, and I had to learn both systems simultaneously. In law school, I had to go learn how to go down to the library, how to pull the books, how to find everything, how to …
H.B. 591 Nuisance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the third substitute removes a sunset provision in one instance and adds a reporting requirement to the Judiciary Interim Committee on an Attorney General exception to the abrogation of the common law civil right of action for nuisance.
▶ Watch at 2:38:30Read what they said
Yeah. This, uh, removes a Sunset for statutory provision in one instance and then it also creates a reporting requirement to the judiciary Interim committee regarding an exception for the Attorney General to the abrogation of the common law. Civil right of action for a public or private nuisance.
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that a person harmed by unauthorized practice currently has no clear claim against a non-attorney, and that the bill creates one.
▶ Watch at 2:38:50Read what they said
Yeah, so what the, what the prohibition said previously in the code was that only the bar could bring a civil action. And it did not allow, uh, it did not, it it allowed anything to happen, but it was, it did not list out the possibilities. Now, the private right of action, why do we do this? Because the person who is impacted and that is damaged by the, uh, use of, um, the, uh, that is damaged by the unauthorized practice of law is not the bar. So the person damaged cannot sue the other person for the unauthorized practice of law. That was never a cause of action recognized by the courts. So the only people that …
H.B. 591 Nuisance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the bill streamlines and organizes existing public nuisance law while preventing the common law concept from being used to regulate industries or advance policy through litigation.
▶ Watch at 2:39:01Read what they said
Yeah. The main thing this does is it streamlines and organizes existing public nuisance law in the Utah Code. Uh, while assuring the ancient common law concept cannot be manipulated or misused to attempt to regulate industries, uh, and advanced social and policy priorities through litigation. Uh, in Utah, policy decisions belong to the people and their elected representatives, not to whoever files the most creative lawsuit. And with that, I'm open to any questions.
H.B. 591 Nuisance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves for passage of the third substitute to H.B. 591 under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 2:39:51Read what they said
I will call the question. The question is, under suspension of the rule, shall third substitute to house Bill five ninety one pass. Roll call
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says there is no separation-of-powers problem because the legislature can choose how to enforce the law.
▶ Watch at 2:40:45Read what they said
So there are, there is no separation of powers problem because we can choose how we enforce the law. Now, the mere fact that the judiciary controls the practice of law does not prevent us from taking steps to protect the citizens of Utah when they act outside the purview of the judiciary. And the reason why that's important is because the judiciary would have no means or effect to, to have the executive enforce their rules with regards to this. Otherwise we would be in violation because the judiciary would be taking the legislative action for the enforcement of their law.
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks whether helping a family member fill out paperwork would be a violation. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:41:28Read what they said
So Senator Johnson, I'm kind of curious too, if, if I help my son fill out paperwork, would that be a violation?
H.B. 242 Initiative and Referendum Signature Gathering and Removal Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains the third substitute, which takes immediate effect, prohibits prepaid postage on petitions, and lets the clerk accept certain obviously mistaken dates on removal petitions.
▶ Watch at 2:41:54Read what they said
You. I would move, uh, third substitute and I'm happy to speak to that. If you would go ahead. Uh, this, uh, creates an an immediate effective date. It deals with, uh, with problems related to prepaid postage. It does not allow prepaid postage. It creates an exception, uh, for, uh, uh, excuse me. It, and then it also allows for issues related to dates on removal petitions so that if there is an obvious error, but it is known that it is an error. For example, it's the beginning of 2026 and they sign and sign 2025 out of habit, but they never received the packet before then. That the clerk can make some exceptions related to that. Thank …
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Thanks the Senate for the discussion and moves the question on the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:42:22Read what they said
I appreciate the discussion. I I appreciate the questions. Uh, let me geek out a little bit into the world of lawyers and I apologize for everyone that you got to listen and ride along on the, on the Adventures of Lawyers. And so with that, I will move the question.
H.B. 535 Disposition of Public Property Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the proposed change came from a House member's constituent who experienced a difficult pregnancy and lost the baby, and begins explaining the reason for the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:56:42Read what they said
Thank you. So this came to, uh, one of the house members where, uh, someone had had a very difficult, uh, they had a very difficult, um, pregnancy and they lost the baby.
H.B. 480 Medical Record Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents the bill, saying it lets a patient request that medical records indicate a medically indicated abortion rather than an elective abortion in certain circumstances.
▶ Watch at 2:56:54Read what they said
pregnancy and they lost the baby. And ultimately when they looked at their medical records, it said that the, that the baby had been aborted. That was something that they, uh, had a moral objection to. And so what this does is it allows in certain circumstances that a, that a patient can request that the medical records indicate that it is a medically indicated abortion as opposed to an elective abortion. And that's the substance of the bill. Thank you.
H.B. 480 Medical Record Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Responds that patients can sometimes make such a request, and the bill would give guidance on when a doctor could make the change under a statute that does not currently exist.
▶ Watch at 2:57:37Read what they said
So, uh, So typically the medical records, uh, they could maybe make the request, but this would allow them in certain circumstances and it would give guidance as to when the doctor could make that change, uh, within the framework of this statute, which is not currently in existence.
H.B. 480 Medical Record Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the bill was already circled by a body vote, so it does not need to be circled again.
▶ Watch at 2:59:31Read what they said
Yeah, it was circled and this body just voted to encircle it, so I don't think we need to recircle it.
H.B. 366 Judicial Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains the second substitute: it removes an unnecessary judge in the first district and makes technical language changes requested by the courts about the chancery court.
▶ Watch at 1:44Read what they said
Sure. In the second sub substitute, there was a judge added to the first district that was unnecessary, and this takes that judge out. It also has a little bit of language request from the courts with regards to the chancery court. Uh, that was just technical in nature. Those are the two changes.
H.B. 366 Judicial Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Describes the bill's municipal court docket case management provisions and changes to the new constitutional court, including who may file, the scope of cases, and a fallback if the court is enjoined.
▶ Watch at 2:27Read what they said
Yeah, this is the, uh, this bill started. Uh, it, well, it does a few things. The first thing is on municipal, uh, court, uh, dockets. Uh, this allows for a little more, uh, this allows for a little bit more, um, case management as it goes from the municipal courts into the district courts. Uh, but the other thing that this does is, and the substitute, uh, relates to the new constitutional court. So there's a few things that have happened since that bill was passed and signed into law. If you recall, the constitutional court involved three district judges that were randomly chosen through the state. Now, that was a request at made at the request of our …
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the substitute makes minor changes, mainly reducing the fine for a parent not receiving records and some wording changes.
▶ Watch at 8:52Read what they said
Sure. The changes are fairly, fairly, uh, minor. Um, this, the main thing is there was a fine for a parent not providing, and I believe that that was reduced. And then there's just some wordsmithing going on. Uh, other than that, those are, that's the main, the main difference.
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the bill gives parents a right to their child's medical records, lists exceptions such as emancipation and terminated parental rights, and describes a fine if a facility does not turn over records.
▶ Watch at 9:26Read what they said
Thank you. So the, the main thing this bill does is it provides that a parent has a right to access their child's medical records. Um, there are certain circumstances where they would not be able to, those circumstances include when it's an emancipated minor or when it is, uh, when the parental rights have been terminated, or they're not, they're required not to produce them by a court order, or the medical record relates to a sexual assault, uh, or sexual assault counseling in accordance, uh, with our code. And so, um, there is a fine if the, if the facility does not turn over the medical records for a parent's child. And so with that, I'm open to …
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that facilities would need to know if parental rights were terminated or be informed, that the fine does not apply if they were not informed, and that sexual assault counseling records follow a separate code section.
▶ Watch at 10:59Read what they said
No, I, I appreciate that. So, what the facility would be doing, so typically the facility would need to know that the parental rights have been terminated or they would need to be informed. There may be instances that the facility would not know and they would need to turn over the records, or they should by default turn over the records to the parent. However, if they were infer informed, then they would not be required to turn over those records. Now, when it comes to sexual assault counseling, there's a specific section that this then refers to, which is section 77, 38, 2 0 4. And that has its own procedure outside of this bill, but it is …
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the fine would not apply in that case, that the bill creates a presumption of parental access, and that the goal is to encourage facilities to provide records when requested.
▶ Watch at 12:12Read what they said
That wouldn't bring it into the, the fine that's discussed here. Um, what this does is it does create a presumption that a parent has access to their child's record, unless there is typically a court proceeding, which would be the parental rights of been terminated, or an emancipation, which is also a court proceeding is brought to the, to the facility's attention. And if that was not brought to the facility's attention, there's not a fine in, you know, with regards to that. But, um, if, but what we're trying to do is, is kind of flip the presumption that a lot of times the facilities just simply won't turn over documents easily to the parent of a child. …
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Confirms the implementation date is the end of next year, not this year.
▶ Watch at 13:28Read what they said
Yes. So it's, it's not the end of this year. It would be the end of next year,
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Asks for a more specific question about minors and protected information.
▶ Watch at 13:56Read what they said
I, I'm, I'm sorry. I'm not sure that I fully understand the question. Do you have, uh, an i I wanna give you a good answer, but I'm not sure I maybe need a more specific question.
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the referenced confidential communications code section applies, allowing counselors to disclose to a minor's parents in some cases and to report to Child Welfare services when protection is needed.
▶ Watch at 14:33Read what they said
So there's, so the code section that I referenced earlier is 77 38 2 0 4, and that is the disclosure of confidential communications. And this is subject to that. And that involves instances where, uh, the victim is a minor and a counselor believes it's in the best interest of the victim. Um, they, they have the ability to disclose it to the victim's parents if they want, but it also, the, if the victim is a minor and the counselor, um, and the minor's, uh, let's see, the, the victim is, uh, oh, it's, and then there's, if the counselor, uh, suspects any kind of, um, need for removal or protection of the child, then they can, then …
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the bill aims to give parents quick access to records and that the long implementation timeline addresses vendor concerns.
▶ Watch at 16:37Read what they said
Ahead. Yeah, what we're trying to create is the ability for a parent to get, get quick access to their med, to their child's medical records. Now, I think the vendor concern has been largely addressed by the really substantially delayed implementation date. So this does not, while the effective date of the bill is May 6th, the implementation date for the, for the vendors that this would apply to is not even the end of this year. It's the end of next year. That's one of the longest tail implementation dates that I've seen in a bill. And that's really to address this question. And so, you know, at some point, um, yes, uh, it may, uh, you know, …
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says the bill was reviewed for federal compliance, describes a letter and a legal expert's view that parental Fourteenth Amendment rights are a larger concern, and says the bill aims to make parental access the default.
▶ Watch at 18:22Read what they said
Yeah, so there was actually a lot of dialogue about making sure that we were still in compliance. Um, at one point there was, there's, there's no federal regulation as to that point. There's no federal, uh, statute as to that point. What has been pointed to is a letter that was once sent that indicated that might be an interpretation that could be had. And we had our legal expert, who was a law professor in Illinois, look at that pretty intensely. And she felt that the bigger problem was the 14th amendment right of a parent to know what is happening to their child. And we recently saw that in the, where our Supreme Court just overturned the …
S.B. 190 Trailer Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the changes are minor and make sure the registration fee and the fiscal note line up.
▶ Watch at 19:27Read what they said
The changes are just some minor ones to make sure that the, uh, registration fee and the fiscal note lined up appropriately.
H.B. 408 Data Sharing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Asks whether industry has given feedback on meeting last year's data portability requirements, which take effect July 1, 2026.
▶ Watch at 20:42Read what they said
Uh, so, uh, I don't know if this question is best for the underlying bill sponsor or the substitute sponsor, so I'll throw it up for either to go. Um, but I was looking at last year on the data portability. The effective date for most of that is July 1st, 2026. And I'm wondering if we've had any industry feedback with regards to their ability to fulfill the requirements of last year's data port data sharing amendments, which was HB four 18. Um, and, and whether there's any issues there. And I'm not sure if, if either of the, the sponsors of the sub or the original have any information on that.
H.B. 259 Parental Access to Children's Medical Records Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Summarizes that the bill is not centered on transgender issues, that it affirms parents' right to see their child's records, does not remove protections for child abuse reporting, and calls the question.
▶ Watch at 22:19Read what they said
Yeah. And, and while, while I, um, I just, I just want to be clear, this is not a bill that is, that is necessarily centered on anything related to transgender. That's the example from a recent Supreme Court case that I was using to affirm the principle that the 14th Amendment protects the parents' right to know what's happening to their child, what's happened to their child, and see the records related to their child. Now, nor do I believe that this bill does anything to remove the protective ability of a hospital or healthcare providers to protect children by turning over, uh, important evidence and giving tips to those who believe that child abuse has occurred. This is …
S.B. 101 Specialized Product Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says he is presenting a new bill he inherited the previous day, and begins explaining it.
▶ Watch at 25:22Read what they said
This is a new bill that I inherited yesterday at about 3:00 PM uh, it's
S.B. 235 Governor Compensation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the House amended the bill to add the governor's pay alongside the Attorney General, that the original sponsor stepped off, and that he became the new sponsor.
▶ Watch at 25:22Read what they said
This is a new bill that I inherited yesterday at about 3:00 PM uh, it's what the, what the House did was they wanted to, uh, originally when we sent it over to the house, uh, this was just the Attorney General. What the house said is we don't really want the Attorney General to be paid more than the governor. So then they brought the governor in and then the original bill sponsor, um, I'm informed, has bad blood with the governor. And so, uh, and they might be related. And so they dropped off of the bill and I became the new sponsor, um, at that point to avoid any conflicts of interest. Um, and I don't know …
S.B. 235 Governor Compensation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the bill sets the governor's pay equal to the Chief Justice's pay, with other executive offices at 95% or 90% of that amount, and says the pay remains below market to help professionals run for these offices; moves to concur.
▶ Watch at 26:37Read what they said
Okay. So in any event, what this does is it, it puts the Governor's Pay equal to the Supreme Court, the, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and then all of the other pace, uh, pay amounts follow at 95% or 90% depending on the executive office. Uh, I was on the Executive and Judicial Compensation Committee before joining the legislature. Uh, uh, they are, uh, even on this new pay scale, they're underpaid for the skill set that they have and what they could go do in the private market. But this does bring it a little bit closer and it makes it so that you know, professionals that may not be independently wealthy, uh, can run for …
H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says the bill goes further than most states by barring prosecutors from even asking victims about a polygraph, and proposes a voice amendment to delete the words 'ask or' from line 65.
▶ Watch at 48:26Read what they said
This, this has come before, uh, various committees and it's never gotten this far. Uh, there's a reason this is going further than what, uh, you know, there, when, when the sponsor says similar laws, that's accurate. A lot of them are similar laws. But there's something where this goes further. And there's only eight states that go as far as this. And, and what it, what it does is it does two things. One of 'em is just fine. The other has a real problem. The part that's just fine is the part that says you that a prosecutor may not condition any proceeding or action by the prosecutor's office on the taking of a polygraph. I don't think …
H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Responds that police can currently ask for a polygraph but typically cannot require one.
▶ Watch at 52:12Read what they said
Uh, the police can currently ask or they can ask, but they typically cannot require.
H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Summarizes that asking a victim about a polygraph does not re-victimize anyone, and that the amendment would align the bill with 42 states rather than eight.
▶ Watch at 52:28Read what they said
Yeah, just, just briefly. It's one thing I, I do think this, this takes us in the right direction where a prosecutor cannot condition anything on it, but asking someone if they would be willing to take a polygraph test is not re-victimizing anyone. There are situations where it makes sense and they cannot go beyond, uh, they cannot require anything or condition any action by the prosecution on that or condition anything in any way with the remainder of the bill. And so with that, I think this is a very reasonable change that puts us in line with 42 of the 50 states as opposed to only eight of the 50 states on the more extreme version. And …
H.B. 508 State Facilities Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Brammer said the bill ties estimates to cost-saving incentives, keeps the state's ability to require bonds, and supports the bill as saving money.
▶ Watch at 56:27Read what they said
Uh, I really like this bill. I think that it makes a whole lot of sense. Uh, let's zoom out a little bit and think about what we're talking about here. Uh, oftentimes what happens when you try to get a building is it's, it's a really rough process that they give to DFCM and tell them, Hey, give us an estimate on how much this is going to cost. And what this says is before they have to give an estimate, the requesting body actually has to do a little bit more work so that they can narrow in on what the actual pricing is. And then they say, Hey, there's a few elements in this that may not …
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Supports the bill, arguing that nicotine pouches and similar products are addictive and that the tax should be adjusted.
▶ Watch at 2:02:28Read what they said
Yeah, I, uh, I really appreciate this bill. I'm usually not one that wants to raise taxes, but I have some problems with people that pedal in addiction and, um, you know, this, some of the products that are being taxed here, uh, you know, they're oftentimes the business model has been as one form of addiction becomes more regulated or PE or people get wise to the fact that it's bad for them or addictive in a negative way in their life. What happens is the same group behind that finds another product and they say, this will help you get off the last product and you can go over to this one and I promise it's better for …
H.B. 205 Substance Use Intervention Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Presents the bill, describing its stay-out-of-drug areas, step courts, and jail recovery pods to address substance use and protect public spaces.
▶ Watch at 2:10:37Read what they said
Senator Brammer. Thank you. So what this bill is about is keeping people off drugs, supporting, recovering, protecting public spaces from drug activity and disorder. Uh, there is a mercy and accountability and this provides a good balance and a good path for that. One of the things that it does is it creates what are called stay out of drug areas. They're targeted tool to restore areas where open air drug markets have taken root and they give law enforcement the ability to keep repeat offenders out of stay out of drug areas. Um, we will not allow our public spaces to be surrendered to chaos and unsafe conditions. Additionally, the second thing that it does is it uses …
H.B. 205 Substance Use Intervention Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves to reconsider action on the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:17:14Read what they said
And I would do a motion to reconsider first substitute house bill 2 0 5.
H.B. 270 Healthcare Worker Post-Employment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Presents H.B. 270, which removes non-compete clauses in healthcare contracts and allows providers to share information with former patients about their new employment, with exceptions for recouping reasonable costs and for agreements entered before May 6, 2026.
▶ Watch at 2:45:44Read what they said
Brammer. Thank you. Uh, this bill does a couple things. Number one, it eliminates, uh, non-compete clauses in healthcare contracts and it voids a prohibition on providing information to a former patient about the healthcare provider's current employment or future employment. Uh, there's a different relationship between healthcare providers and patients than mere commerce. Uh, you know, I, there was, uh, when we've had our our children, we had a, an OB GYN that was, you know, uh, because my wife tends to have twins. Uh, it was a pretty, uh, you know, it's a high risk pregnancy and, and you end up seeing the doctor a lot and there were a lot of complications and, and, uh, you know, …
H.B. 270 Healthcare Worker Post-Employment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says there has been enough discussion and calls the question on the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:47:48Read what they said
Um, I'm going to, I think we've got enough. I think we're okay here. So I'll, I'll, uh, call the question on it.
H.B. 521 Public Education Economic Stabilization Restricted Account Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Sen. Brammer said public comment could be taken but, given the sponsor's request, moved to proceed to the next agenda item.
▶ Watch at 35:58Read what they said
Um, if you wanna take public comment, you can, but given the bill sponsor's request, I would request we move to the next agenda item.
H.B. 185 Carbon Credit Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Asks whether the IPCC's projections have been found to be accurate.
▶ Watch at 40:42Read what they said
And aren't all of their projections, haven't they always been found to be true and spot on accurate?
H.B. 547 Transnational Repression Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Brammer says that while running a prior bill on China, he was harassed by Chinese government operatives and contacted by the State Department, and that the problem is real and he supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:07:51Read what they said
a couple years ago I ran a bill condemning the Chinese treatment of the GER population. Uh, this type of threat of harassment and threats that happens, that happens here in Utah. I had, uh, op operatives of the Chinese government located in Utah, contacting me, harassing me. I was contacted by our senator, which unfortunately the ambassador doesn't have a Senator Con to contact her 'cause she's in dc. But, um, but our senator contacted me and said, you need to protect all of your private passwords, all of your digital id, everything, because I was guaranteed to be hacked, uh, by the Chinese government because they did not want me to run a bill. And then I had …
S.B. 235 Governor Compensation Amendments · House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Responds that the position is a pay cut for legislators and that the goal is to avoid pay falling so far below market that it discourages qualified people from serving.
▶ Watch at 1:09:52Read what they said
It's a pay cut. There's going to be attorneys in the Attorney General's office that make substantially more than the Attorney General. Um, but that is, uh, I would also say that for the vast majority of people that serve in the legislature, it's a pay cut for your time up here. There is, there is some element of being under market in an elected position. Um, uh, however, so I, I don't know that we're trying to match market, but we're trying not to get so far below market that it discourages people that, um, uh, you know, would otherwise be willing to serve that are well qualified.
S.B. 235 Governor Compensation Amendments · House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Says he is not certain how other states set these salaries and describes Utah's practice of stepping judicial and executive salaries down from the Supreme Court.
▶ Watch at 1:10:39Read what they said
I'm not entirely certain on other states. I know that we've done this for quite a while where everything just is a, is a step down. You know, we do that with our judges as well. You know, there's the Supreme Court and the, or there's basically, they do it opposite with judges. It's usually like the district court judge, and then 5% more if you're a court of appeals and 5% more if you're on the Supreme Court. Um, but that's the, you know, that, that's kind of the structure. And I apologize that I don't know on other states how they do that. Okay.
H.B. 591 Nuisance Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Explains his vote, saying the bill's language has been codified in state code before and that he will vote in favor.
▶ Watch at 1:58:59Read what they said
I just wanna explain my vote. Um, I was a little worried that we are breaking new ground, but I have learned through research while we've been here that this is actually the fourth time we have codified the word ass in our code. And so, so I'm That is good to know. That's, that's Gonna be why I'm voting in favor
H.B. 381 Electric Mobility Device Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Opposes licensing children to ride e-bikes, comparing the risk to his youth ski racing without licenses and arguing the current law is already in the wrong place.
▶ Watch at 45:21Read what they said
Yeah, I mean, this is an assumption of risk issue. And if we want to have, I mean, I grew up skiing, ski racing, and I think the fastest that I ever clocked myself was going somewhere around. I I just hit between 75 and 80. Um, but I was a downhill racer. And so I would, you know, we would do training at high speeds. I didn't have to get a license for that. And, and if I fell, you know, and we fell and we got injured and we cut ourselves on ski edges, we did jumps, we did all kinds of crazy things on skis, but we did not need licenses despite the fact that we were …
H.B. 366 Judicial Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Explains the second substitute to H.B. 366, which addresses concerns about the constitutional court, adds a fallback court if those provisions cannot proceed, and moves the substitute.
▶ Watch at 53:05Read what they said
Yeah, and, and I'll explain what I'm gonna do with it. I'm gonna adopt the second sub hopefully, and then we'll circle it and come back this afternoon because the second substitute is fairly different from the original. And so I want to give the body time to take a look at that and I'm happy to explain the details on that. But I wanted to explain what's going on. Uh, what the second substitute does. Uh, the, the underlying bill talks about, uh, uh, judicial case distribution from municipalities to a district court. Um, what the second substitute does is it is the vehicle by which we will address some of the concerns that were raised with regards to …
H.B. 366 Judicial Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Moves to circle the second substitute of H.B. 366.
▶ Watch at 55:43Read what they said
Yeah, I would move to circle second house bill. Second substitute house bill 360 6.
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Presents H.B. 575, saying it followed negotiations with suppliers and refineries to increase production, includes a temporary gas tax cut, and adds permitting provisions for oil and gas infrastructure such as pipelines and storage.
▶ Watch at 1:29:28Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, this has been a bill a long ways coming. Uh, there's been a lot of negotiations that have happened leading up to this bill, including agreements from various suppliers and refineries that they would be able to increase production. The intent is that this will lower the gas price for our average Utahans. Now, in the meantime, until we can get that production up and they have agreed to produce it and to, uh, to report their production levels, uh, to the state. In the meantime, there is a gas tax cut. And then, uh, the other things that it does is it provides some regulatory, uh, permitting, um, provisions related to, uh, increasing oil and gas …
H.B. 72 Criminal Use of Cryptocurrency Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Presents the bill, which places reasonable boundaries on cryptocurrency kiosks, adds law enforcement training and agency reporting, provides fraud warnings and consumer protections, and sets transaction limits of $2,000 for the first three days, increasing to $5,000.
▶ Watch at 2:30:10Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, this is one of those bills where, uh, I opened a bill file and then I looked and Representative Wilcox had already opened a bill file in the same space. So we just combined our, our ideas together and this is what came out of it in some sort of unholy alliance. And so, um, I'm just joking. He's a good friend. Well, that, That happens. That happens. Uh, what what's been happening is occasionally you will see in gas stations or other locations what looks like an ATM machine, but it is a cryptocurrency, ATM machine. And from the house sponsor's view, he had gone and done a bunch of busts of, uh, with law enforcement …
H.B. 381 Electric Mobility Device Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Asks which categories of e-bikes the bill applies to, citing speed cutoffs.
▶ Watch at 2:36:47Read what they said
Okay. So on these e-bikes, there's a couple different categories of e-bikes. Can you tell me what this applies to? I think usually the cutoff is like 20 miles per hour is and below is one and 20 miles per and above is another. I don't know if I'm getting that right.
H.B. 381 Electric Mobility Device Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Asks Senator Weiler to describe what the safety certification involves.
▶ Watch at 2:37:28Read what they said
Can You, Senator, Senator Brammer, Can you describe what the safety certification entails, Senator Weiler?
H.B. 280 Third Party Litigation Funding Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Presents H.B. 280, which strengthens protections and transparency for third-party litigation funding, requires commercial funders to register, and bars foreign countries and entities of concern from providing maintenance funding.
▶ Watch at 2:37:53Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you. So in 2020, Representative Dunnigan created a maintenance funding practices act that began the regulation of litigation funding. This bill strengthens the protections and improves transparency and accountability and litigation funding it distinguishes between consumer and commercial maintenance funding. Uh, commercial funding is usually provided to businesses or institutional claimants and involves large amounts of money and it direct collateralized interest in the litigation. This requires commercial funders to register with the state. Commercial consumer funders already are required to register. Uh, this prevents foreign countries and entities of concern from providing maintenance funding and it applies to commercial funders. That same restrictions on influencing the underlying legal claim that the statute already applies to consumer funders. …
H.B. 381 Electric Mobility Device Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Says his concern is not the exact certification method but that adding a licensing scheme on top of parental supervision makes things worse, and he would not support the bill as currently written.
▶ Watch at 2:38:24Read what they said
And Senator Brammer. And I don't know that my concern is necessarily with the exact methodology of the safety certification, but, um, I think we already have the loss somewhat wrong in this space, in the sense that we're telling kids they can't ride an e-bike without parental supervision. And when they don't, they're acting improperly. Frankly, I'd rather just have them ride their e-bikes if they're not, they're really high speed ones. Um, and so what I worry about is now we're taking what is already in my view, kind of a, a position of over supervision of kids and saying we're gonna add a regulatory and licensing scheme on top of it, which in my mind makes it …
H.B. 540 Judicial Transparency and Information Access Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Moves Senate Amendment 2 to H.B. 540 and explains that the courts requested it so they can implement some website upgrades themselves rather than through a third party.
▶ Watch at 3:09:57Read what they said
Um, I would first move Senate Amendment, uh, two, I believe in my name. It might be Senate Amendment one Motions in order. Do you wanna explain the amendment? Yeah. This was a request from the courts. They would like to be able to implement some of the, uh, some of the website upgrades themselves rather than using a third party. And this, uh, gives them that flexibility.
H.B. 540 Judicial Transparency and Information Access Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Presents H.B. 540, which requires court records to be easier to access, sets requirements for a website of public court records and fees, and requires a judicial financial disclosure rule reported to the interim committee.
▶ Watch at 3:10:41Read what they said
Yeah. So what the bill is about is, uh, it's oftentimes difficult to access court records. They are, you have to do specific requests for oral transcript or for oral recordings. You have to do, uh, you have to pay in order to get into their exchange website. This provides requirements for the website containing all public court records, and it addresses fees for the court records and requires the judicial counsel to create a rule on judicial financial disclosure, uh, to report to the judicial Judiciary Interim Committee. So essentially what we're trying to do is make the courts, uh, you know, as to the greatest extent possible, as transparent as the legislative website is. And with that, I'm …
H.B. 540 Judicial Transparency and Information Access Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Says the bill will largely provide audio, with video possibly added in the future but not included in this bill.
▶ Watch at 3:12:05Read what they said
No, this will largely be audio. Um, there may be a capability to add video in the future, but we don't have video right now in this bill.
H.B. 373 Higher Education Innovation · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Moves to circle H.B. 520, the higher education student housing study bill.
▶ Watch at 4:18:17Read what they said
Yeah. Motion encircle HB five 20. We Have a motion to encircle house Bill five 20 higher education student housing study.
H.B. 520 Higher Education Student Housing Study · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Presents H.B. 520, which would fund a statewide feasibility study of how student populations affect local housing markets and possible mitigation strategies, including development on university-owned land; he says the bill does not mandate construction or appropriate funding.
▶ Watch at 4:18:31Read what they said
Thank you very much. So what this does, uh, around our universities, that's some of the areas where we have some of our highest housing shortages. Uh, it's uh, due to the pressure that universities place on the local housing environment, this includes problems with retaining teachers and attracting professors into the universities. So what this bill does is it, uh, it conducts a statewide feasibility study examining the measurable impact of student populations on surrounding housing markets, the magnitude and cost of that impact and practical mitigation strategies, which would include development on university owned land. Um, and so what this bill does not do is mandate any construction or appropriate any funding. It only aims to examine data, …
H.B. 496 Forestry and Fire Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked whether dispatchers who were never firefighters would be included in the firefighter retirement program.
▶ Watch at 2:47Read what they said
Yeah, I, I understand. After firefighters injured and then going into the program, I'm more curious about when dispatchers who have never been firefighters are in the program. Are they included in this representative? Please.
H.B. 496 Forestry and Fire Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Expressed concern about extending special retirement to those not in harm's way and about the $4.3 million ongoing fiscal note.
▶ Watch at 3:54Read what they said
'cause I guess my concern is typically we have the special retirement for those that are, uh, you know, and I don't want to, um, this is not meant to minimize, but those that are in harm's way versus those that are not really in the flames and the, you know, out in, in the rest. And so I, I'm, you know, it's 4.3 million ongoing on this fiscal note. That's a lot. And so I am a little concerned about the price tag, and if it was just limited to those who had been serving as firefighters were injured and then entered this program, they could keep their firefighter retirement, I'd probably be much more inclined. But I do …
H.B. 496 Forestry and Fire Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Noted the $4.3 million is an ongoing cost to the state budget, not just the department.
▶ Watch at 5:08Read what they said
Well, your department is only one part of our state budget. It's a decrease of 4.3 million ongoing with the state budget.
H.B. 496 Forestry and Fire Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said he has concerns about expanding public safety retirement but was satisfied with the explanations given the small scale and supported moving it forward.
▶ Watch at 20:47Read what they said
Yeah, I appreciate going through, I know it was probably painful to go through the dedicated credits issue and, and all of that, but I appreciate that I do have a little bit of heartburn on, you know, uh, creep into public safety retirement plans. Um, uh, the only thing that kind of, uh, helps me get on board with this is, uh, you know, I do understand that dispatchers are an important part of the team, that there's a, there's a back and forth with them. Um, but I, I, I'm getting closer and closer to the line where I draw the line on it, um, because I do believe that it's those that put themselves in harm's way. …
H.B. 535 Disposition of Public Property Modifications · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Moved to recommend H.B. 535 fourth substitute favorably.
▶ Watch at 45:40Read what they said
Senator Brammer. Yeah. And have we adopted the fourth Sub? We adopted the fourth sub, so I'll move that We recommend favorably HB 5 35 fourth substitute.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked why 13 House members voted against the bill on third reading.
▶ Watch at 48:53Read what they said
Senator Bram. Uh, I, I'm just curious, you had 13 members of the house vote no. Mm-hmm. On third reading, can you tell me, do you, do you have any understanding as to what their objections or concerns were?
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked how the bill addresses that concern.
▶ Watch at 49:32Read what they said
That's, and can you tell me how you believe that your bill accounts for that and addresses it?
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Sen. Brammer jokingly asked whether the mini bike groups have a name.
▶ Watch at 51:05Read what they said
Do these biker gangs have a name? Are they the warriors Or something like that?
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Sen. Brammer said he would like to learn the gang's name. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 51:36Read what they said
That's something I would love to, to learn the name of the mini biker gang senator.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Sen. Brammer said he supports the provisions on evading officers and license penalties in lines 908-912 but the rest of the bill is broader than the problem it targets.
▶ Watch at 1:06:26Read what they said
Um, I, I like the work that's being done on, uh, the section about evading the officers. Um, and, and I like being able to tag their license for a year where they can't get their driver's license for a year. Um, but I, there's a lot of other stuff going on that's outside the real scope of what you're trying to get at. And so I just am uncomfortable that the bill is not tailored to the problem you're trying to address. So that's the reason for the hold i, the, the work being done from lines 9 0 8 to nine 12 is great. The rest of it I, I'll shake you on. Thanks.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Sen. Brammer advised narrowing the definition to mini bikes, right-sizing impound provisions, and keeping lines 908-912 on evading police.
▶ Watch at 1:14:15Read what they said
Here would be the things, your objective is that when these little punks and the Kearns Band and the Kearns Mini biker gang, The Van Bureau voice Evade the police, you want to give the police the ability to do something about it. Correct. Keep the definition really limited and don't take in more than what you're talking about. Just do these little mini bikes. Okay. Define it narrowly, take out all the other stuff, or be a little more prescriptive on the impounding so that it's right size to that. Um, I don't know the exact way to solve that, to solve Senator McKay if he has suggestions on that. Um, but there's just a lot going on that …
H.B. 494 Transfer of Water Interests · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Moves to recommend H.B. 494 first substitute favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:31:49Read what they said
to Senator Brammer for a motion on the bill. Yeah, I Would move to recommend favorably HB 4 94 first substitute.
H.B. 112 Political Advertising Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Brammer asked what the bill does beyond existing statute and requested an example of the problem it addresses.
▶ Watch at 1:36:08Read what they said
Yeah, I'm, I'm trying to understand what the bill does that is not already done by the statute here, other than the fines, the fine schedule that I'm, I'm trying to understand exactly what you're getting at. What, can you gimme an example of the problem mm-hmm. And what you're trying to address?
H.B. 112 Political Advertising Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Brammer asked how a campaign paying for content would not have disclosed it.
▶ Watch at 1:37:00Read what they said
But in this instance, I, I'm trying to understand how a campaign paying for something, didn't they disclose it?
H.B. 112 Political Advertising Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Brammer asked whether campaigns would now have to add paid-for disclosures to their own digital advertising, as was dropped from signs.
▶ Watch at 1:37:40Read what they said
Okay. Now, in another context, during the session, we said that signs that are obviously put out by a campaign don't need to say paid for by this campaign. So for example, you know, reelect Sahara Hayes. Mm-hmm. You don't have to put paid for by committee to elect Sarah Hayes or Friends of Sahara Hayes. I don't have one that says Friends of Brady Brown. I don't have any, mine is just a committee. 'cause I don't have any friends that would be part of that tro. But the, you know, if it's the campaign, what, what I'm worried about is are we now going to require all digital advertising that the campaign itself is putting out to have …
H.B. 112 Political Advertising Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Brammer said campaigns' own posts are different from paid influencer content and questioned whether campaigns' own digital content should need paid-for disclosure.
▶ Watch at 1:38:49Read what they said
Okay. Yeah. Like, so I'm like, it's pretty obvious that mine is running it, you know, it probably has my campaign logo at the beginning or at the end, you know. And if, for example, if I do a constituent update, maybe that doesn't qualify, but something similar to that that I put online, that I put online, you know, I don't wanna have to put paid for, we're not like, uh, we're not that big of a deal. We're not that professional. Like in, in this, on this level of politics, I guess is the concern. I think that's fair. And I think that's, uh, just a, a, a taste difference. I think that we live in a time …
H.J.R. 26 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence to Address Machine-Generated Evidence · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Brammer asked whether the courts could amend the rule later if the federal rule changes.
▶ Watch at 52:29Read what they said
Yeah, just, um, you would agree that the, both, that the courts would have the ability to amend this rule as well if something comes out that's different on the federal side, should they so choose?
H.B. 116 Criminal Fines Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked the opponent whether he would support the bill if studies showed a higher fine deterred more effectively.
▶ Watch at 57:45Read what they said
Yeah. So if the, if we did provide studies and evidence that it, that 10,000 was more deterrent than five, would you support the bill On the record?
H.B. 116 Criminal Fines Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked the opponent to confirm that his position depends on evidence rather than on the existence of a fine.
▶ Watch at 58:13Read what they said
Understand that's your point. I'm just trying to, uh, your point is that there's not evidence, but if there was evidence, if it was 25,000 was deterrent, then you would support it.
H.B. 116 Criminal Fines Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Made a lighthearted remark about the bill needing to be correct the first time. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 58:58Read what they said
Uh, only next time. Get it right the first time so that we're not back the second year. Just kidding.
H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Recommends the bill favorably and says a first amendment should be adopted.
▶ Watch at 1:28:03Read what they said
Thank you. I would recommend favorably, I would recommend House Bill three 70 for Senator. There's a first Amendment I think that needs to be adopted. You need, okay. I will move.
H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Says the bill enforces existing monitoring law, that homelessness funding is outside its scope, and that monitoring helps locate unmonitored people who may commit crimes.
▶ Watch at 1:32:59Read what they said
Uh, Or Brady, should I say Brady? Either way. Um, the, uh, so there was some discussion about, uh, that kind of shifted this from, uh, the point of this bill regarding trying to say this is about, uh, homelessness and providing stability for those that are homeless, as opposed to, this is about monitoring, which is ordered, and there's a gap in terms of how we're able to monitor with the idea that, uh, of attempting to increase public protection. Now, with regards to homelessness, let's not forget that, you know, we just received our budget. It's got about $44 million towards stability for the homeless. And that doesn't even include the other sources of income. That's just state …
H.B. 372 Child Welfare Changes · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Recommended favorable passage of HB 372 fifth substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:41:46Read what they said
Yeah, I would recommend Favorably House Bill 3 72 fifth substitute. Is that the number we're on? Yes. At this point, are there any, Uh, as Senator Thatcher used to say, that means it's a, it shows it's a good bill. Can we go for a sixth? Um, I mean, if you really want to, So fifth, substitute the Substitute. That's right. All right.
H.B. 495 Capital Felony Case Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asks Ms. Barnes why she opposes a bill she believes would slow the process, if delay benefits her clients.
▶ Watch at 1:57:13Read what they said
So my understanding is that you're opposed to the bill. Yes. And you're opposed to the bill because it will, you believe it will actually slow things down. Yes. And how is that adverse to your general position with regards to your clients? I'm sorry, I don't understand. My, my position with regards to my clients is that my clients are entitled to due process. Yes. But it's to your client's benefit to not have the death penalty carried out to slow it down. So why would you be opposed to this bill if you believe it will slow it down?
H.B. 495 Capital Felony Case Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asks whether any death row inmate in Utah has had a conviction overturned.
▶ Watch at 1:59:47Read what they said
Proceedings. Any, has any death row person in Utah that's been convicted ever had their conviction overturned? Yes. Okay. Douglas Carter had his conviction overturned. So Out of how Many in 2021, I'm Sorry. In the history of the case, it's like one for a hundred, right? Something like that.
H.B. 495 Capital Felony Case Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Moves to recommend the second substitute of HB 495 to the full Senate.
▶ Watch at 2:09:51Read what they said
Sure. I move that we recommend second substitute house before 95 to the full body of the Senate. Alright.
H.B. 495 Capital Felony Case Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Supports the bill, saying lengthy delays in carrying out death sentences are not acceptable public policy.
▶ Watch at 2:10:03Read what they said
Yeah, I, I think at some point, um, you know, while I have my own feelings about the death penalty and, and they're not always totally in favor of, of the death penalty, I, I have, uh, concerns. But if we're gonna have that as a policy in place, uh, we can't have, you know, institutional nullification of the policy. You know, this is not a, you know, a journey, you know, an exodus through the wilderness to the death penalty of nearly 40 years. That's not appropriate. That's not justice, that's not due process. That's overdue delay. That's the use of procedural, uh, you know, and, and squeamishness to avoid what is the policy and the jury verdict. And …
H.B. 536 Criminal Conduct on Public Lands Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Says adding the word unique gets closer to his concern and expresses hope that prosecutors would apply it as intended.
▶ Watch at 2:18:08Read what they said
Um, I I, I think it gets closer. I mean, and you know, lawyer to lawyer unique, essentially everything is somewhat unique to some degree. I would hope that the prosecutor would interpret that to mean what we would intend it to mean. So hopefully that would help.
H.B. 536 Criminal Conduct on Public Lands Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Moves a verbal amendment to add the word unique before rock formation in the definition of natural feature.
▶ Watch at 2:19:25Read what they said
Senator Brammer? Yeah, I'll Make a voice amendment on line one and add before, uh, where it says natural on the line, it says, natural feature means it says a rock formation. And I would add the word unique between A and rock 1 51. Yep.
H.B. 536 Criminal Conduct on Public Lands Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Says not every rock is unique and states for the record that the word is being added for that reason.
▶ Watch at 2:19:49Read what they said
Okay. I guess I could argue that every rock is unique in its own way. Just like every snowflake. And, and just for the record, I'm adding that because not everything like a snowflake is unique.
H.B. 536 Criminal Conduct on Public Lands Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that the word unique is meant to cover noteworthy features such as hoodoos, stalactites and stalagmites compared with other rocks.
▶ Watch at 2:20:03Read what they said
Uh, this is because we understand, uh, noteworthy things are unique and we consider our hoodoos and stalactites and stalagmites unique versus as compared to other rocks. Okay. So that's the sense in which I'm trying to convey.
H.B. 536 Criminal Conduct on Public Lands Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Thanks Rep. Barlow for his service, noting this is his last committee hearing and vote, and comments on the vote.
▶ Watch at 2:21:00Read what they said
I just want to thank, uh, Representative Barlow for his service and this being his last committee and his last vote. Anyone who votes against this bill, you know, good luck up to your soul in heaven. So thanks. And we just had to vote on Good Friday. So anybody that votes on no, on Good Friday and this bill, I don't know, you know, what's less for them?
H.B. 555 Changes to Family Law Actions · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Moved to adopt House Amendment 1 to the first substitute of HB 555.
▶ Watch at 2:23:58Read what they said
So moved. We have a motion to adopt house amendment number one, um, to first substitute house bill 5 5 5.
H.B. 555 Changes to Family Law Actions · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Moved that HB 555 first substitute pass and that he replace Sen. Todd Weiler as floor sponsor.
▶ Watch at 2:28:50Read what they said
Yeah. Um, I move that HB 5 55 first substitute pass and that I get replaced as Todd Weiler as the floor sponsor.
H.B. 555 Changes to Family Law Actions · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said his firm has seen a similar family law case involving frustrating litigation and called the bill a welcome change.
▶ Watch at 2:29:25Read what they said
I, I've seen this. We recently, we don't do any family law cases, but one of these types of cases came to our firm. We only do civil litigation. It was so frustrating that I told my attorneys to take a pro bono and take it to the max and do whatever it took to, to win and well within the bounds of our good ethics and all of that. But, uh, um, it, it's, it's a frustrating process. And, and this is a, a welcome change. Thank you for bringing it.
H.B. 333 Adoption Records Access Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Brammer presents H.B. 284, which fixes an unintended drafting change in Utah's murder statute so that extreme conduct showing utter disregard for human life, such as firing a gun into a crowd or setting off a bomb, can still be prosecuted as murder, and he moves that the bill pass.
▶ Watch at 33:24Read what they said
Thank you. So what this does is it fixes an unintended drafting, uh, change in Utah's murder statute to ensure that the most extreme dangerous conduct, which would be acts showing utter, uh, disregard for human life, can still be prosecuted as murder. Uh, this would include situations such as firing a gun into a crowd or setting off a bomb. And so, uh, with that I would move that HB 2 84 pass.
S.B. 2 Public Education Budget Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Asks what percentage of the education budget was cut this year.
▶ Watch at 50:33Read what they said
Thank you. Can you tell me percentage wise, how much of the education budget was cut this year?
S.B. 2 Public Education Budget Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Asks what the overall increase to the education budget was.
▶ Watch at 50:46Read what they said
And then percentage wise, can you tell me what the increase overall to the education budget was? Senator Balderree?
S.B. 2 Public Education Budget Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the net change would be about 1.8%, and that the budget increased on top of growth and inflation already in the base budget.
▶ Watch at 50:58Read what they said
Okay. So if I understand correctly, that would be a net 1.8% or so, something Correct. Senator Balderree. Okay. So, so while there may be some cuts, which is appropriate in certain programs, and, and I understand that there may be a concern that, you know, for the, you know, that there may be some cuts. The reality here as I read the budget, is that we increased on top of growth and inflation, uh, which were already in the base budget, we increased on top of that an additional 1.8%. Am I, am I seeing that correctly, Senator Balderree?
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the bill does not distinguish between marked and unmarked vehicles at night, takes away a tool from law enforcement, and states opposition.
▶ Watch at 1:07:37Read what they said
I appreciate the answer. I, I guess as I think about it, typically at night, it's when a police officer just pulls up behind you, the lights flash, you pull over, there's a bright light shining into your rear view mirror or your side mirror. You can tell I've done this a lot. I was gonna say, I I've never had this experience. I dunno what you're talking About. You know, and, and so you typically can't see much behind you in any event other than the flashing lights. Now, the idea that people can have a, uh, you know, a, a light bar that mimics police officers. I mean, there was a jazz player that mimicked being a police …
S.B. 267 Software in Education Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Supports the bill, saying it gives local education entities leverage to negotiate contracts with vendors and is needed to set state standards.
▶ Watch at 1:31:00Read what they said
I I just wanna rise in support of this bill. I think it does a lot of great things, but the main thing that it does is it provides the leverage necessary for our local education, uh, entities to be able to negotiate the contracts that they need without being stepped on by larger entities. That, that provide a one size fits all solution that doesn't always fit our laws and our standards within the state of Utah. And so without this, without a bill like this from the state that says, we cannot do work with you unless you make these modifications, it ends up being a negotiation that they simply are not equipped to have and that they …
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presented SJR 18, which would remove the requirement that the 45-day session meet on consecutive days so leadership can set meeting days across the year.
▶ Watch at 8:29Read what they said
You know, I was going through my calendar this last year and, um, you know, I don't know about you, but I'm starting to wonder if the legislative process isn't starting to feel like a full-time job. Is anybody here feeling that way more and more? Um, unbeknownst to most, uh, we have the 45 day legislative session that's included in the Constitution. Uh, we have nine interim days between the appropriations committees and, uh, our regular appropriations committee hearings. We have nine. Uh, for, for me, it's nine confirmation hearings at minimum, assuming that it's only one confirmation committee that doesn't include usually pre-meetings that go along with those confirmation committee, uh, hearings or confirmation hearings or issues. Um, …
S.B. 231 Energy User Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
The presenter proposed a constitutional amendment to let the 45-day session meet on non-consecutive days so the Legislature can spread out its work and more residents can serve.
▶ Watch at 8:29Read what they said
You know, I was going through my calendar this last year and, um, you know, I don't know about you, but I'm starting to wonder if the legislative process isn't starting to feel like a full-time job. Is anybody here feeling that way more and more? Um, unbeknownst to most, uh, we have the 45 day legislative session that's included in the Constitution. Uh, we have nine interim days between the appropriations committees and, uh, our regular appropriations committee hearings. We have nine. Uh, for, for me, it's nine confirmation hearings at minimum, assuming that it's only one confirmation committee that doesn't include usually pre-meetings that go along with those confirmation committee, uh, hearings or confirmation hearings or issues. Um, …
H.B. 565 City Library Property Tax Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Made a motion to hold the bill.
▶ Watch at 36:03Read what they said
Um, well, since I didn't ring in for a motion, but I guess I'll Make a motion. The chair isn't going to wait long This morning. You know, I, I, I'm gonna move to hold the bill.
H.B. 565 City Library Property Tax Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Explained that holding a bill lets changes be made before it returns, said he would not vote to move it through, and said he prefers to hold it now.
▶ Watch at 36:22Read what they said
Uh, I, I think it's more when a bill is held in committee so that changes can be made and then it's brought back without any changes made. I'm probably not gonna, uh, vote to move it through. And so it's, it's not there, there are some benefits to this bill. Um, you know, I had expressed some concerns with the idea that it would, uh, be changed, but then, uh, there were no changes. And so I'm probably just going to, I, I'd prefer to just hold it at this time.
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says the committee's process has worked well, raises concern about moving tax money outside the regular process, and says he will honor prior committee action on bills returning in the same format.
▶ Watch at 40:37Read what they said
I didn't ask to make the motion. It was just put on me, so I was made the bad guy on this. Um, uh, but, but I would say, you know, I, I think our, our process has been working pretty well for these, and, and, and so within our system, we've been able to do it. And what, I don't think there's time to fix it at this point, but, you know, if you wanted to do the voluntary contributions into the fund that's already existing, where that $20 million is being held, you know, then you could continue to draw down using the voluntary contributions in that way. Uh, but it was the automation of money out of …
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Makes brief remarks about being called on by the chair.
▶ Watch at 44:48Read what they said
This is how he keeps me silent. Yeah, I know. Keep your light on On so that I don't get called on. Uh, and then he calls on me when I don't bug To do the boat. Turns your light on, leaves it on wants, It's great. Um,
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks how a similar arrangement was handled in 2002 and whether other Olympic venues use this approach.
▶ Watch at 45:01Read what they said
uh, and, and I don't know if you know this, how did we handle it in 2002? I think We handed it in a very, uh, a very similar fashion. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, is this how other Olympic venues hand, like I don't, I don't think so.
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks where the reimbursement money to the state and localities would come from.
▶ Watch at 45:39Read what they said
Where does the reimbursement money back to the state and the locals? Where does that money come from? It comes directly from the Olympic committee. Okay. And then, and they're getting that through sponsorships and through
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Confirms the payment would skip the tax commission process and come directly from the Olympic committee.
▶ Watch at 46:00Read what they said
Okay. It'll skip the process of going to the tax commission and then coming back to the, to the cities. Okay. It'll be directly from the Olympic committee.
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether the Olympic committee would remit the same percentage the state would otherwise collect.
▶ Watch at 46:07Read what they said
Okay. And is it at the same, do they remit the same percentage back to the state as the state would otherwise collect?
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether the bill requires the reimbursement to be at least equal to the state's sales tax revenue.
▶ Watch at 46:18Read what they said
Is there anything in here that kinda requires that it at least be equal to what we would've received had, would, had it gone to the state?
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether there would be opposition to a future bill requiring contracts to at least match the sales tax that would otherwise be received.
▶ Watch at 46:35Read what they said
Okay. If we, like in, I'm, I'm not gonna hold up this bill, but do you think there would be opposition to a bill in the future that says the, the contract shall at least exceed the, you know, the sum sales tax that otherwise would've been received through the remittance of those taxes?
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says he wants to make sure the state is fully protected without coming out ahead, and that he is raising the concern to put it on the record.
▶ Watch at 46:59Read what they said
Yeah. I mean, I'm just not, I'm, I certainly understand the structural issue with the nonprofit collecting taxes. Yeah, totally get that. I just wanna make sure that, you know, if we were to be collecting on a sales tax, um, I'm forgetting the exact state portion, but say it's 4.5%. Yeah. You know, do we, I just wanna make sure that we're not coming out behind despite, you know, spending billions of dollars trying to get ready, ready for it. And, and so it's not that I, and, but I don't necessarily want us to come out ahead either, you know? Yeah. In that sense, I just wanna make sure that we're protecting the state fully. And so, and, …
H.B. 514 Utah Energy Council Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says the back-end contract should be at least equal to the sales tax amount.
▶ Watch at 48:05Read what they said
Yeah. And, and that, that sounds great. I just wanna make sure that the contract on the backend doesn't, that it's equal to at least Correct. You know, on the backend. So, yeah.
H.B. 489 Water Infrastructure Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Moves to recommend favorably SB 316, the public employee attorney fee recovery amendments.
▶ Watch at 58:23Read what they said
Fully do want to move this Question mark. Go ahead. Yeah. I would, uh, move that we recommend favorably SB three 16 public employee attorney fee rec recovery amendments.
H.B. 489 Water Infrastructure Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Supports the bill, saying it closes a loophole and protects public officials acting in good faith.
▶ Watch at 58:38Read what they said
Uh, just briefly. I think, uh, in this context, I think it makes sense. It makes a lot of sense. I think you are closing a loophole. I think it's a, it's narrowly tailored to close that loophole. Uh, with regards to, you know, we, we need our, our public officials to act decisively and without, you know, when, when we have loopholes like this, it, it, it makes the enforcement of the law and it makes judgment calls with regards to attempts to enforce the law weakened. And so, um, you know, we need to make sure that when people are, uh, are attempting to do right, that they are insulated, you know, when there's sometimes some, some negative …
H.B. 489 Water Infrastructure Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether other options exist to protect electrical co-ops' service areas and bonding ability.
▶ Watch at 1:13:16Read what they said
Yeah, on Lines 200 A through 200 N This was the House Amendment portion. Uh, you know, one of the concerns on a lot of these is we've got the electrical co-ops that are operating, you know, and their, um, you know, their lifeblood is oftentimes their service area and, and not degrading that. Uh, are there any other options or things that we can do to make sure that the co-ops are not their ability to bond and that exclusivity is not degraded? I think this goes, this language goes a long ways already in it, but is there any, are there any other options on the table to help on that?
H.B. 489 Water Infrastructure Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says he appreciates the commitment and asks that co-op bonding and service areas be protected.
▶ Watch at 1:14:26Read what they said
Okay. And I, I appreciate that. I hope that, uh, just, just keep working on that. That's one thing that the co-ops do a great job keeping our energy rates low throughout rural Utah and throughout the rest of the state. And so while we, I, I appreciate the, the large projects that allow us to do some interesting things, um, in the state and, and allow us to be a little less monopolistic in with regards to energy projects. So I really appreciate the bill as a whole. I just don't wanna do anything that undermines those co-ops because I think they serve such an important role. And, and I appreciate what you've already done. And if there's other …
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether removing retention basins increases flood risk in neighborhoods and whether the bill benefits engineers and developers.
▶ Watch at 1:26:53Read what they said
Uh, um, I think that works in the longer term. I, the concern that I have is, does removing retention basins from neighborhoods increase the risk of flood in those neighborhoods in high water events? Uh, so they can still detain it and it just has to eventually meter out like they normally do. So it should not, and if there is an event that it would cause if the city engineer, and I appreciate the city engineers working through this, this with me, um, if there is an incident that would cause create flood, um, this is exempt from that, this should not, city engineers should be able to design their systems that that will not cause flooding, But …
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked how water quality concerns are currently handled and whether retention basins clean the water.
▶ Watch at 1:33:25Read what they said
Uh, good to see you. Um, uh, we've had a lot of good, good interactions over the years. Yeah, thank you. More on the Utah Lake side. Uh, with regards to, so currently all of the water quality concerns, uh, are well that this bill would impact are typically handled through retention basins Primarily. Yes. And I mean, but they're not doing anything to clean the water or anything, it's just kind of holding any pollutants in the retention basins.
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked what typical solutions would be without retention basins.
▶ Watch at 1:34:18Read what they said
Okay. And then what would be the typical solutions if we weren't using retention basins for water flowing through to the Jordan River and then the Great Salt Lake?
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether the policy question comes down to water quantity versus water quality.
▶ Watch at 1:35:06Read what they said
Yeah. And, and so from a policy standpoint, what we're, what we're having to measure is water quantity versus water quality. Is that a fair assessment of this?
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Noted that retention basins cause a lot of evaporation.
▶ Watch at 1:35:53Read what they said
I mean, it, it certainly in a retention basin, you're having a lot more evaporation. It's not all going to groundwater.
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked about guidance on the water quality impact of resulting flows and whether there is a current water quality crisis in the Great Salt Lake.
▶ Watch at 1:36:33Read what they said
last question is, do we have any, uh, any guidance as to the impact of water qua water quality of, of what would likely be the resulting, uh, flows down? So we already have storm water that flows directly into the Great Salt Lake through the various tributaries, and it has not impacted the water quality to such a degree that we're in a crisis on water quality. Is that fair to say?
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked why the Jordan River should not be exempted if other areas bear the water quality impacts.
▶ Watch at 1:37:33Read what they said
I, I guess the concern that I have is you're saying, why don't we exempt Jordan River, but let's let everyone else have that water quality problem in their sponges, but not ours. I I'm not suggesting we we do that.
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether there is a study he can review.
▶ Watch at 1:38:13Read what they said
That based on, Uh, just evidence the state just, yeah. I mean, is there like a study that I can look at?
H.B. 575 Fuel Tax and Supply Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said he will review the study and offered thoughts on stormwater treatment and filtration, asking whether no water in the Jordan River is worse than dirty water.
▶ Watch at 1:38:29Read what they said
Thanks. I'll go look that Up. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Um, I will say, I know that there are methods for dealing with that and making those improvements. And so maybe the best way to do it is to try and find methods for improving, you know, water runoff water. I mean, people don't realize when water flows across impervious surfaces like asphalt, it picks up all the stuff that comes off of impervious asphalt oil, whatever it may be, then hits the canals, uh, and hits, you know, uh, the, the drainage, uh, like Rose Creek, um, just trying to Midas Creek go through, go across the majors drainages of the Valley, at least the ones that I'm familiar …
H.B. 546 Public Lands Duty of Care Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether water quality testing is in place along the Jordan River and at the inlet of the Great Salt Lake to monitor the bill's effects.
▶ Watch at 1:49:00Read what they said
Do we have, uh, testing in place along the Jordan River and at the inlet of the Great Salt Lake so that we can monitor the impact of this with regards to water quality?
H.B. 307 Attorney Fees Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Explains that H.B. 307 clarifies the meaning of bad faith for awarding attorney fees in legislative actions, describing it as tactics to delay, harass, or cause undue cost in litigation, and moves that the first substitute pass.
▶ Watch at 17:27Read what they said
Are numerous statutes that provide for attorney's fees when there is bad faith, but we don't have a good definition of bad faith. So what this does is it clarifies what bad faith means in the context of when a party is entitled to attorney fees in a legislative action. And typically, um, what it does is it says that it's when the other party is engaging in tactics to delay harass and otherwise cause undue, uh, cost in a litigation. And with that, I mo and, and for, uh, that reason I would move that HB 3 0 7 first substitute pa uh, pass. Thank
H.B. 41 Construction and Fire Codes Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Appreciates the changes but says more work is needed, arguing that the wildfire designation policy places liability on local landowners and should be corrected, and supports the bill as a step forward.
▶ Watch at 49:14Read what they said
Yeah, I I really appreciate a lot of the changes that have been made. I, you know, the EY has been, uh, pretty rough policy on a lot of landowners in the state. I think we've still got a lot of work to do and I really appreciate the good work that's been done. I mean, we've got properties that are surrounded by desert that are, that have no nothing to burn around them that are still designated in the wooey. You know, there's no fuel nearby. And we've got other properties where what we've essentially done on this is we've said, Hey, cities, you'll get additional money to fight fires if you designate this. And what it's done is …
S.B. 174 Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Sen. Brammer supports the bill, citing examples such as dietary, testing, abortion-refusal and modesty accommodations, and the free exercise of religion.
▶ Watch at 1:09:52Read what they said
Yeah, I would speak in support of the bill. There's a few examples that come to mind, particularly in the medical field. Example. For example, if you have dietary restrictions, you need to eat kosher, you need to eat halal. Uh, if you have, uh, those are things that this bill would help accommodate. Additionally, if there's testing concerns with regards to procedures, this bill would help accommodate that. Uh, additionally, other examples would include, and, and we do have an exemption, you know, an ex, this is an example that we already have. Uh, but if you preferred not to provide an abortion within a medical context and you are asked to do so, uh, this bill would provide …
S.B. 230 Consumer Credit Amendments · House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Presents S.B. 230, saying it removes prepayment penalties and requires any processing fee to be disclosed up front, and notes Candace Pitcher of First Electronic Bank is available for questions.
▶ Watch at 1:21:47Read what they said
Thank you. This is a fairly, uh, simple fix to a problem that has big consequences, uh, prepayment penalties. Uh, right now there's a lack of transparency and it's a horrible thing when you pay off a loan early. And then there's a big process as far as how much they charge. This removes prepayment penalties is the first thing. And then it says, if you're going to have a processing fee, you need to put it up front and disclose it. And those are the major points of the bill. Uh, this is important to our banking industry, which is a big part of our economy. Uh, but it's a fairly simple fix. And so with that, we're open …
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Presents SJR 8 as a study of whether a law school would make sense at UVU or another institution, and notes an amendment to adopt.
▶ Watch at 2:20:20Read what they said
You couldn't do 0, 0 0 0 7. Yeah, I Wish. Come on, man. All right. This bill opens a study to consider whether a law school would make sense at UVU or any other institution. And I do have an amendment to adopt.
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Confirms the presentation is complete and comments on the timing of the agenda item.
▶ Watch at 2:20:41Read what they said
Okay. 'cause it's late in the day. Yeah. I don't know who ever created this agenda.
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · House Public Utilities and Energy Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says the bill requires the legislature, not agencies, to set rules above federal regulation, and requires agencies to justify non-federal standards with sound science.
▶ Watch at 33:04Read what they said
I do not have any amendments or other subs, uh, what this bill does, and I do have Mark Barons from the US Chamber of Commerce here to present with me. Uh, I'll, I'll give a brief, uh, overview of it. It essentially, if there's a federal regulation in place, then our, uh, in these, uh, environmental health and waste management spaces, then the, uh, agency cannot go above the federal regulation. It needs to be the legislature that goes above the federal regulation. If there's not a federal regulation in place, then the agency needs to justify their metric with sound science, with basic scientific principles. It can't just be something arbitrary. It needs to be, uh, well-founded. And …
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · House Public Utilities and Energy Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says DEQ Director Davis is present to answer questions and may comment during public comment.
▶ Watch at 35:27Read what they said
or He is part of the public comment after, Um, he is there to answer any questions, and he is free to comment and we welcome any comments that he would have, so.
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · House Public Utilities and Energy Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Explains that agencies keep their power to protect health but must have a solid justification to go above federal standards, drawing a comparison to the Chevron doctrine.
▶ Watch at 36:06Read what they said
Yeah. Um, well, I mean, the, the basic idea is they still have the ability to protect the public health, but it can't be something along the lines of, you know, I don't like that. Uh, I think there might be a problem here, and we're gonna set a rule before we know what the impact of that rule will be. We're gonna set a rule before we know that that rule actually addresses the problem. Uh, you know, so they can still set the rules and they can go to the federal limit, but they do need to have a good, a more solid justification. And, and let me give you a, a little bit of a, for a …
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · House Public Utilities and Energy Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says the state can still go above federal standards but the legislature, not an agency, should make that decision.
▶ Watch at 40:15Read what they said
Yeah. So it's not so much, and I, I love that your mind is going towards federalism. You and I are on the same page, Representative Moss on Federalism. Um, but what I would say is this doesn't, what this is saying is if the state is going to go above the federal standard, it's not so much that we're saying the state can't do that. It can, but it needs to be the legislature that makes that decision. It shouldn't be the state agency to impose harsher, uh, regulation on our citizens, um, than the Feds do. We want the state legislature to retain that power? And so that is a policy call, and I don't wanna shy away …
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · House Public Utilities and Energy Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says science can be wrong and the legislature represents the public's choice on regulation, and gives phosphorus rules as an example of costs to local governments from going above federal standards.
▶ Watch at 41:33Read what they said
Yeah. Yeah. So this goes kind of to the same thing that we've been dealing with ever since. It especially became heightened during COVID with the, with the refrain trust the science. You know, um, I would say this, I'm not certain that science always gets it right. There may be times where the sound science is still wrong, just as there are times when the legislature gets it wrong. However, what we do have up here is the ability to have the people choose for themselves through their representatives, how they're going to be regulated. And so we are looking for the ability for, because oftentimes the interests that are coming into the agency are very limited to what …
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · House Public Utilities and Energy Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says concerns reflect distrust of the legislature, argues the legislature should make major policy, and says the bill sets standards for any authority delegated to agencies.
▶ Watch at 1:11:00Read what they said
I, I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate the motion. I really do. Uh, the thing that I would say is what you're seeing more than, uh, most of the concerns are that they, they do not trust the legislature to make policy. And that's basic civics. That's why we have legislatures is to be the policymaking body on major issues. And if you don't agree with the politics of the legislature, then your objective is to move the policymaking into agencies or somewhere, or into the courts or somewhere else. What this does is it follows basic civics that the legislature makes the policy in the state on major issues. And that's what we're trying to do. And on the …
H.B. 243 Gambling Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Presents H.B. 243, which bans predictive markets by identifying them as gambling under the state constitution, and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 35:54Read what they said
Uh, this is the bill that, uh, that bans predictive markets, identifies it as gambling pursuant with our constitution. Um, and I'm o we had a great discussion yesterday, so, uh, I'm not gonna present overly on it. It's a pretty simple bill, but if you have any questions, I'm opening any questions. Thank you.
H.B. 243 Gambling Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Gives closing summary urging passage, saying the bill clarifies the law because young men are losing money to betting and their financial lives are being harmed.
▶ Watch at 37:08Read what they said
Thank you very much. It, it's an important bill. It's important that we, that we clarify this. Uh, we are losing a generation. A lot of them are our young men in the state that are getting into betting and it's just destroying their financial lives moving forward. Um, it makes it really hard for them to succeed. So I highly encourage your vote. Thank you.
H.B. 425 Local Government Fees Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Explains that the bill removes general fees for broadband and public safety, changes the fee schedule, and exempts 911 and emergency calls from surcharges, citing support from several groups and a compromise on nonprofit properties, and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 41:18Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, so what this does, this re this revol resolves a lot of the issues with transportation utility fees. Uh, it does remove the general fees for broadband and public safety, which makes a lot of sense because it's hard to charge a fee for, uh, that's, that's based on usage of public safety. Um, that's just not a doable thing. And so this makes a lot of sense in that way. Uh, it also, uh, changes the fee schedule and will not charge surcharges for 9 1 1 or emergency type calls. Uh, it's come forward with the support of the Utah Taxpayers Association, the Wasatch Front Regional Council, the League of Cities and Towns. And they've …
H.B. 425 Local Government Fees Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Says the bill has been three years in the making and moves that it pass.
▶ Watch at 42:20Read what they said
Uh, thank you. This is three years in the making. We're hoping to, to land it and, and be done with it. So, uh, I'll move that this bill pass. Thank you. Thank
S.B. 292 Autonomous Systems Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Says Utah already uses damage caps such as the workers' compensation fund, that such caps give certainty and faster compensation, and supports the bill for its potential role in autonomous last-mile delivery.
▶ Watch at 1:38:45Read what they said
Yeah, so I, I did want to just talk briefly about the open courts clause, uh, of our constitution. Um, now there are numerous, uh, areas where we cap damages or where we create funds for damages. And, and probably the most, uh, well known one is our workers' compensation fund. And so we require employers to pay into the workers' compensation fund. And what that does is it streamlines the process of receiving compensation, but it does put a cap so that workplaces can invest in Utah and then by having a cap, they can limit the amount of liability they would have with at the workplace. And, and that allows for certainty in how they operate here in …
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Presents S.B. 233, describing changes to judicial performance evaluation standards, appellate case timelines, and briefing extensions, and explains that the appellate timelines are moved from court rule into statute.
▶ Watch at 42:17Read what they said
Thank you very much. So this one, uh, over the interim we worked quite a bit on a committee related to judicial performance, the Judicial Performance Commission. Uh, this does, uh, a few things. Um, it provides, number one, it provides some additional flexibility for the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to do surveys. It was quite prescriptive before. Um, but the real work that the bill is doing is codifying the standards of the appellate courts with regards to the timelines within which they need to decide cases. So previously we basically said, or the courts had said of themselves, their minimum standard was that they, uh, they can have basically three cases that are beyond, you know, a certain …
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Explains that the evaluation includes minimum performance standards for judges, including objective timeline measures for appellate opinions, and gives the Supreme Court opinion timelines.
▶ Watch at 46:03Read what they said
Yeah, so what typically happens, so there's, when, when a voter, uh, looks at the judicial nominee or the judicial retention elections says, this judge received a blank score, you know, here's the Judicial Conduct Commission or the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission score, and you can go and look and it has like little graphics and stuff like that. And, but the, the most important thing is from the, from the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, is there are certain objective standards that they say, did this judge meet the minimum qualifications? And so this adjusts those minimum qualifications on the appellate level so that, you know, the, so that JPEG is looking at objective data as to whether or not …
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Responds that putting the standards in statute allows the legislature to provide input before the courts change them, and says the Supreme Court's reduced caseload and discretionary decisions prompted the change.
▶ Watch at 48:46Read what they said
Yeah, the main reason that we're publishing here in statute is so that there's a little bit of coming, coming back to the legislature before they adjust their own standards of conduct. And so, uh, as far as their, their performance levels. So we didn't impose these themselves on the courts. What we did is we said, what do you think is fair? And they adopted this, but we did want to be able to have some level of input in the future if they want to change it. Um, you know, because, uh, frankly, we were somewhat disappointed that they didn't adopt the national state court standards for over 10 years after they'd already been promulgated, even though they …
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Responds to public questions, saying judicial independence does not insulate the whole court system from legislative action and that the constitution invites statutory changes to the judiciary.
▶ Watch at 1:03:00Read what they said
Yeah, I, I appreciate it. Um, to a couple of the questions. Um, you know, the Judicial Performance Commission in its genesis was, uh, in many ways created or requested by the judiciary. And it is in statute, which means that we have to administrate it through statute. Uh, there is nothing that the courts can do to change the statute with regards to judicial performance evaluation. That's why when they wanted to do a different type of survey, they had to come to the legislature to ask for some greater purview as to do that. And, and that's not uncommon. While, and I want to be clear, because a lot of people misunderstand what judicial Independence means. What it …
H.B. 212 County Formation Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked whether the sponsor intends to keep the Senate at 29 seats regardless of the number of counties.
▶ Watch at 1:30:08Read what they said
Okay, great. Um, so we have 29 Senator Vickers and we have 29 counties. Traditionally that was because we had one senator per county, but then it, we had to switch, um, to a populace based. Would it be your intention to remain at 29 Senator Vickers? Regardless of whether or not we have more than 29 counties?
H.B. 212 County Formation Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Sen. Brammer commented that the number of senators should be odd. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:30:50Read what they said
Have to be an odd number though. Otherwise you end up with a lot of, uh, you don't wanna have a board with even numbers, you know,
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks why the earmark would not come from the Rural Transportation Infrastructure Fund, since most projects would likely be rural.
▶ Watch at 1:43:00Read what they said
Yeah. So, um, in 2023, we created the RT, uh, the Rural Transportation Infrastructure Fund. I'm curious why we wouldn't do the earmark out of that since it's likely that most of these would be out of rural transportation funds. Is there any reason? Like, I think, I don't know how much is in there right now,
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Expresses concern about an ongoing earmark from the Transportation Infrastructure Fund and asks whether the program fits the purposes of the rural fund.
▶ Watch at 1:43:47Read what they said
Well, it's primarily today, but sometimes I'll bring a normal one. But, uh, yeah, I, I do have some of the concerns that we're now taking. Uh, basically it's an ongoing earmark out of the transportation infrastructure fund for this. Um, and there's already another earmark, which is, that's what I kind of view the Rural Transportation Infrastructure Fund, which is taking it out of there and doing an earmark out of it. And, um, and I'm trying to understand if this program fits within the purposes of the RTF, I guess would be the better one. I don't know if Lisa, if you know, but
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Notes most crossings would be on rural roads and asks where the sponsor expects most projects to go.
▶ Watch at 1:44:36Read what they said
Yeah. To the third through sixth mm-hmm. Uh, infrastructure fund. And it may be mostly for B and C roads, but this also is creating pass throughs under rural roads primarily. I mean, there's, there's some in the urban areas, you know, parleys is a good example, but there's, the majority of these, as you said, are gonna be along, you said I 80. And where did you say that you thought that most of these would go?
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether the fund would pay only for crossings on state roads or also on B and C roads.
▶ Watch at 1:45:44Read what they said
Yeah. Do we consider these crossings, if it's crossing a state level road, um, would this pay only for state level roads or would it also pay for crossings on B and C level roads?
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend H.B. 431 and asks to speak to the motion.
▶ Watch at 1:58:07Read what they said
Yeah, I'll move that. We recommend favorably HB 4 31. Um, I will speak to that, if that's all
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says he likes the fund and voluntary contributions but expects the ongoing $2 million TIF earmark to be a hard sell in the Senate.
▶ Watch at 1:58:16Read what they said
I do have, so there's most of the bill I really like the part that, um, that I think is giving me some heartburn and the other members of the committee, um, is line 360 6, where you take 2 million out of the tiff and you fund it all. Okay. And it creates an earmark, and then you deposit it into this account every year. Um, I would, I would be surprised if that gets through the Senate to be candid, um, on it. I think it that's gonna struggle. Uh, the rest of it. I think creating a fund, allowing voluntary contributions, doing all of that. Um, but I'm happy to move it through. I'm just trying to …
H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks why prosecutors should not be allowed to ask a victim whether they would take a polygraph, comparing it to asking a defendant.
▶ Watch at 42:35Read what they said
I, I understand not requiring. Why can it not be asked, particularly if it's on a, i I understand not letting it, making it admissible, but on whether or not to bring the charges. If a polygraph would assist a prosecutor, why wouldn't they be able to ask? I mean, in the same way that, I mean, would you also be opposed to a, a prosecutor asking or a defense attorney, whether they take a case, asking if their client would like to, you know, if the defendant, the accused, would take a polygraph. So why is asking so bad?
H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether victims could be asked with clear warnings that participation is optional and the test may be unreliable, and says he prefers protections around how the question is asked over banning it.
▶ Watch at 44:17Read what they said
As a, as a follow up, I guess, why couldn't we ask and, and make sure that it's in clear, bold, underlined print that you are not required to do so, and it may be unreliable, you know, and may and provide that warning for victims. I mean, I, I ha I struggle with the idea that, uh, you know, that a victim is, is not reliable enough to be able to tell their story. You know, or even being asked to tell their story with a polygraph, you know, you can say the polygraph is unreliable. It would not be used in court. It'll only be used for our determination. And that's only in situations where the prosecutor, you …
H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether the bill would prevent law enforcement from conveying a defense attorney's request that a victim take a polygraph.
▶ Watch at 55:47Read what they said
Thank you. Senator Brammer. Yeah. Uh, Mr. Mutter, if a defense attorney were to ask you to request a victim to take a polygraph test, or at least inquire whether they could, would this law prevent you from conveying that request from the defense attorney?
H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether the defendant and defense counsel could ask the victim directly.
▶ Watch at 56:15Read what they said
Yeah. And, and the, the defendant can ask and their counsel can ask directly the victim, correct?
H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether prosecutors have used the eye detect test.
▶ Watch at 56:28Read what they said
but, well, it would violate Their rules as an attorney. Right? Sure. Okay. I would imagine. Alright, Mr. Millard, let me just ask this a little bit unrelated, but, um, um, does your office, or do, do you know if prosecutors ever use the eye detect test? Not the polygraph, but the eye detect test, it measures your p pupil response?
H.B. 102 Victim Privacy Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moves that the committee favorably recommend the second substitute of the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:05:44Read what they said
Um, representative or Senator Brammer, um, given the circumstance, I'll Move that we recommend favorably. Um, HB 1 0 2 second substitute.
H.B. 113 Emergency Reporting Abuse Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend second substitute HB 113.
▶ Watch at 1:11:33Read what they said
You have motion? Yeah. Okay. I'll recommend favorably. HB one 13. Uh, second substitute Motion is to favorably recommend for a substitute one or second substitute one 13 emergency reporting abuse amendments.
H.B. 113 Emergency Reporting Abuse Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Comments on the sponsor and their years serving together in the House.
▶ Watch at 1:11:50Read what they said
I'm good. I I I, I've spent six years in the house with Senator Brammer. So saying rep, it's, I keep slipping. It was, it's a habit. That's honor. That's good. Badge honor.
H.B. 137 Violent Crime Clearance Rate Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Sen. Brammer says he will recommend HB 137 favorably as a substitute, and states it is a good bill and he hopes the grant money can be reduced.
▶ Watch at 1:22:23Read what they said
Yeah, I'll recommend favorably HB 1 37 for substitute. Um, that motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it? No, I, I think, I think it's a good bill. Uh, if we can bring down the grant money, I think it'll help with, with, uh, with this important issue.
H.B. 284 Murder Offense Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moved to recommend HB 284 favorably to the Senate floor.
▶ Watch at 2:09:03Read what they said
Yeah. And depending on the vote, I'll do a follow up motion after this, but I would recommend favorably HB 2 84. We have a motion to favorably recommend HB 2 84 to the floor of the Senate discussion to that motion.
H.B. 284 Murder Offense Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Noted no no votes, described the change as replacing three words with two, and proposed placing HB 284 on the consent calendar.
▶ Watch at 2:09:30Read what they said
I haven't seen any no votes on this. It's changing three words and replacing them with two. It's a pretty small change, so I would recommend that we place HB 2 84 in the consent on that. Is that something you'd agree to? Sure. All right.
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked whether the bill changes the penalty depending on who the victim is, and asked Sen. Plumb to yield.
▶ Watch at 32:35Read what they said
Yeah. Can you, can you tell me the difference in, uh, does this differentiate in the penalty depending on who the victim is? Senator Plumb, will you yield?
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Sen. Brammer said he was not trying to cross-examine and raised concerns that the bill could enhance penalties based on the victim's profession, saying he would oppose it if it does.
▶ Watch at 33:02Read what they said
Well, that's why I'm asking the, the question. It's not, I'm not trying to cross examine with, with the answer in place. What, but what I am worried about, and I've seen this, uh, quite a bit, it happened quite a bit during COVID, was the idea that depending on who the victim is, we need to extra protect these victims versus other victims for violence. And, you know, so then it kind of gets to the point, well, when people are assaulted, if there's violence, is one worth less than the other or is one more punishable than the other? And are all people equal before the law or are they not? And does your profession mean that you're …
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Sen. Brammer offered a voice amendment to change the sunset year on line 59 from 2032 back to 2027, keeping the reporting provisions but removing the enhanced penalty based on victim identity.
▶ Watch at 35:09Read what they said
Um, I do have a voice amendment, so I'm looking at line 59 and, uh, I'm, I'm there for all of the data collection and reporting. I think that will help keep health, you know, hospitals and healthcare workers safe. But I, I do prefer that the increased threat of violence, which is kind of a, that's a, uh, that came on the tail of COI, where there was a worry about, uh, violence within hospitals related to COVI and things like that. Uh, you know, I, I had some concerns then I still have those concerns. And so I would do a voice amendment to change on line 59, the year 2032, back to 2027, which is what the …
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Says a voice amendment has been worked out and is ready to be offered.
▶ Watch at 59:43Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you. So we've been able to work through this, uh, we do have a voice amendment for it. And so when the circle's ready, I can give that, uh,
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Describes the amendment, which changes the year 2032 to 2027 on line 59 to match current code, and says it is the same change made before.
▶ Watch at 1:00:02Read what they said
Uh, what it would be is on line 59, removing the year 2032 and replacing it with the year 2027, which is what the current code reads. And that is the only change. Yep. It's the same one made before, but we just have clarified that everyone seems to be okay with it.
H.B. 318 Agency Fee Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Says HB 243 clarifies that proposition bets are already banned under the state constitution's gambling provision, and adds a definition of proposition betting.
▶ Watch at 1:03:54Read what they said
All right, thank you. So this is, uh, the bill that bans proposition betting or clarifies that it is already banned, to be honest. Uh, and what it does is it amends one small thing to say. The proposition betting means a gambling bet on an individual action statistic, occurrence or non occurrence. And so our constitution is extremely clear on this. Article six, which is the legislative article section 27 states that the legislature shall not authorize any game of chance, lottery or gift enterprise under any pretense or for any purpose. That's our constitution. That's the oath we took. Okay. Some may not like it, but here's the reality. These bets, these proposition bets are gambling.
H.B. 243 Gambling Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Argues that proposition bets and gambling harm people, citing Martin Luther King, debt and betting-app data, and the impact on young men in Utah, and offers to answer questions.
▶ Watch at 1:04:40Read what they said
These bets, these proposition bets are gambling. They just are. So, um, couple of things to think about. You know, when you think about gambling, what we're really talking about is it is the greedy taking advantage of the ignorant in so many ways. Um, Martin Luther King said, gambling is morally wrong. One should live by the principle that we will not take from society without giving to it. The orderly existence of society is dependent upon this type of reciprocity. Now, One thing that everyone should be aware of is the Trump administration has taken a position against this bill and the state has already been sued because of this bill. Not only did they sue the governor, …
H.B. 243 Gambling Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Explains that the bill covers bets on an individual action, statistic, or occurrence or non-occurrence, distinguishes commodity derivatives, and gives examples such as Super Bowl streaker bets and pitcher prop bets.
▶ Watch at 1:07:53Read what they said
This is relating to, and I'll give you the exact language, it is a bet on an individual action statistic occurrence or non occurrence. Okay? Now, as for the prediction market, typically if you're talking about derivatives from a commodity that has inherent value and whether that value were in will increase or decrease within an ID stock exchange, that's not what we're talking about. And so to the extent you're defining prediction market in that way, that's not true. If you're talking about shall we bet as to whether or not, uh, for example, the, uh, well I'll give you an example. Um, it, there was a bet that there would be a streaker at the Super Bowl and …
H.B. 243 Gambling Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Says the state constitution does not authorize gambling, that gambling harms younger people by preventing wealth building, and that it has no social benefit, and requests support for the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:09:42Read what they said
Thank you. Our constitution is quite clear. We are not authorized by a body to support any form of gambling under Article six, section 26, excuse me, 27. Uh, this is really hurting our younger generation. This is preventing them from building wealth. Uh, it is, as I said, predatory behavior that, uh, is highly addictive. And to my understanding and from what I've seen, this has no social benefit. This is outside the realm of the give and take of structured society. And for that I request your support. Thank you.
H.B. 384 Executive Branch Agency Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Says cities have charged transportation utility fees for about a decade based on a Utah Supreme Court decision, which has its own issues, and that H.B. 425 addresses this current reality.
▶ Watch at 1:20:15Read what they said
Senator Brammer. Thank you. So for the last, uh, for about a decade, we've had cities charging transportation utility fees. Uh, this has been based on a, on a Utah Supreme Court decision that, uh, has its own issues. However, this is the reality before us at this point.
H.B. 425 Local Government Fees Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Describes the bill as removing general fees for items such as broadband and public safety, creating a process for adopting fees with a 10-year expiration, changing the fee schedule without changing 911 surcharges, and listing groups that support it.
▶ Watch at 1:20:30Read what they said
has its own issues. However, this is the reality before us at this point. Um, this bill removes the charge of general fees for things like broadband and public safety, which need to be charged through taxes and not through a fee. Um, and then it also creates a process for adoption and implementation of those fees. And it includes a 10 year expiration date for these fees. Like our current wrap tax model. Um, it changes the fee schedule and will not change surcharges for 9 1 1 or emergency type of calls. And it does not have an impact on the current utopia or connect models. Um, this bill has come forward with the support of the Utah …
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Presented SB 68 as a way to require a 30 or 45 day window for businesses to bring websites into ADA compliance before lawsuits are filed, citing abusive litigation in other states.
▶ Watch at 53:52Read what they said
Uh, this is just mostly to get out ahead of, um, what we've seen as some abusive litigation in other states, particularly Florida and California's where we've seen these cases. Uh, the attorney general's office came to me and asked that I help them with this. Uh, what's what's happening is, um, websites typically have to have a level of a DA compliance so that people can access them, that, that struggle to access them. That's appropriate. We want them, we want businesses to come into compliance with that. Uh, what this does is the, the real meat of it is before a law firm can sue on an a DA compliance issue for websites, they need to give a …
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Answered that a 30 to 45 day delay before suit is not preempted by the federal ADA and that similar laws have been used in other states.
▶ Watch at 56:04Read what they said
you're al I I think what you're getting to is, is this preempted by the A A DA and this type of, uh, this type of regulation of allowing someone to come into compliance. If we were to say, you cannot enforce the Erda A in Utah, you would be right. We could not do that. But where this is saying, Hey, you need to allow compliance before you bring your suit, a 30 to 45 day delay to bringing suit is not preempted by the a DA. We can control the, the state government of enforcement or the, the state process of enforcement for a DA, uh, without running afoul of, of these, this has been done in other …
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Explained that accessibility needs vary by disability, that many website builders offer compliant defaults, and that the bill is about allowing time to comply rather than how to comply.
▶ Watch at 57:17Read what they said
Yeah, so there's different ways. So if, if you're, if a person is deaf, the website needs to be readable. So there's oftentimes tools that they can go in and read the, read the site for a person who is deaf, uh, or if they are, um, uh, or if, sorry, if they are, uh, if they're blind, it needs to be, um, it can be translated to audio. Um, there, there's various methods depending on the disability. And, and as far as the details of what you have to do to bring it into compliance, most of the, the website, you know, creators, um, you know, there's a few website that, a few websites that a lot of a …
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Said the bill does not undercut the federal ADA and aims to let businesses come into compliance before lawsuits, to avoid repeating past litigation problems in Utah.
▶ Watch at 1:01:46Read what they said
Senator Brammer. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, this, this is not, uh, in any way undercutting the Erda A I guess if the, what we're trying to do is just give people the ability to come into compliance before they have a lawsuit filed against them. Um, you know, we had this problem in Utah related to other a DA compliance, and we had to go through a lot to deal with it as a committee. Uh, just a few years ago when I sat on the house side of this committee. In, in, in interim, we, we spent a lot of time with abusive lawsuits related to A DDA issues. Uh, this is just to get out ahead …
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Introduces the bill and invites Chris Ballard to explain it.
▶ Watch at 1:03:34Read what they said
Alright, on this one s SJ one, this one I'm going to invite, uh, my good friend Chris Ballard here, um, uh, uh, from the, and, and I'll let him introduce himself.
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Explains that the bill aligns the state adult rule on prior sexual assault allegations with the federal and juvenile rules.
▶ Watch at 1:03:47Read what they said
Yeah. And, um, the, this is a bill that came before us yesterday. It was the last bill on the board and died, uh, on the house side. And so, uh, last session. Last session. And so, um, we brought it back again. This is, uh, we had started it a little bit late. So we started it through interim, uh, with the chairs, uh, the vice chairs, uh, assistants. And, and both of us have been looking at this for a while. Um, what this does is, um, we have a misalignment of our rules. Our juvenile rules have certain rules of evidence related to sexual assault, evidence and previous sexual assault evidence in what's admissible. And our federal …
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Introduces Jeff Gray to respond to the points raised in testimony.
▶ Watch at 1:16:35Read what they said
So I have, uh, Jeff Gray, the Utah County attorney here that wanted to respond to a couple of things.
S.B. 193 State Legal Holiday Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Supports the bill and first substitute, saying a Good Friday holiday honors the state's background and would not establish a religion, and that constituents would appreciate it.
▶ Watch at 1:18:30Read what they said
Yeah, I, I think that, you know, at times we get a little bit, uh, weary of holidays and things, you know, in, in terms of legislation. We, we get a little bit, a little bit antsy about having too many holidays and things like that. But if you're gonna look at the holidays, there's quite a few that I would swap this out for, uh, as, as a priority holiday. Um, I think it is, uh, essential to our, uh, I think it honors our background. I'd like to have it as a holiday. I like the school provisions that they align, that they, that they, to the extent possible align breaks with, with the, um, with this holiday. …
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Reports the Senate third-reading vote as 24 to 4 and one, and says the Senate discussion was similar to the committee's.
▶ Watch at 1:20:33Read what they said
Gimme just one second. I can tell you The vote on the Senate on third reading was 24 4 and one. And then, um, the discussions were largely similar to what we've, what we've had here. The defense attorneys said that they did not want to have this in and the victim's rights, and the prosecutor said that they would like to have it in. And we had the same discussion about why we haven't changed the rules, uh, or why we haven't changed the language. And, uh, it was pretty much identical to what you've seen.
H.B. 519 Unclaimed Property Modifications · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Moved to adopt the first substitute for H.B. 519.
▶ Watch at 1:22:53Read what they said
Happy to move it. Okay. The motion is to adopt first substitute house bill five 19, or to lead entitled Body House Bill five 19 and replace it with first substitute House Bill five 19 unclaimed property modifications by Representative Teuscher.
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Thanks the committee for its thoughtful questions and consideration of the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:24:46Read what they said
Just appreciate your consideration, the thoughtful questions. Um, and I, and I appreciate being back in this committee. It's always been a great one to, I I love serving on it and I appreciate your service.
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Says he supports the bill now, having opposed the earlier version, and credits the sponsors for fixes that cleaned up the process.
▶ Watch at 23:19Read what they said
Yeah, I I just wanted to rise in support. I was not in favor of it the first time. Uh, they've made some good fixes, cleaned up a lot of the process and I appreciate, uh, the bill sponsor and the floor sponsor working with me on that. Thanks.
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Asks whether the correct version of the bill is before the Senate and moves to substitute the second substitute for the version under consideration.
▶ Watch at 23:40Read what they said
I see, I see a, uh, have we have we got the right a bill in front of us. So I'm realizing as I'm looking at the one in front of you that Looks like there's a second substitute. The Second sub is the one that I would actually like to move and I have, Yeah, I thought so. So I'm going to, I'm gonna take a motion to substitute Senator Plumb. So yes, I think is what you described in the second substitute. Exactly. That's the one I described. So I'm gonna go ahead and place that motion if that, that's a motion.
S.B. 290 Victim and Witness Privacy Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Recommends that the bill be passed favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:27:14Read what they said
Yeah, I would recommend favorably, uh, SB one 90 and I would speak to that.
S.B. 290 Victim and Witness Privacy Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says the parties have not yet found the right balance, proposes a read-only electronic data room for review, and will vote yes to move the bill forward while more work is needed.
▶ Watch at 1:27:29Read what they said
I don't, I don't think that we've found our Goldilocks on this. Um, it is late in the session, so I'm willing to, to move it through. Um, I I think that there's still some balancing that needs to happen with, I I'm not sure that it should always, that, uh, you know, going to opposing counsel's office for defense attorneys being the prosecutor's office, I don't think that that's, uh, something that is the correct way to do this. Um, you know, there needs to be search tools and there needs to be the ability to look at things, uh, with, with some efficiency. And if you go to their office, rarely do you have the ability to do …
S.B. 290 Victim and Witness Privacy Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says he does not care which substitute is adopted, wants the bill to advance, and is not opposed to the substitute motion to keep negotiations going.
▶ Watch at 1:33:36Read what they said
Uh, I don't really care which sub we do. I'm, I wanna see the bill advance. I'm probably not in favor on the floor of any of the subs or the original. Um, but I think it's a policy that we need to get right. And so I want to keep it moving so I'm not opposed to this substitute motion. Um, I just wanna keep the negotiation going.
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Presented S.B. 145, which closes loopholes on contingency fee agreements in lobbying, updates the gift and book dollar limits, and changes rules for state universities such as BYU.
▶ Watch at 1:34:04Read what they said
Thank you. Um, this is a bill specifically targeting ga Ika and no, I'm just, I apologize. Right before, she's like, does this affect me? And so this was my answer to her question. Now, um, what this bill does, uh, specifically, a couple of years ago, I was, uh, asked to help close some loopholes related to contingency fee agreements, uh, uh, that were suspected in the lobbying space. Um, specifically a a couple of things. If, if there was an interest in an entity that it's value would jump on the outcome of a bill or an RFA or some, or a veto or some kind of lobbying issue, that can be a contingency agreement even if it's …
S.B. 290 Victim and Witness Privacy Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says the bill still needs work on the substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:35:59Read what they said
I'll just echo my same thoughts before I think we've got work to do on it. Thanks.
S.B. 301 Summons Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says the committee has worked with the sponsor on several of her bills on today's agenda.
▶ Watch at 2:23:10Read what they said
I was just making sure. Thanks. Yes. I wish Todd was here. Mr. Center, we've actually, I think, worked with, uh, the good sponsor on multiple of her bills that are on the agenda for today.
S.B. 303 Expungement Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked why the bill adds unsanctioned camping on state property to the offenses counted for expungement.
▶ Watch at 2:34:43Read what they said
Yeah. So on line 82 of the sub it and, and in the original bill as well, I don't know if it's the same line number, but it adds to min minor regulatory offense, unsanctioned, camping on state property, which I don't think was there before. Can you tell me why that was added? What, what kind of led to that?
S.B. 303 Expungement Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked how repeated camping or vicious animal citations would work in practice when counted toward expungement.
▶ Watch at 2:36:10Read what they said
So help me understand how that works in practice. So, you know, because one of the things that I worry about is, you know, if there's, um, say there's 15 un unsanctioned camping violations within a year, um, can those eventually be used against the person as just a consistent problem or 15 vicious animal going, going at large citations a year? I mean, the vicious animal one in particular is one that worries me. And, you know, I'm trying to understand how that works in practice.
S.B. 303 Expungement Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Raised concern about making a history of protective orders less visible on the record given their safety purpose.
▶ Watch at 2:37:44Read what they said
Okay. And then the other concern that I have is typically a criminal protective order or civil protective order is related to the safety of a third party where a court has adjudicated that somebody has placed another person in actual, or at least perceived fear of, you know, of, of harm that they, that they believed they were going to be harmed on multiple occasions in the case of a stalking injunction or something like that. And I'm, uh, you know, to some degree, uh, the criminal protective order, criminal stalking injunction and Civil protective orders, which include civil stalking injunctions. Um, there is some benefit to having that on the record to know that there has been a …
S.B. 303 Expungement Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked whether a domestic violence case would still have to meet the other eligibility requirements.
▶ Watch at 2:40:05Read what they said
Okay. Um, so if it was a domestic violence case or something like that, of course they have to otherwise be eligible.
S.B. 303 Expungement Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Thanked the witness and asked to add context. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:40:36Read what they said
Okay. Thank you so much. And if I Ms. May Mr. Chair just add a little more context to that.
S.B. 303 Expungement Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked whether the judge considers the value of the record in warning future people when deciding the interest of justice.
▶ Watch at 2:40:59Read what they said
Does, does the judge, and I apologize, chair, uh, one, oh, go ahead. Quick question. Mm-hmm. Does the judge also determine like when it, when they're making their determination in the interest of justice? And some of this is my ignorance with regards to expungements, it's not an area that I'm in a lot. Um, does the judge also consider, uh, the value of the record in warning future people? And as, as part of the consideration with regards to the interest of justice?
H.B. 221 Coercion Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moves that the committee favorably recommend HB 221 second substitute.
▶ Watch at 3:11:59Read what they said
We're on sub two and it's been adopted. I would Move that we recommend favorably.
H.B. 307 Attorney Fees Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says his light was on from earlier, then asks how a court would analyze whether something is bad faith.
▶ Watch at 3:13:59Read what they said
It, it was from before. But I do have a question on, uh, can you tell me how a court would go through the analysis as to whether something is bad faith?
H.B. 307 Attorney Fees Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend the first substitute to HB 307.
▶ Watch at 3:15:32Read what they said
Yeah, I'll, uh, I have two motions depending on how the first one goes. Uh, I move that we recommend favorably first substitute HB 3 0 7. Uh, that motion is in order.
H.B. 307 Attorney Fees Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moves to place the first substitute on the consent calendar.
▶ Watch at 3:16:20Read what they said
And then, uh, this one is, uh, it hasn't received any no votes. And so I would make a motion to put this on consent.
H.B. 307 Attorney Fees Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says the bill has received no votes against it.
▶ Watch at 3:16:36Read what they said
Um, no, I just, it doesn't seem to have, uh, opposition in the form of any votes against it or anything like that, I don't think.
H.B. 319 Electronic Records Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asks whether the committee needs to adopt the substitute first and then the amendment.
▶ Watch at 3:29:19Read what they said
Yeah. Do we need to adopt the substitute second. Substitute first and then, uh, the Amendment to adopt. Second substitute
S.B. 230 Consumer Credit Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Brammer explains that the bill bans prepayment penalties on consumer credit loans and allows a disclosed fee at the start of a loan instead.
▶ Watch at 19:25Read what they said
Thank you. So what this bill does is it relates to our banking industry. Uh, oftentimes what happens is, uh, there are prepayment penalties and then they, they factor that risk and the ability to pay prepayment penalties, which is people paying off loans early and then they, that increases the a PR. So this bans prepayment penalties and consumer credit, uh, loans. And then it also, it does allow for a disclosed fee at the beginning rather than a prepayment penalty at the end. So people know what they're getting into. And with that, I'm open to Any questions?
S.B. 270 State Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Speaks in support of the bill as a way to improve access to justice and free district court judges from routine debt collection and landlord-tenant cases.
▶ Watch at 23:11Read what they said
Yeah, I, I just wanted to arise in support of the bill. This is one of the issues that the courts have been struggling with for a long, long time. And that's specifically access to justice and they've tried to solve it through other means, through sandboxes and things like that. But really this court has the chance to clean up a lot of the dockets, provide a, a separate court space that will, you know, the vast majority of the cases that are on the dockets, our debt collection cases and, uh, housing, uh, you know, landlord tenant issues. And those are not difficult cases and they usually don't go to trial like he, like senator, like the good …
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Moves the Senate amendment, which changes the effective date for certain new judicial standards so judges are evaluated under rules in effect when the bill takes effect.
▶ Watch at 43:40Read what they said
I'll move that. Uh, what the amendment does, just so that the body's aware, it changes the effective date for some of the new standards for judges. Um, we don't want them to be judged on rules that they haven't received yet. And so it's, uh, we felt it was fair that they be judged when this goes into effect and that's the only change. It's just that change in effective date for when these standards apply.
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Explains that the bill amends the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission statute, gives it more latitude in surveys, asks it to measure appellate courts' docket management, and codifies time standards for the Court of Appeals and Utah Supreme Court to decide cases.
▶ Watch at 44:16Read what they said
Senator Brammer. Thank You. So judicial performance evaluation amendments, it amends the statute related to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. It gives them a little more latitude in the surveys that they can conduct. It also, uh, pushes them a little bit to measure whether the appellate courts are managing their dockets effectively. So oftentimes what's happened in the past is parties can get extensions over and over and over and over and over again. And it didn't matter at all to the judicial performance evaluation. And then it also, uh, codifies some of the standards that the courts had set for themselves, uh, in this last year, uh, specifically related to how long they can take to decide cases …
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Says he has more questions and asks whether the bill allows exceptions for durability concerns.
▶ Watch at 1:41:31Read what they said
Senator, And then I have a few other questions. Does this, uh, does this allow exceptions for concerns related to durability? Senator Pitcher,
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Asks whether the bill allows exceptions related to the amount of power, torque, or performance of a product.
▶ Watch at 1:41:52Read what they said
Okay. Uh, does this allow exceptions with regards to the amount of power or torque or performance of the, uh, of the pro of whatever product they're using?
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Says procurement offices can already choose electric equipment when appropriate and opposes making electric the default; will vote no.
▶ Watch at 1:42:10Read what they said
Ahead. Yeah, so the concern that I have on this is this is already a choice that our procurement offices could already make. They've done their own pilot programs. They can choose to adopt electric, uh, you know, electric equipment as needed. I mean, I have some electric equipment, I have some non-electric, depending on the product, depending on the use, depending on the price, depending on the power, depending on the durability, depending on how long the battery needs to last. Those are all things that, that are common choices that you know. But if you're, but what this does is it says it puts everything into a default of electric and then says you've gotta fight to justify …
S.B. 309 Single-family Home Rental Modifications · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Supported focusing on detached homeownership and asked why commercial lenders get cheaper financing than single-family borrowers and whether government should address that.
▶ Watch at 56:25Read what they said
Alright. Um, there's a lot of elements that, that I appreciate in this. I, I particularly like the, the push towards the, you know, and, and not to say anything different than the town homes being included, but I really like pushing for single family home ownership, uh, detached home ownership. I, I think that is a different product that, that when people own their own home and their property and no one else is, you know, it's, they're not adjacent. I think there's, there's something really great to that. Um, one of the concerns that I have on this is, it seems based on the premise of, you know, commercial lending, you know, not being on the, on equal …
S.B. 309 Single-family Home Rental Modifications · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Said institutional lenders' lower costs reflect larger down payments and lower risk, and expressed concern about government intervening in lending markets.
▶ Watch at 1:00:08Read what they said
I guess the, the part that concerns me is even the, the idea that, uh, you know, part of the reason why the, the capital is cheaper is because they're bringing 20% or more down in cash, which means you've got 20% equity and your loan to value is now protected with a whole lot more equity than you otherwise would have. And if we're saying that that's wrong for the market to do that, and the government now needs to intervene and stop that, I worry about, you know, that, that becomes a heavy hand of government as opposed to the free market looking at the loan to value and the risk of valuation for the issue. And, and …
S.B. 309 Single-family Home Rental Modifications · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Agreed that the mortgage insurance difference is part of the cost gap and said this was his main concern.
▶ Watch at 1:02:29Read what they said
Yeah. That, that should be the differential, right? Because The commercial lender can't even get a loan that has PMI. Right. You know, and, and so they don't, I mean, typically there may be a product out there, but so that, that's kind of, yeah. Anyways, that was my biggest Concern. No, I thi I, I think it's a valid concern.
S.B. 63 Assault Modifications · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Presented SB 63, which clarifies that choke holds used by voluntary participants in an activity under its common rules are not covered by the assault modifications, and answered questions about self-defense and protective-detail scenarios.
▶ Watch at 1:12:13Read what they said
Thank you. And I want to thank, uh, Representative Thompson for letting me swap in in order real quick. This one's been a, uh, non-controversial bill. It ran last year. It, it died on the board. I started it too late. Um, what this does is it changes a definition, or it actually just supplements the definition with regards to choke holds. I have a constituent that does MMA fighting and they have choke holds and MMA fighting, and they don't want to be doing it in a way that is illegal. And so essentially what it says is if both people are participants in the fight, and it's part of the common rules that's not involved in a choke …
H.B. 425 Local Government Fees Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Asked whether any substitutes were needed and was told the bill is ready to go.
▶ Watch at 1:36:36Read what they said
Checking to make sure we don't have any subs or anything like that. We're good? Nope, it's good to go. Okay.
H.B. 425 Local Government Fees Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Moved to recommend H.B. 425 favorably, praised Representative Peterson's three years of negotiation, and said he is glad to be the Senate floor sponsor.
▶ Watch at 1:36:41Read what they said
I would move that we recommend favorably HB 4 25. Okay. Just like to speak to that. Yeah. Just real quick, I've, I've seen, uh, Representative Peterson worked through this for three years. Um, you know, I've been, uh, silently in the room when she's been negotiating through some things that are very difficult. And I've been on the other side of this, on the Senate side to change some, some leverage points on it. And I'm happy to see where it's landed. I think that it's brought, it's been a very difficult process and her ability to negotiate that has been, uh, really remarkable. And, um, and so I'm happy to be the floor sponsor of this one on …
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Asks the district representatives what specifically they mean by protecting the remaining districts.
▶ Watch at 1:47:47Read what they said
Uh, the, the main question is, you've said we want something that protects those that remain, but neither your letter, nor either of you have said what that means. What specifically are you talking about?
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Questions whether remaining districts should be protected from economies-of-scale losses, since departing cities already cover bonds and private contracts usually just end.
▶ Watch at 1:48:41Read what they said
And, and, and I, and I understand that to some degree. I guess the concern that I have is you already have in this bill as it's currently constructed, you know, they continue to meet the obligations related to any bond obligations. Um, and it seemed like, it seems like every other private sector that has a contract that somebody chooses not to continue on, they just end the contract and they have to deal with the economies of scale dropping. And, and if you're already, if they're already on the hook for bonds, why should we lock everyone into a hold harmless agreement for economies of scale when they're already paying the capital costs that you've bonded for? Uh, …
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Questions whether cities would be forced to follow every feasibility consultant suggestion.
▶ Watch at 1:51:05Read what they said
Um, you're Gonna, you're gonna make, cities are forced to follow every suggestion of a feasibility consultant.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Says cities should act in their own best interests at all times.
▶ Watch at 1:51:28Read what they said
That's what I'm trying to say. City Act in its very best interests at all times.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Argues that cities leaving a district should not have to take care of the remaining cities, comparing it to choosing a store.
▶ Watch at 1:51:52Read what they said
So that, that, that's the concern that I have, is if you view of an exit, is that they have to take care of everyone else and make sure that it's feasible for everyone else as opposed to protecting their own interests. Now you're locking 'em into it, or you're making them indemnify the rest of the group in order to leave. And, you know, if I choose, if I choose to shop at Costco instead of Walmart, you know, I don't really care what happens to Walmart. I just want a cheaper price at Costco for my family. And if a city chooses to leave because the pricing is better and the customer service is better, I don't know …
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Responds that he is not comfortable with requiring cities to follow every consultant recommendation. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:54:46Read what they said
Yeah. So I hear your concerns there. And, and, and so that's like, I'm, yeah. I'm not cool with that one. Okay. I's A, that's a lot.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Says he has not seen a consultant given authority to mandate outcomes and does not see that as standard practice. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:55:18Read what they said
I've never seen that. Where a consultant gets to mandate what happens. I've never seen that. I've never even seen that proposed. Okay. I don't see how that's standard practice anywhere. Yeah.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Supports the bill, saying special service districts should compete on price and service and that cities should be able to act in their own best interest, while noting the bond provisions.
▶ Watch at 1:58:03Read what they said
Yeah, I, I understand, especially I think the adding the bond piece, and I assume that was the piece that was added in the sub, or we Had it originally, But Yeah, we had it originally and that, that's an important one. I understand the investment for capital and, and the reliance on that when you're working together, but we see this in special service districts all the time where they are fighting like crazy for customers. And you see it in rural areas when cities annex and they mm-hmm. They get into, you know, into spats with, you know, because, you know, the special service district is trying to keep their customer base and all of that. Um, we …
H.B. 300 School District Taxation Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Sen. Brammer said he appreciates the bill and that it strikes a good balance on inflation adjustments.
▶ Watch at 2:13:18Read what they said
Alright. I just really appreciate the bill. You know, you want to have, uh, you don't want to incentivize to never adjust for inflation, but you also don't want to create something where they have to always adjust for inflation. And I think this strikes a good balance. It's a good bill. Thanks.
H.B. 300 School District Taxation Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Sen. Brammer moved to recommend HB 300 favorably.
▶ Watch at 2:13:56Read what they said
I move to recommend favorably HB 300 A motion before a is to pass favorably house bill 300 school district taxation amendments.
S.B. 72 Obscene Animal Abuse Material Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Introduces the joint resolution on rules of evidence for crimes or other acts and says he will call the Senate before the question is called.
▶ Watch at 1:01:34Read what they said
Thank you. So this is a joint resolution. So just as a heads up to everyone, I probably will be calling the Senate at the end of, uh, before I call the question on it, uh,
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Explains that the resolution would align Utah state court evidence rules for adult sexual assault cases with the rules for juvenile and federal cases, and offers to take questions.
▶ Watch at 1:01:42Read what they said
before I call the question on it, uh, because it does need 20 votes to pass. Um, however, uh, what this bill is about is, uh, in prosecutions related to sexual assault cases. If you are a child, then we prosecute it one way and we allow certain evidence in. And if you are in federal court, we also prosecute it the same way. But if you are in Utah State court and an adult, then it is prosecuted differently. Meaning that if the, if the, uh, if the victim is an adult, then uh, we do not allow certain evidence in that would be admitted if a victim was a child. And specifically that involves the methodology and the, …
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Asks for a call of the Senate to secure attendance, then calls for the vote on the substitute resolution.
▶ Watch at 1:02:50Read what they said
Yeah, so I would call the Senate at this point if I can get five friends to Stand up, five or more standing. We are in a call the Senate And I appreciate that. And then I would call the question, uh, once the, once we get, okay, Let, let's, we'll, we need to make sure everybody's here first. Ipson is online so we may need Stratton pitcher Escamilla online. Who is and why? I'll wait Him if he, I don't need him. And President Adams. No, Let, let, yeah, we don't That's okay. Once you're on the floor, please stay on the floor. Don't, don't worry about Musclemen or pitcher. I, I think we're okay to lift the call …
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Brammer said the second substitute for S.B. 234, on rulemaking amendments, was developed with input from the Department of Environmental Quality, whose suggestions were incorporated, and that it relates to regulatory authority.
▶ Watch at 1:09:55Read what they said
Senator Brammer. This Is one that, uh, that we've worked on and, and we've had a lot of input from the Department of Environmental Quality to, and we've incorporated their suggestions. I think they're happy with the bill at this point. Uh, what this does is it relates to regulatory authority.
S.B. 54 Carson Smith Opportunity Scholarship Program Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Explains that a person with a non-commercial trailer could pay four times the yearly fee under the substitute bill.
▶ Watch at 1:19:28Read what they said
Thank you. So what this does is it, uh, allows a party to, if a person has a trailer, this is a non-commercial trailer, they can pay, uh, four times the yearly fee
S.B. 190 Trailer Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Brammer explains that a lifetime trailer registration is available for four times the yearly fee and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 1:19:36Read what they said
they can pay, uh, four times the yearly fee and they'll have a lifetime registration for that trailer. And with that, I'm open to any questions.
S.B. 190 Trailer Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
The substitute makes technical changes requested by the Tax Commission and makes no substantive difference, only simplifying administration.
▶ Watch at 1:19:53Read what they said
Uh, this conforms some of the, this, these are some technical requests from the tax commission to help make this work. And so I don't think there's any substantive difference, it's just administratively makes it a little easier.
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Says the bill gives judicial performance evaluation surveys more flexibility and sets guidelines for how long the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court may take to decide cases once submitted.
▶ Watch at 2:56:04Read what they said
Uh, it gives them more flexibility in how they do their surveys. Additionally, it also provides for some guidelines with regards to how long, um, the court of appeals in the Supreme Court can take in deciding cases once they are submitted to them. And with that, I'm open to any questions.
S.B. 190 Trailer Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Explains that the bill allows lifetime registration of a trailer for four times the normal fee, and that the bill was held for the fiscal note; he is open to questions.
▶ Watch at 3:13:14Read what they said
So this is the, uh, this allows for lifetime registration of a trailer. You pay four times the normal fee and we were just waiting for the fiscal note on the third sub sub to catch up. So that was why it was circled. So, uh, with that I'm open to any questions. Okay.
S.B. 235 Governor Compensation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Presents S.B. 235 to raise the Attorney General's salary to match the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, arguing the current pay is below that of starting associates in Salt Lake City and below that of the Attorney General's leadership team.
▶ Watch at 3:22:46Read what they said
This is a great bill tonight. Um, we are, we're gonna take the salary of the Attorney General and we're gonna have it match this, the chief of the Supreme Court. Um, this would, this would be an increase for our Attorney General. Um, right now our Attorney General makes, makes less than a starting associate in Salt Lake. And I, I think our Attorney General should be better, better compensated. And that's what, that's what the Bill Bill does. And, uh, I, I look at what our Attorney General is doing. I look at, um, his leadership team, they all get paid more, more than him. And it's not, it's not about an individual. I, I think when you …
S.B. 259 Evidence Declaration Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asks how the bill differs from existing remedies, since the reported violations were already breaches of law.
▶ Watch at 1:01:50Read what they said
Thank You. Yeah. Um, I think the, uh, first of all, I'm very sympathetic. I, I think I've had a pretty long record of being critical of some of the Salt Lake County, uh, prosecutions that I've seen and how they've acted. Um, I was, you know, I, I watched closely on, uh, you know, I, unfortunately, I've seen other prosecutions with similar behavior out of Salt Lake County. And what I worry about on this is, um, we oftentimes fall into the risk of somebody breaks the law. So let's make it super illegal. Can you tell me how that is different than what happened here? Um, you know, they're already under oath to, to use proper evidence. There's …
S.B. 259 Evidence Declaration Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asks why an additional signed statement is needed when attorneys already have oaths, ethical duties, judicial oversight, and bar enforcement.
▶ Watch at 1:05:45Read what they said
And, and I guess this is the last, last question. The, the concern that I have is, you know, there's already the oath for the attorney. There's already, you know, what the judge should have done in terms of caring about it, Or could have done at least Yeah. Or could have Done. Uh, there's already what the bar, you know, should do in terms of their enforcement of these. There's already what, uh, you know, the prosecutor's duty, you know, to do justice as opposed to just serve their, they have an extra duty within the framework of attorney, uh, attorney duties, um, to do justice as opposed to just serve their client's best interest. There's all of these …
S.B. 259 Evidence Declaration Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Says he will vote no, arguing that prosecutors already took oaths and should be held accountable under existing processes rather than through another signed statement.
▶ Watch at 1:22:11Read what they said
I think this is kind of the, the bigger concern on this for me, I, these are already within, in this is a, a further signature saying what you'll do, what you already took multiple oaths to do all along the process. And that's the frustrating part on this. You know, the, the prosecutor that was involved in Mr. Bullock's case, you know, I've, I've seen some of his work before and it's, I have concerns. Um, and I think that there was some really shoddy work and it was cutting corners and doing, um, in my opinion, things that were not in compliance with the oaths that were taken. Um, I, I'm not comfortable saying, now sign another document …
S.B. 105 Use of Force Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Brammer describes a hypothetical crowd shooting and asks how the bill would apply to a bystander killed by a second shooter.
▶ Watch at 1:34:12Read what they said
Yeah. So if I just want to put out a few scenarios and see where, where it would go, because I, I, I don't, a lot of times, unless we have an actual fact scenario, it's hard to know how, how you intend for this to happen. It also helps later if anyone's looking at this law, we can understand what the purpose of, of the legislation is. So let's say that you're in a crowd, it's similar to the, uh, the no Kings protest type thing. Someone brandishes a weapon and is, let's say they actually fired shots. Okay? So there's something going on there. Mm-hmm. Um, but there is a crowd behind the person and someone else pulls …
S.B. 105 Use of Force Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Brammer asks whether a person who knows they are a poor shot and hits a bystander would be criminally negligent or reckless.
▶ Watch at 1:36:11Read what they said
So let me ask a couple other follow ups. So let's say that the person who is shooting it knows that they are not a good shot, knows that they are, that they don't practice regularly, but they're aiming in the general direction of the shooter and they hit a bystander. Is that criminally negligent or reckless?
S.B. 105 Use of Force Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Brammer asks whether the bill could make legitimate self-defense less justified and whether it opens a gray area about a shooter's state of mind.
▶ Watch at 1:36:56Read what they said
Okay. And, and I guess what I worry about is are we creating a scenario where legitimate self-defense becomes less justified in it? Because even the, the act of pulling and shooting back could have a very de, you know, deterring effect on the shooter or even distracting to the shooter. Uh, you know, as far as now they're, they're focusing on that person and other people can get away. Um, even if they, you know, even if they know there's a loach possibility of them hitting someone, um, you know, if they have a handgun and they're, you know, a certain distance away, they know they're probably not gonna hit the target, but there may be an actual result …
S.B. 105 Use of Force Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Brammer says he will vote yes, may not be on the floor, and wanted more public feedback on the changes in the substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:41:22Read what they said
I'm gonna be a, a yes today. I may not be there on the floor. I I kind of was hoping to hear more from the public as to the changes in the sub, but I didn't hear much in that regard, but I'm sure that we'll hear more feedback as it moves along. And so I just, I didn't want you to feel like I'm like hurrah for all time, but I want to be there today and I want to hear from the public on the changes And I'm ditto to what he said.
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asked whether there is a difference between an unmarked vehicle and a vehicle that cannot be seen at night.
▶ Watch at 1:47:25Read what they said
Yeah. Um, in your mind, is there any difference between an unmarked vehicle and a vehicle you can't see because it's nighttime?
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asked whether an officer could write a citation under the substitute as if suspecting drunk driving.
▶ Watch at 2:04:40Read what they said
So, but under the sub, you could write it up as if you suspected them of drunk driving and then you could, right?
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Sponsor describes the bill as allowing a landlord to designate an entire housing unit as sex-designated based on biological sex and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 1:20:39Read what they said
Uh, uh, this, uh, we had a good debate, uh, yesterday on it. Uh, again, this is a bill that allows the landlord to restrict, uh, a, an entire housing unit as a sex designated unit, uh, based on biological sex. And with that, I'm open to any questions.
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Sponsor says gender identity remains a protected class, that existing law allows designating a unit by biological sex, and that units never designated could not later be restricted on gender identity grounds.
▶ Watch at 1:21:22Read what they said
Yeah, it's still a protected class. However, there are, you know, just as, as that bill protected sex as a protected class, and there's lots of bills that protect sex as an, as a protected class, you can still have a designation into a specific house, uh, for purposes of a protected class. So for example, you may, you may say, we choose to protect this area for biological females and that would still comply with the previous law, as would this Now, uh, where, and what I wanna make sure is clear this bill does not do, is if there is not a designation for the unit and somebody were to say, because you are trans identifying, you may …
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Sponsor says the bill is needed to give the law clear, enforceable definitions of female and male based on biological sex rather than gender determination.
▶ Watch at 1:24:01Read what they said
Yeah. The, the necessity, and this is also what senate, what the previous senator was asking about is what is the need for this? The need for this is, it is, it is needed to identify what can be enforced with regards to what a female is or what a male is. And so it is not a subjective gender based, uh, determination. It is determined by biological sex. And so it is that clarity within the law that we are seeking.
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Sponsor summarizes that the bill provides the clarity in law needed for intimate spaces where people live and moves that HB 404 pass to third reading.
▶ Watch at 1:24:43Read what they said
Thank you. The, uh, I would sum just saying that within the intimate spaces, which includes those that people live, we do need clarity in the law on this. And this does provide the clarity that we need. And with that, I will move that HB 4 0 4, that house Bill 4 0 4 pass the third reading calendar.
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Explains that the resolution would make prior sexual assault allegations admissible in certain adult cases, with the judge deciding admissibility, matching current juvenile and federal standards.
▶ Watch at 1:32:39Read what they said
So in crimes of sexual assault, we have two different standards. In the state of Utah, our juvenile standard allows crimes of previous sexual assault to be admissible, but our adult crimes do not. And then our federal allows it. But our but our state adult ones does not. This brings all of them in into the same evidentiary standard where it allows in adult crimes related to sexual assault. The previous, all the previous allegations of sexual assault can be admissible in certain circumstances. Uh, and the judge would still be the gatekeeper of when that's admissible or not, just as they are in the federal courts and as they are in juvenile cases. And with that, I'm open …
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Says the second substitute incorporates suggestions from the Department of Environmental Quality, with which the sponsor has been working.
▶ Watch at 2:40:39Read what they said
Yeah. This incorporates, uh, some suggestions by the Department of Environmental Quality. We've been working, uh, with them and, uh, so this includes those suggestions.
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Explains that the bill requires scientific evidence for environmental health and waste management regulations not covered by federal rules, and bars agencies from adopting standards stricter than federal ones unless the Legislature provides for them.
▶ Watch at 2:41:08Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, so what this bill does is it, uh, it basically requires that if you're going. If there is no regulation on an issue, then there needs to be some scientific reason for a regulation, uh, related to environmental health and waste management. Uh, it needs to be supported by scientific, scientific evidence. If there is a federal regulation on the issue, then it does not allow an agency to go with a more stringent than the federal standard. It would require that the legislature provide that fed that standard if it's if we decide to go above the federal standard. And with that, I'm open to any questions.
S.B. 190 Trailer Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Explains that the bill allows an owner of a non-commercial trailer to pay four times the regular trailer fee once and never pay that fee again while they own it, and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 3:03:56Read what they said
Uh, uh, so what this does is it allows, uh, a an owner of a, of a non-commercial trailer to pay four times the regular trailer fee and never have to pay that fee again as long as they own it. And with that, I'm open to any questions.
H.B. 557 Revisor's Technical Corrections to Utah Code · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Says H.B. 272 is a cleanup from a bill passed last year.
▶ Watch at 27:05Read what they said
This is a cleanup from a bill last year. Uh, essentially, uh, what we're trying
H.B. 238 Utah Energy Generation and Transmission Planning · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Moves to circle House Bill 53 so it can be held and taken up later.
▶ Watch at 1:01:51Read what they said
Senator Brammer, uh, motion to circle. Hold on. Motion. Go ahead. Gimme that motion again. Your mic. Was it on Motion to circle? Motion to circle again if you wanna run it today, we will Motion to circle.
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Presents H.B. 250, which creates a state treasurer marketplace where private retirement plan providers can offer 401k and other plans to employees of small businesses, with no mandate and no taxpayer liability.
▶ Watch at 1:11:06Read what they said
You. So, uh, I'm a small business owner. Uh, one of the difficult things is providing benefits to employees. What this does is, uh, it fills a gap on retirement plans savings. Um, and, and so what it essentially what it does is it, uh, directs the treasurer's office to create a marketplace whereby providers of 401k plans can, and other qualified retirement plans can use that marketplace and access it. Uh, they would be privately provided plans, it would just be the marketplace that is provided by the state. Um, uh, this is not a mandated plan. Uh, and funds will be managed and invested by the private sector and employees will then be able to choose between IRA …
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Presents H.B. 404 as allowing sex-designated housing under the Fair Housing Act and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 1:18:57Read what they said
Thank you. So last year we had a bill related to sex designation, designated housing for, uh, uh, college dorms. Uh, this really goes to the private sector. There's an open legal question in some jurisdictions related to whether or not if you have a space that is, uh, sex designated, how do you deal with that? If there is, uh, an issue that arises, uh, particularly as to transgender individuals that want to rent. And what this does is it says that it is not a violation of the Fair Housing Act to have a, uh, sex designated space or sex designated apartment. Uh, that, uh, especially where there's intimate spaces and that you would, that you can require …
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Responds that federal law refers to biological sex and that the bill keeps sex-designated housing as traditionally understood.
▶ Watch at 1:21:43Read what they said
Yeah. So first of all, I would just say that, um, while on the floor of the Senate, I am not acting as an attorney or giving legal advice. And so I would, you know, but, but what I would say is this issue has, uh, there was a lot of uncertainty about this over the last few years, but it's, the law has really started to evolve to be a lot more clear that when we talk about sex, it is the immutable characteristic. Particularly as to the federal laws that were passed decades ago, um, that we're really, uh, you know, by and large people were not discussing the, uh, the fluidity of gender or anything like that. …
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Gives an example of an all-female apartment near a campus where a biological male applicant would not be allowed to rent.
▶ Watch at 1:23:36Read what they said
Ahead. So what I would imagine is a common scenario where this would be implemented is, let's say that you're near a campus, you're not in the dorms, but there is an apartment, and it is an apartment that is, uh, that is being rented to all girls. And if a biological male that was presenting as a girl were to attempt to rent on the, you know, where the others had all signed up to be in an all girl apartment, that would not be allowed.
H.B. 146 Mentoring and Supporting Teacher Excellence and Refinement Program Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Moved to hold third substitute HB 230 on third reading.
▶ Watch at 1:23:57Read what they said
Yeah. Motion to Uncer HB two 30. We Have a motion to Uncer house Bill two 30.
H.B. 230 Offender Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Presents H.B. 230, which would give inmates leaving county jails state ID and HIPAA releases so parole officers can request their drug test results.
▶ Watch at 1:24:23Read what they said
So what this does is, uh, oftentimes inmates who leave county jails, uh, don't have, uh, they'll, they're oftentimes have no id or they have no ability to share drug tests that they're required to share with their, uh, parole, uh, parole officers. And so what this does is as they're leaving county jails, it provides a program that gets them ID so that they have a state issued driver's license or identification. Um, and then it also provides HIPAA releases so that any drug test that they take can be requested by their parole officer. Uh, you know, we definitely want people to be in compliance, both in terms of ID and in terms of drug testing. And if …
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Says landlords would not check anyone's sex, but a lease could be breached if a tenant misrepresented their birth sex in a shared intimate space.
▶ Watch at 1:24:34Read what they said
I think at some level, if the landlord learns now, it's not that the landlord goes and checks the sex of individuals, but where they are sharing intimate spaces, if someone were to sign up and sign a lease with regards to that was, uh, that had represented that they were a different biological sex, then the designation of the housing unit, then that would be considered a breach of the lease and they would be able to, uh, to say that the lease is no longer valid.
H.B. 230 Offender Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Says the code in question is original code already in existence and is not part of the changed portion.
▶ Watch at 1:26:13Read what they said
Yeah, this is original code that's in existence. It's not any of the part that's changed. So
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Says the bill runs parallel to federal law, noting some circuit splits and that the law generally favors this interpretation.
▶ Watch at 1:28:11Read what they said
I believe that it runs parallel. There's been some circuit splits, but gen by and large, the law favors this interpretation. The biological sex actually means the biological sex at the time of birth.
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Says landlords may designate units as male or female and that tenants who opt in can rely on that designation in the contract.
▶ Watch at 1:30:51Read what they said
Yes. They, they, the private landowner can do that if they prefer. So during the Olympics, when I presume just like in 2002 rents of, of, uh, apartments and, and actually even dorms and, and homes went sky high, we might see some rental, uh, or some landowners have some rooms that would follow, uh, this law or this, uh, bill and then rent some that at higher levels under a different set of roles. Is that correct? So let me tell you a, I'm not sure that I fully understand your question, but let me kind of cut to the chase of this. A landlord has the ability to say, I am renting this unit as a female or …
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Gives closing remarks that the bill lets landlords designate birth-sex housing that tenants can rely on, not gender-based housing, and moves the question.
▶ Watch at 1:32:45Read what they said
Yeah. So it is not discriminatory to say the market yields that I will, you know, rent this space in this way or to say, you know, it's better for me if as the landlord, if I rent to any and all takers. However, there are a, there is a high demand for people to live in a space with those of the same birth sex because they feel safer or they simply prefer to have roommates of the same birth sex, and the ability of the landlord to designate that and have people rely upon that designation is what this is about. This does not stop anyone from saying, I choose to rent to anyone in any of the …
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Says the amendment clarifies some language but the bill adds procedure that he finds opaque and hard to follow, and that the animal's care should be paid immediately, so he opposes it.
▶ Watch at 1:37:28Read what they said
I, I had a lot of concerns in committee. The, this does address one of the main concerns, which was the language that was very vague as to associated with a crime, when an animal is associated with it and what that means, uh, which really I never received a great response to, but this language helps clarify that the, the concern that I have is I just feel like it builds so much procedure into a process that I, I think it is a problem. I think it does need to be addressed. This may be be making it better, but it creates a procedure that I just view as, uh, very opaque and a difficult procedure to follow, …
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked Dr. Smith whether transgender medical care for minors was primarily provided at the University of Utah before the moratorium.
▶ Watch at 1:25:35Read what they said
Yeah, I, for Dr. Smith, actually, if you's got a second. Um, as far as the providers for, um, for transgender medical, uh, intervention for children, was that primarily being done at the University of Utah prior to the moratorium? To my understanding,
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked whether a report committee member who provided LGBTQ adolescent care had financial ties to the outcome despite disclosing none.
▶ Watch at 1:26:21Read what they said
Okay. And you know, part of the question I have is I, I go through the report and I have the report in front of me, and I've got a few of the people on it, and it has disclosures and it, it keeps saying like no financial ties for each of the, each of the people. But I look at, for example, um, uh, Nicole Mi Opolis, um, now she's an an L-G-B-T-Q, uh, adolescent care provider. And I'm trying to understand, like, did you perceive her as having some financial ties to, uh, to the outcome of the study, given that it was a moratorium on a service that she specifically provided in the state?
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked about the University of Utah pediatrics chair who served on the committee and whether pediatrics was where most care was provided.
▶ Watch at 1:27:32Read what they said
And then I, I looked up, uh, on Hello Giardino, uh, angel, I, I don't know if they call him Angel or Onlo, I don't know what his, uh, how, how he pronounces it, but Giardino, he's the chair of pediatrics at the University of Utah. That's where most of the care would've been provided presumably is within the pediatrics department at the University of Utah?
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer suggested members may have claimed no ties because the moratorium had stopped care.
▶ Watch at 1:28:14Read what they said
And, and I guess technically since there was a moratorium, they would say there was no financial tie since that had presumably stopped all care. So maybe they're going on
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked about another committee member from the Huntsman Mental Health Institute.
▶ Watch at 1:28:36Read what they said
And then so ongoing care was occurring. And then Brooks Keesen, I think I may be pronouncing that incorrectly, but, uh, uh, let's see. Yeah, Brooks Keesen, uh, he was at the Huntsman Mental Health Institute.
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked whether that institute provided medication and mental health care during transition.
▶ Watch at 1:28:54Read what they said
And, and did they provide the medication and, and mental health care during the process of, of any transition care?
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer noted that member also listed no financial ties and asked about another committee member.
▶ Watch at 1:29:13Read what they said
Care. And he also said no financial ties to the industry or pharmaceutical companies, um, on his disclosure in the study. And then Catherine Smith, do you recall her?
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer said that member wrote a book on gender-affirming therapy yet listed no financial ties.
▶ Watch at 1:29:29Read what they said
Now, I, I looked her up. She is known for writing the book Gender Ather, gender Affirming Therapy. So she literally book, wrote a book on gender affirming care, and she's listing no financial ties with regards to the Utah study.
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked whether the health department had stacked the committee with prior care providers.
▶ Watch at 1:30:03Read what they said
Yeah. And, and so I guess that's one of the concerns that I have. And it, and it's kind of been, you know, you're, you're talking about a study created by our health department where they kind of stacked the committee with the people that were providing care prior to the passage of the bill. And is that a fair characterization?
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer said the members would likely serve on any expert panel if the moratorium were lifted and faulted them for not disclosing conflicts.
▶ Watch at 1:30:53Read what they said
Yeah. And, and I guess that that's been my concern on the, on the study, um, is they didn't, none of them declared financial ties or that if a moratorium was lifted, you know, all of the recommendations are, you need a panel of experts that can come up with the, with the process of care, and guess who's waiting there? The very committee members are, you know, are they're waiting to, to be the panel of experts to lift a moratorium to then start the care again. And, and so they certainly had a financial tie, you know, in that, in that respect. And, and so I'm, I'm frustrated that they did not, I mean, all they had to …
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer thanked the chair for allowing him extra time.
▶ Watch at 1:32:14Read what they said
Yeah. And so Thank you, thank you Chair for allowing me a little leeway on
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Brammer renewed his motion to favorably recommend the bill as amended.
▶ Watch at 2:11:40Read what they said
I'll, I'll renew the motion to recommend favorably HB 1 74 as amended for substitute.
S.B. 105 Use of Force Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asks the sponsor whether the justification hearing is central to the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:28:17Read what they said
Yeah, I, I guess the first thing I want to know is, uh, to the bill sponsor, do you feel the justification hearing is the meat of the bill? Like, is that something that you need in this bill?
S.B. 105 Use of Force Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor is trying to remove the justification hearing.
▶ Watch at 2:29:00Read what they said
Let me, let me rephrase. Okay. Are you trying to get rid of the justification in these I situations?
S.B. 105 Use of Force Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Says he is concerned about removing the justification process and cannot support the bill as written, and offers to work on removing that part. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:29:28Read what they said
Okay. I, I'll, I'll just be candid. I am concerned about teeing out the justification. Okay. Like if you're trying to fill in a hole of something that happened in that. But I don't want to use a bad situation to, to undo a policy that we have voted that we wanted. And so, um, so I'm happy to to work with you a little bit on that, but I'm not gonna, I I can't go for the bill as it is today. And so if, if someone else wants to try to move it, you might, you may have the votes. I don't know. But I, I can't be there while the, the removal of the justification defense process …
H.B. 52 Tribal Endorsement of Utah Driver License Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Explains that the bill allows a tribal endorsement on driver licenses and ID cards, and that the substitute removes the fiscal note by identifying other funding sources for the system reprogramming.
▶ Watch at 1:54Read what they said
Yeah. So what this bill does overall is it allows for a tribal endorsement to be placed on, uh, on a driver's license or an identification card. Uh, that requires summary reprogramming of the systems to be able to do that. Um, and what the sub does is it, i, it cleans up the fiscal note so that now it will not be a fiscal bill, uh, by identifying different sources to, uh, to do that reprogramming so that it, uh, removes the fiscal note on it. And so, uh, with that I'll an, I'll answer any questions as to the sub.
H.B. 52 Tribal Endorsement of Utah Driver License Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Says the bill allows tribal identification to be placed on a driver license or other state identification and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 2:53Read what they said
Yeah. Uh, so like I said, this just allows, uh, the tribal, uh, identification to be placed on the, uh, driver's license or other state identification. And, uh, with that, I'll, uh, take any questions on the bill.
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Presents the resolution to study the feasibility of a night and weekend law school at Utah Valley University to address the supply of attorneys, especially for local government.
▶ Watch at 31:17Read what they said
and the feasibility for a law school located at UVU. The intent would be this would be a night and weekend law school to bolster our supply, particularly on the, uh, municipal county and local government level for attorneys. And with that, I'm open to any questions. Thank you.
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Answers that cities report difficulty staffing prosecutor and defense positions, that the number of attorneys is not keeping pace with growth and government needs, that current law school enrollment is limited, and that out-of-state firms are hiring Utah attorneys.
▶ Watch at 31:51Read what they said
Yeah, there's a few reasons. So, as a chair of the sub appropriation committee related to criminal justice, um, we're having a hard time staffing and, and a lot of the cities are contacting us with trouble staffing their local, uh, prosecutor and defense, uh, positions. And then, uh, the other thing, and this is somewhat on anecdotal, I know a lot of really bad attorneys that are not short on work. Um, but the, uh, you know, ultimately it may not be the case and that's part of the feasibility. But I would say that we have had, you know, currently the University of Utah and BYU have an enrollment of about 220 total students, and that's fluctuated a …
H.B. 557 Revisor's Technical Corrections to Utah Code · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Explains that H.B. 272 requires counties seeking tourism tax (TRT) money to file prior-year reports, which lets the state auditor withhold funds until they comply.
▶ Watch at 33:03Read what they said
What this does is it requires the reporting for the tourism tax, also known as TRT. The counties that are, uh, seeking TRT money, they just need to file their reports for the year before, before they can get new money. This allows the auditor to, uh, hold that over their heads until they comply with the appropriate reports. Okay. And so that is the substance of the bill. Thank you. Discussion.
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Says he is not certain why UVU was chosen and notes that UVU was founded with an undergraduate focus, so a law school would be a significant change in scope.
▶ Watch at 34:09Read what they said
I'm not necessarily sure. As we talked about creating UVU and it was becoming a university, we were focused on undergraduate and we were focused on that type of work. It was not focused on research, it was not focused on graduate level degree. So this is a significant change in scope in some ways. Uh, for those of us who've been around maybe two long one could argue.
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Explains that the night and weekend format drives the location choice, that the program would partner with the University of Utah law school, that a feasibility study could change the location, and that UVU has existing buildings at Thanksgiving Point.
▶ Watch at 34:35Read what they said
So, so there's kind of two questions in that. The first is, why is this centered on that area? Um, and largely that's dictated by the nature of the school being a night and weekend school. And so the idea for that is we do need to pull from the faculty of the University of Utah and from BYU in order to make this happen. Uh, and so faculty needs and where they can get to is an important component. If we do a, a traditional law school, I think it would make sense to do it further off of the Wasatch front. That makes total sense to me. Um, if there's a demand, however, we are focusing on back …
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Says he is willing to circle the bill but is disappointed he was not told about the concerns sooner. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 39:08Read what they said
Senator Brammer, I'm Willing to circle, but I am disappointed since this is the first I've heard of it and I sit next to you. Oh, whoa. Well, I appreciate that question. Uh, I, I would like to have had less than you today. I'm gonna, I'm gonna let this call, but I'm not sure I should. But anyway, I, I'll, I'll just say I would like to have less to do and unfortunately this came up before I had a chance to talk to you. So for that, I apologize. Thank you. Thank you.
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Responds that no other institution has committed to funding a study, that UVU will conduct the study at its own cost, that the courts, judiciary and bar support the need, and moves to pass the resolution.
▶ Watch at 42:19Read what they said
Yeah, you know, I, I appreciate the effort to circle and to reconsider the, the positions, but I have no commitment from any of the other institutions as to funding the study in internally. And so if I circle it, I have no ability. I do have a commitment from UVU to at least study it and for them to foot the bill on it. And this body can reject it in the future. But all this is doing is just looking at the feasibility for it. And so, you know, this is a real need. It's something that, that has the support of the courts. It has the support of the judiciary. Uh, it has the, the support of …
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Opposes the substitute, preferring a full ban rather than a regulatory framework, and expects higher regulatory and fiscal costs.
▶ Watch at 1:08:53Read what they said
Yeah, I actually do not like the substitute. I'd prefer to just be done with raum, not have a regulatory environment related to it. Um, I think it's gonna be more expensive to regulate. I think that the fiscal bill, the fiscal note, probably, you know, I haven't seen one come through for the second substitute, but, uh, I would guess that it goes up. Um, when you just say you can't use, you can't sell crem. It's a lot easier to regulate than if you say you can, you can sell certain types of creto but not others. And then there's a whole testing regulatory environment. So I would speak against the substitute. I, uh, I like the original …
H.B. 64 School and Institutional Trust Lands Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Brammer asks what scientifically significant sites would mean under the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:27:19Read what they said
Uh, um, where it talks about scientifically significant sites, um, can you gimme an idea of what that would mean?
H.B. 64 School and Institutional Trust Lands Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Brammer asks whether ownership of a nominated site transfers to the nominating group or stays with trust lands.
▶ Watch at 1:27:57Read what they said
the first is related to the ownership. If a, if a site is nominated, does the ownership transfer to the nominating group or does it stay with ctla
H.B. 64 School and Institutional Trust Lands Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Brammer asks who would be responsible for maintenance and facility costs at culturally significant sites that may see heavy foot traffic.
▶ Watch at 1:28:34Read what they said
Okay. Then the last question, Senator Brammer is related to Senator. Yeah, the last question is related to maintenance. Uh, if there is a site that's getting, you know, a good amount more foot traffic or something like that, which I, I expect some of the culturally significant ones may, uh, especially once it's nominated, those may create a, a lot of foot traffic who would be ultimately responsible for the costs of maintenance and any facilities that may be needed related to a culturally Significant site.
S.B. 287 Targeted Advertising Tax · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asks about preemption concerns under the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act.
▶ Watch at 56:40Read what they said
Yeah. Can you talk a little bit about the preemption issue with regards to the Internet Tax Freedom Act?
S.B. 287 Targeted Advertising Tax · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Has concerns that the bill is preempted under the Internet Tax Freedom Act and about its tax structure, and will vote yes to move it out of committee while opposing it on the floor.
▶ Watch at 1:19:36Read what they said
Yeah, I, I have a lot of concerns on this. I'm going to be a yes to help you get outta committee, uh, but I just want you to know on a few of the things. Number one, I think you're preempted. Uh, I haven't seen good arguments or heard good arguments as to how this does not, uh, violate the internet, uh, tax Freedom Act. Um, you know, typically you would look at whether it's a state tax, whether it's imposed on electronic commerce, and, uh, whether the similar rate is imposed on other similar services. And, uh, you've kind of violated it in a couple of ways. Not only is it similarly imposed on or not, is it, …
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asks how construction timing is defined and which facilities the amendment would cover.
▶ Watch at 1:29:41Read what they said
Yeah. Um, is there anything that will, uh, constructed isn't really defined as far as when it begins or when it ends? Are there any fac which facility are you talking about? Or are there any else that would be captured in this?
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Gives a hypothetical about a property owner creating a homeless services bed to reduce taxes.
▶ Watch at 1:31:03Read what they said
Let me, let me give you a, a scenario if that's all right. Chair. Um, let's say that I have a high rise in downtown Salt Lake and a lot next to it, and I own both of them. And I decided I want to pay less taxes. And so I create a homeless services bed. Your 500 beds on the lot next to my high-rise, and now my property tax gets cut in half. Um, wouldn't that also happen in this,
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Suggests naming the specific shelter in the bill so it cannot be applied more broadly.
▶ Watch at 1:31:39Read what they said
Yeah. What I'm saying is, rather than say something that has 500 y, but just say the name of what the homeless shelter you're talking about, that way it doesn't spread or it can't be manipulated.
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Says naming the facility would be a reasonable suggestion for the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:31:52Read what they said
Okay. But that's just a suggestion on the bill. Like, you know, if this is about a specific facility, it is, let's make it about the facility and not a criteria that could be met in a manipulative way in in other situations. I hope that
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asks how the credit would work for property owned by LLCs and pass-through entities.
▶ Watch at 1:36:57Read what they said
This is kind of just to understand the nuts and bolts of how it would work. Um, I would guess that almost every property around the, not everyone, but a good chunk of them are owned by LLCs. You know, it's a, it's a corporate property and usually those are pass through entities. Okay. So let's say that you have, uh, an LLC Landco owns a property next to the homeless shelter. Um, and would that come from the owner of Land CO's income tax, or would it have to declare tax for itself in order to take advantage of declare income for itself in order to take advantage of this?
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Argues the income tax source may not reach the property owners the credit targets and suggests the property tax may be more appropriate.
▶ Watch at 1:38:05Read what they said
I'm, and the reason why I say that is I'm trying to understand, like trying to think if, if I were consulting with someone on how to structure something to take advantage of this tax credit, um, now I wouldn't do the tax side of it, but I would be doing the entity side of it. You know, it, most of those entities are passed their entities, so they have no income per se. Correct. Everything goes to either another corporate entity or to an to a person, and then it's part of their tax bill. So, um, I just worry that it's not hitting who you want if you do it out of the income tax. Whereas the property …
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Raises concern that a non-refundable credit would favor taxpayers with higher income.
▶ Watch at 1:40:05Read what they said
And the only other concern that I have is, you know, you, you've almost set up a regressive tax tax credit system on this. And the reason why I say that is you only get, it's a non-refundable, which means you'd have to have a higher income in order to get the, as much value. So the higher income you have, the more tax credit you get, even though the burden on the property is the same. And if you have a low income and very low tax burden, you get almost nothing. And so, like I worry about the functionality of that piece on it.
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asks about the rationale for the one-mile radius given that Interstate 15 runs through the area and its effect on people east and west of the highway.
▶ Watch at 1:40:52Read what they said
Uh, I just, I just pulled up the physical location and was just trying to do some math on what a mile is. Mm-hmm. And then I remembered that I two 15 runs right through there. Mm-hmm. You know, and so I'm, I'm trying to figure out the rationale. If you, you know, if you take a, a, you know, a circle and, you know, draw radius that is mile and then, you know, draw it out as I look at this once I 15 is in between that and the other, you know, I, I'm just trying to figure out what we think the impact will be to people on the east side of two 15 versus people to …
S.B. 279 State Homeless Campus Neighbor Tax Credit · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Says he will vote aye, which creates a tie, and suggests the bill could be worked on in another committee.
▶ Watch at 1:45:26Read what they said
Yeah. Okay. I am going to vote. Aye, put you in a tie, but at least gives you an opportunity to work with everybody else.
H.B. 236 Truth in Taxation Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked whether local entities must follow through on the budget they present with a tax increase, or could later amend it, and whether the bill is meant to prevent manipulating budgets to make a tax increase more desirable.
▶ Watch at 1:49:30Read what they said
I, I like a lot of what's in here. One of my questions is how tied to carrying out the budget would they need to be? So for example, if they put a bunch of things that are basically, and we're gonna use like a bad scenario, but it's like, um, you know, this is how we, you know, we're including in our, if we get the tax increase, then we're gonna save all the drowning puppies. Right. You know? Mm-hmm. And, and, and then, you know, if they don't do it, you know, then they still save the, the drowning puppies. But they Right. You know, they put the candy in the budget as part of what's on the …
H.B. 236 Truth in Taxation Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Spoke in favor of the bill, saying it brings solid budgeting principles and more transparency.
▶ Watch at 1:55:10Read what they said
Yeah, I think it's a great bill. I like the, I, I think it makes sense. It, it brings more solid budgeting principles to the table, um, and more transparency. And so I really appreciate the bill. Thank you.
H.B. 222 Limitation of Actions Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked whether the clear and convincing standard also applies to causation, not only to permit violations.
▶ Watch at 41:25Read what they said
Oh, sorry. Oh, go ahead. Just trying To get unmuted. So the, I think the question I had is more tied to the clear convincing standard. Uh, it's for either of the current, uh, people up there or the, or the people who came and testified. But I, I would assume that the clear and convincing is not just that they're outta their permit, but also as to causation, which I think is a big part of this. Would it also apply to Causational fact,
H.B. 222 Limitation of Actions Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Said he wanted the legislative record to show the standard applies to causation.
▶ Watch at 42:05Read what they said
Yeah, that, that's great. And I, I appreciate that. I, you know, that's the, uh, that's kind of where I was hoping you'd go. I, I think that it makes sense. I wanted to make sure that the legislative record was clear that we were intending that this also applied to causation. Thanks.
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Will vote yes, notes interest in whether seatbelt non-use should be a defense, and has some concern about the letter's prescriptive nature but trusts the sponsor to keep working on it.
▶ Watch at 1:06:09Read what they said
Yeah, I, I will be a yes on, on this. I, I do think it's interesting on the seat belt stuff. I, I, uh, I have my own thoughts on whether we should have the seat belts as a defense. I, I generally prefer that, but, uh, but that's not the law now. Um, I've got a little bit of concern on the prescriptive nature of the letter, but I think that I trust Senator Musselman to continue to work through that. And so with that, I will be a yes. Thanks.
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Said the bill moves the trigger earlier, to arrest or charge, so students can be protected while defendants keep their rights, and said he appreciates the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:18:34Read what they said
Brammer? Yeah, Just real quick. Uh, the thing that I do like about this is before it had, uh, where they have committed, which, which could be interpreted as once they've been found guilty, then they can adopt a, a policy. And I like that this moves it up to where, you know, they still have all their rights as a defendant as to whether they're found guilty or not. But I like that we're protecting any potential victims, uh, you know, once they've been arrested for the crime or arrested, you know, for whatever the circumstance may be. And it just moves that up a little bit so that we can protect students. While there's a doubt, uh, because …
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked whether the bill's limit on transferring an owner's rights to household members is a higher standard than applies to children and parents.
▶ Watch at 1:22:20Read what they said
Yeah, I'm, I'm looking at line 3 0 5. It says the court may not transfer the animal owner's rights to the animal to any person who resides with the animal owner. Um, that actually seems like a higher standard than we have for children and their parents. Is it?
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked whether the court is barred from transferring the owner's rights even after completing the procedure.
▶ Watch at 1:23:06Read what they said
But this says the court, even if the court goes through the procedure, they can't do that. Right?
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Said he has concerns that the bill gives courts less discretion for animals than for children, and asked what happens if an animal trained to attack is involved in a crime.
▶ Watch at 1:23:23Read what they said
Yeah. And so I, I do have concerns that it actually, uh, gives the court less discretion when it comes to animals than it does with children, which is an interesting dichotomy. And then, uh, up above where it has, you know, an animal's involvement in a crime, you know, what does that mean? Like if the animal is, uh, for example, let's say that somebody had trained an animal to attack someone and the animal is involved in the crime, what happens then?
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked what 'associated with a crime' means in the bill, noting the term is not defined, and asked that someone come up to answer.
▶ Watch at 1:24:14Read what they said
So let me be a little more specific. On line 79, it says, an animal that is associated with a crime or an animal abuse charge. So what does it mean to be associated with a crime? Does that include if the animal is part of the crime, It's when the animal is being abused? Um, but it, would it be okay if I asked someone to come up and, and answer that question? Sure. Yeah. Okay. I just wanna make sure it's answered correctly. And the reason why I ask is because there's clearly two different categories. There's an animal abuse charge, which is one, and then there's something else called associated with a crime. But that doesn't seem …
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked what it means for an animal to be associated with a crime.
▶ Watch at 1:26:15Read what they said
What does it mean to be a, for an animal to be associated with a crime? Okay.
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked whether an animal associated with a crime would typically be euthanized.
▶ Watch at 1:27:17Read what they said
I mean, wouldn't, if an animal was associated with a crime like that, wouldn't we typically put it down? And I, I believe that that's an under existing, you have a Right to place it somewhere else because of this.
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked who paid for the animal's three years of sheltering.
▶ Watch at 1:30:34Read what they said
Thank you. Just one question. So who in your situation with Biscuit, um, who paid for those three years of sheltering? Do you know? Did you have to pay for that?
H.B. 87 Animal Crime Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Said he still has concerns about loose language and a cumbersome process, preferred a clearer forfeiture rule, and said he would vote no.
▶ Watch at 1:40:26Read what they said
Yeah, I, I still have concerns with the language. I think it's a little loose. I also think the, the policy is quite cumbersome. I, I'd probably prefer something that says, you know, you have to give notice to the owner in their household, and if nobody picks it up, it's forfeited, or you have to, they have to pay the bill to care for the animal, or the, the ownership is forfeited and they can, and, and ownership transfers, uh, rather than what I view as a pretty cumbersome process. And I understand that forfeiture gets, uh, you know, gets in the middle of all of this, but I, this just seems, uh, a very procedurally cumbersome process with, …
S.B. 59 Alimony Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Presents SB 63 and says it would allow choke holds in mixed martial arts when both participants consent and the practice is part of the rules.
▶ Watch at 33:26Read what they said
Yeah, this is, uh, a bill that, uh, in, in mixed martial arts situations, as long as both people are participating and it's a common practice and part of the rules, uh, then choke holds are not banned. And so it just kind of updates our code to allow what is a, a pretty common practice in certain mixed martial arts, uh, situations.
S.B. 59 Alimony Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Begins presenting SB 68 and describes litigation in California and Florida that uses AI tools.
▶ Watch at 35:17Read what they said
Yeah, this, this relates to litigation that's happening mostly in California and Florida, where, uh, they're using AI to go through,
S.B. 59 Alimony Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Begins presenting Senate Bill 68 and says it relates to litigation happening mostly in California and Florida that uses AI to go through records.
▶ Watch at 35:17Read what they said
Yeah, this, this relates to litigation that's happening mostly in California and Florida, where, uh, they're using AI to go through,
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Explains that SB 68 lets a website-accessibility claim proceed after the website owner is notified and given time to fix the problem, and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 35:22Read what they said
and Florida, where, uh, they're using AI to go through, uh, various websites, finding a DA violations and then filing suit. Uh, what this does is, you know, you can still file suit when someone, uh, has an a DA violation on their website, but you have to give them a little bit of time to fix it after they're notified. And so that's the main substance of the bill and I'm open to any questions on it?
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Presents the bill to authorize the State Board of Higher Education and UVU to study a night and weekend law school, possibly at UVU's Thanksgiving Point campus, citing attorney shortages and population growth.
▶ Watch at 1:05:19Read what they said
What this does is it authorizes, uh, the State Board of Higher Education and UVU to conduct a study and a feasibility study in particular as to what would be needed in order to do a night and weekend law school at the, at UVU or at another location. But, uh, we're we're actually targeting, uh, UVU and it would be their Thanksgiving point campus. Uh, we've been producing about the same number of attorneys, uh, for a little over 40 years. So roughly between 200 and 250 attorneys each year between our two law schools. Um, our population is doubled, but uh, we are falling behind in terms and the, the, uh, need is, is significant. So, uh, and …
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Says he met with the chair of the State Board of Higher Education, who supports exploring the option and a feasibility study, and that the board will wait for data before further decisions.
▶ Watch at 1:06:51Read what they said
Yeah, we, I've met with, uh, with the state, well with the chairman of the state board of higher ed. Uh, they were supportive of definitely of exploring it and getting the feasibility study and working on that. Uh, they want to look at the feasibility study for, uh, you know, to make decisions, but that's not what this bill is about. It's about exploring that option and they were very supportive of that. They see, they see the likely need, but we'll wait for the data to come in before and I think it's wise to wait for that to come in before making a further decision beyond just doing the feasibility study. Thank
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Explains that the amendment removes the change to the county officials qualification process and keeps the current process in place.
▶ Watch at 1:27:23Read what they said
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.
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Gives summation for the amendment, saying it is meant to help the good parts of the bill move forward.
▶ Watch at 1:29:36Read what they said
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.
S.B. 193 State Legal Holiday Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asked Sen. Stratton to clarify what the options are, including the amendment and whether it would become a resolution.
▶ Watch at 51:41Read what they said
So I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on exactly what you're, like, what the options are, I guess before, thank you. So we've got the amendment to, uh, maybe, uh, you wanted to remove lines 35 through 37, and did you want to convert it to a resolution or what, what were you, what were you thinking as the option to
S.B. 193 State Legal Holiday Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asked whether the committee should pass the bill as is with a commitment to amend, or hold it until the amendment is ready.
▶ Watch at 54:40Read what they said
So I guess what I'm trying to at is we don't have the amendment before us. Do you want us to pass the bill as is with the commitment that you're going to amend? Or do you want us to hold and wait for the amendment?
S.B. 193 State Legal Holiday Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Said he understood the sponsor's preference and agreed with the proposed approach.
▶ Watch at 54:57Read what they said
But I understand if you No, and that was the main thing. I was just trying to get the Thank you. Get That. Um, and I, and I think I'm, I'm on board with that from what you've described. I think, uh, there's some some good solutions in there. And, and so I just wanted to make sure I understood what your preference was on, on today's actions, A complicated discussion between two attorneys. But all simplify it. It, thank you. Thank you.
S.B. 243 Tax Increment Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asks whether the bill applies only to future tax increment financing or would renegotiate existing agreements.
▶ Watch at 1:09:08Read what they said
Um, does this, is this only for tax increment financing moving forward, or would this be a renegotiation of existing tax increment financing?
S.B. 243 Tax Increment Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asks that the bill not be retroactive, noting existing tax increment zones and bonding contracts.
▶ Watch at 1:09:26Read what they said
So it's not, it's not your intent to go back in time if someone's, you know, not retroactive. Yeah, just, just making sure that 'cause there are active Yep. Tax increment finance zones, and Yep. You know, changing contractual terms with bonding is a little rough. And so, okay. That's helpful to know. Thanks.
S.B. 243 Tax Increment Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor has talked with lenders and developers about whether the new terms fit existing deal structures.
▶ Watch at 1:11:24Read what they said
Okay. Um, the next question is more tied to, you know, have you worked with any of the, uh, tax increment financing? Well, there, there's typically a lender behind these. Have you worked with the lenders to see how, how well this does with the terms and with the market and the developers that, that are in this H-H-T-R-Z area to see if this is congruent with the type of deal structure. They may not like the deal structure, but does it work within the deal structure that they're doing? Or are we going to, does this just ultimately kill the project as opposed to amend the terms? Does, does that make sense? Mm-hmm.
S.B. 243 Tax Increment Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Votes no, saying the changes need a measured approach with market research and input from all parties before adoption.
▶ Watch at 1:19:10Read what they said
Yeah, I, I'm, I'm gonna be a, a no on it, but it's mostly because I do think that if we're going to adjust this, it needs to be a measured approach that isn't only taking input from one side. I I, you know, I don't know why going from 25 to 15 years is the right number, or from 45 to 30 years is the right number, or from 80% to 50% is the right number because there's been no market research or discussion as to whether it's going to be congruent with the ultimate goal of the HTRZ, which was around our transit stations. We need higher density housing. And so this will create an economic incentive for …
H.J.R. 1 Joint Rules Resolution - Amendments to Joint Rules · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Brammer says the bill was discussed the previous day and that it codifies practices of the judicial conduct commission.
▶ Watch at 18:47Read what they said
Thank you. So we discussed this a little bit yesterday. What this does is it codifies things that the judicial, uh,
H.B. 186 Judicial Conduct Commission Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Presents H.B. 186, describing changes to Judicial Conduct Commission procedures on complaint referrals, guidance on certain records requests, and reporting to the legislature, then asks for questions.
▶ Watch at 18:52Read what they said
conduct Commission is already doing. Several of them relate to when, if there is a complaint that is initiated by the Utah Supreme Court, which they have the power to do independently, then it, it asks them to refer the complaint also to the Judicial Conduct Commission so that we can independently investigate it. And then it also provides, uh, some guidance as to dealing with grandma requests, uh, which have traditionally been upheld that the Judicial Conduct Commission is not subject to grandma in most circumstances. Uh, and this codifies that. And then, uh, so it turns it from a principle based denial to a codified denial. And then, uh, this also has some reporting back to the legislature …
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Explained that the bill requires disclosure when a lobbyist has an interest in an entity whose value would rise if a policy or appropriation passed, puts nonprofit higher education under the same rules as public universities, allows plays and similar events, adds detail to definitions, and raises gift and book limits for inflation from $10 to $25 and $30 to $50.
▶ Watch at 27:27Read what they said
Alright, thank you. So this is, uh, this is the bill that, uh, the main point of the bill is to, uh, make sure that, uh, we already outlaw contingency lobbying. What this does is it, it requires disclosure if somebody has an interest in an entity, that if the policy were to be passed or a request for appropriation were to be approved, that the entity's value would go up significantly, which is really a contingency by another name. And so we want to increase that transparency. This also amends with regards to higher education and what they can do in interacting with the legislature. And specifically it puts nonprofit higher education on the same grounds in turn on …
S.B. 63 Assault Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Presents the bill as a minor change so that strangulation within sanctioned mutual-combat sports under official rules is not a crime, and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 52:12Read what they said
This was brought to me by a constituent. It's a very minor modification on, uh, we have a lot of people who participate in mixed martial arts and as part of mixed martial arts, it is oftentimes, uh, strangulation is actually part of the sport, but it runs a little counter to our strangulation statutes. So this creates an exception that when you are in mutual combat, and it is part of the official rules, that there is some allowance for strangulation. It's kind of an odd, odd way, but we don't want to create, uh, criminals where we're not trying to. And so with that, I'm open to any questions on it?
S.B. 63 Assault Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Says the issue is not a prosecution but whether sanctioned tournaments can apply their rules in Utah, and that the bill is a narrow exception for those competitions, which passed unanimously last year.
▶ Watch at 53:54Read what they said
Yeah, it, Senator Brammer, It's not necessarily that there's a prosecution related to it, but it's related to whether or not within the normal rules they can apply those within Utah, um, in tournaments, uh, that are applied everywhere else. And they're just trying to make a narrow exception related to that. This is a bill that went through last year and it was, I think third on the board. So everybody's already voted for this once and, and we're just trying to get it over the line this time. It was unanimous throughout, uh, the year last year. But, but it's related to those, uh, making sure that the tournaments can hold their, their competitions without having to change …
S.B. 63 Assault Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Summarizes that the exception is narrowly tailored to competitions where all participants agree and follow the rules, says it is not meant to open the door to domestic violence, and says he is open to changes to ensure that.
▶ Watch at 54:57Read what they said
Yeah, the only summation I would have is, and I think that it's a, it's, we wanna make sure that it's very narrowly tailored. That this is not an excuse to open up the door for domestic violence. We've worked very hard to achieve that balance. And so if you look at, uh, lines 41 through 46, you'll see that the exception is really limited, um, within a competition or practice for competition environment where everybody is on board and, and actually participating and it's part of their rules. Um, I I don't see a way for this to be opened up to domestic violence. If there is a way I am open to changing it so that it could …
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Brammer explains that the bill requires businesses and website operators to get notice and a chance to fix alleged ADA website violations before a lawsuit is filed.
▶ Watch at 59:01Read what they said
to get out ahead of a problem that we've had. Uh, what's been happening is with the rise of ai, um, if you recall a few years ago, there were several lawsuits where they were going to businesses and kind of extorting them based on a DA violations. And it got to where it was abusive. And, and the judiciary, the judiciary Committee had to really step in. We're seeing something similar where they're looking at websites and of course we want websites to be aada a accessible, but what's happening is they're sending out AI bots to track thousands of websites, file complaints automatically. And this has become a big problem in California and Florida. We're trying to get …
S.B. 143 Utah Exemptions Act Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks whether the disability language in subsection B has any limit and who determines disability, using a vehicle with a custom audio-visual system as an example.
▶ Watch at 1:28:10Read what they said
Yeah, I'm looking at line 50, um, and it's subsection B uh, to several subsections, but it, it, in subsection A, you have a limiting factor on a person with disabilities if the dis which limits or impairs the ability to walk as that term is defined in the code of federal regulation. But then in B it just has a really broad without any limiting language. And I'm wondering if there is any limit and, and who determines disability under subsection B? So, for example, if, if I make the car let, let's say that I have a car that I have an autistic child, but I decide that they need to have a really good audio visual system …
S.B. 143 Utah Exemptions Act Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Agrees the two provisions are tied together and says that approach makes sense given the cost of modifying vehicles for mobility disabilities.
▶ Watch at 1:29:30Read what they said
Yeah. So you're tying the two together and 'cause you would need it for the ability to actually get somewhere. Yeah. And I really like that side of it. 'cause I, I have had, you know, friends and, and other people that it takes a lot to modify a vehicle for someone with, you know, with some mobility disabilities and, and that kinda thing. So I, I really like that and that I like that makes sense with the and mm-hmm. On it. And tying those two together, I kind of just wanted to make sure that was out there.
S.B. 143 Utah Exemptions Act Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says he is hesitant about the $15,000 figure because it is a fivefold increase.
▶ Watch at 1:29:59Read what they said
But I am a little bit hesitant on the 15,000 as far as that's a, that's, you know, a five x jump. And so I, you know, I'm a little, little concerned on that amount. So Yeah.
S.B. 143 Utah Exemptions Act Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Suggests starting at $10,000 and automatically increasing to $15,000 in 2035.
▶ Watch at 1:30:50Read what they said
But I, I've been thinking exactly like you Have been. Yeah. Or even something like 10,000 and in 2035 it automatically adjusts to 15,000, something like that.
S.B. 143 Utah Exemptions Act Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says he still has concerns about the $15,000 figure.
▶ Watch at 1:31:00Read what they said
But I still have some concerns on the 15th that, that's my only other concern on it. Thanks.
S.B. 270 State Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Supports the bill as a practical approach to debt collection and eviction cases, citing past pilot programs, and notes that the bill's structure differs from creating a new court because venue and jurisdiction would change at the district court level.
▶ Watch at 1:52:27Read what they said
Yeah. Um, first of all, I, I appreciate the bill. I, um, you know, the, a lot of the access to Justice initiatives are trying, really what they're trying to get at is how do we deal with debt collection issues since that's where the vast majority of people are, are dealing with. I mean, couldn't we just do a sandbox and solve this? I I would argue that, uh, I'm just having fun with the courts. Um, we, But, but, but lemme address that seriously though, like Salt Lake, actually maybe 10 years. I don't know how, how long has Judge K been off the bench, but I would argue Judge K up in the second district was kind …
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Comments that prosecutors and defense attorneys have different duties, so committee balance should be viewed differently, and appreciates the changes.
▶ Watch at 2:31:28Read what they said
Uh, I'll, I'll take the chair's prerogative briefly and, and just say, I appreciate the changes. I think, you know, one of the interesting things on this is, uh, you know, this has become a, there's oftentimes statements saying, well, you have this many defense and this many prosecutors, and therefore there's some kind of imbalance and that kind of thing. But the duties of the attorneys that are involved are a little bit different than typical. And you have to remember that the prosecutors do not have a duty to their client. Their, their duty is not to just prosecute, uh, you know, in favor of the state, is it is to do justice, which is a different duty …
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says the panel option applies narrowly to cases pending when the new court is created, is limited to statewide issues for the governor, attorney general, and legislature, and that panel judges have the same authority as a single judge.
▶ Watch at 38:17Read what they said
Yeah, so what this does, and, and this isn't, um, Let me make sure, okay, there we go. Uh, so the primary thing that is that this allows, is upon the creation of the court. It allows for that deadline to start, and then every other case thereafter will be, because there are cases pending that qualify for this, and it allows those to go into the court. Now, those judges that are, the panel judges are empowered with the same authority. And presumably it should not matter which judge you have as to the outcome of a case. Um, you know, and so the jurisdictional power and the responsibilities are identical. The only thing that you're getting is more …
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says panels are typically not faster than a single judge but receive more resources, such as two clerks, and that spreading cases across judges reduces local pressure on one judge.
▶ Watch at 41:52Read what they said
I think, I don't think the panels are typically faster than a single judge. Now that being said, this does have more resources directed to it. So what we saw in, uh, you know, what we see oftentimes in these bigger statewide decisions, our district courts and the way that their dockets are managed, they are not given the resources they need to handle a really big case. And the reason is, if you're gonna have an 80, 90 page decision and you have a quarter of a clerk, that means that you have a judge that is sitting there in the middle of the night drafting because they have an entire docket the whole day. And our, and I'm …
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Thanks the committee and says he appreciates the work of the House Rules Committee.
▶ Watch at 47:24Read what they said
Uh, thank you to the favorite committee I've ever served on. So I, I really, uh, appreciate coming to Rules Committee and I miss it. And I like that the Rules committee in the house really matters in the Senate. It kind of is sifting, don't tell Lincoln I said that, but, uh, but I really appreciate the House Rules Committee and all they do. Thanks. Well,
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Says the resolution is the companion to the previous bill and sets out court procedures to implement the earlier vote, then moves the question.
▶ Watch at 44:12Read what they said
Thank you. I won't overspeak this. Uh, this is the companion bill to the last one. Uh, I hope everyone that left the floor comes back 'cause I'm gonna call the Senate again 'cause it requires a constitutional majority. Um, but this provides the, the court procedure to implement, uh, what we just voted on in past. And so with that, I will move the question. Thank you.
H.B. 40 Utah Construction Trades Licensing Act Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Presents first substitute H.B. 79, which restores governmental immunity in disaster situations and for EMS and firefighters delivering emergency services, in response to a Supreme Court decision.
▶ Watch at 1:01:11Read what they said
Yeah, we, we've talked a little bit about this. This arises from the our mentee, uh, Supreme Court decision. This restores government immunity for in disaster situations and for EMS and firefighters delivering emergency services. And so with that, I'll open for any questions.
H.B. 186 Judicial Conduct Commission Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Brammer says H.B. 186 makes mild adjustments to the Judicial Conduct Commission to clarify actions between the committee and the Utah Supreme Court, and calls it a fairly procedural bill.
▶ Watch at 1:09:09Read what they said
Thank you. This makes a couple of very mild adjustments to the Judicial Conduct Commission. Uh, what the Judicial Conduct Commission does is when there's a complaint against a judge, it comes to a committee and that committee has, uh, it, it's, uh, it's broad based. It, uh, Senator Plumb and I both serve on that committee from the Senate. Uh, it's a fantastic committee in terms of what it does. It investigates those allegations of misconduct involving judges makes recommendations to the Utah Supreme Court for disciplinary action. This, this open, this clarifies a couple of things that where, uh, actions between the committee and the court were following in the cracks. And so it's a fairly procedural bill. …
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Cites a Lieutenant Governor letter about 486 people with incomplete information, about two-thirds born outside the US, and says keeping voter rolls clean is important; supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:29:15Read what they said
One of the things that's oftentimes been cited is the, the letter from the Lieutenant governor talking about one confirmed non-citizen who didn't vote that that, that there is no problem, but you gotta keep reading the letter 'cause there's more information in there that is helpful to this. There were 486 people who had incomplete information, and of that about two thirds of which were born outside of the United States, and they couldn't find any information. And they sent letters asking for the very type of information to confirm that they could vote. And these were active voters. So there's about two thirds of that 486 that were active voters that they couldn't confirm whether they were citizens …
H.B. 272 Tourism Taxes Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Said there are no substitutes or amendments on the bill and moved to recommend HB 272 favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:17:05Read what they said
Uh, we don't have any subs or amendments on this. Okay. I would Move that we recommend favorably HB 2 72. Is that the right? Yeah. Okay. It's 2 72.
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Says he will vote yes, citing the retirement match and the positive fiscal note, and suggests a more formal process for the mercy rule.
▶ Watch at 2:05:28Read what they said
Yeah. Senator Brammer, maybe. There we go. Yeah. So, uh, first I wanna thank the, the employees that came up. I know that, uh, that's a, it's an odd position between state employees and the legislature, and I really do appreciate you coming up. Um, the, the thing that does it for me on this bill, is the positive fiscal note that the employees are, you know, from a fiscal perspective. And I get, there's a sense that something's being taken. Um, I gotta tell you, the match on the 401k, when I look at the compounding interest effect of that, is, to me, that's worth more dollars in a lot of ways to, you know, I value that very …
S.B. 228 Community Reinvestment Agency Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Supports the bill and asks whether a similar approach could be developed for project investment areas in the future.
▶ Watch at 2:12:40Read what they said
No, I, I really like this bill. I've had a lot of feedback, not in a, not necessarily on Tiffs, but on PIs. Mm-hmm. Uh, in a similar frame. Can we get something like this in place for PIs? And I don't know that you wanna slay that dragon today, uh, but that's one that, that maybe, uh, down the line, uh, you've worked so much in, in these tax increment spaces, that that's one that I'd love to, to work with you on in the future on it. And so I'm supportive of the bill and, and that's the only additional issue that, that maybe, uh, maybe the next step on something like this.
S.B. 228 Community Reinvestment Agency Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Moves to recommend SB 228 first substitute favorably.
▶ Watch at 2:14:10Read what they said
Yeah, I Would move. Oh, I guess Senator Harper can do it too, but No, he's, he's got it. Okay. Sure. Uh, I would move that we recommend favorably and I gotta make sure I get the number right. Uh, SB 2 28 first substitute? Yes. Yeah.
H.B. 72 Criminal Use of Cryptocurrency Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Explains his fraud-focused reasons for the bill, including staged deposit limits intended to give scam victims time to recognize the fraud and to combine the two bills.
▶ Watch at 39:01Read what they said
Yeah. So I'm here as part of a, a program called the Emotional Support Senator for certain representatives. Um, Excuse No. Um, no. This is, this is something that, uh, you know, what's been happening, especially where I'm coming from, is a little different than where Representative Wilcox came from. He, he's coming from this idea that, that there were these human trafficking rings and they were using the crypto ATMs. Mine is on the financial fraud side where, um, you know, an elderly person, particularly in the elderly community, what's happening is they get a scam call. They get a scam, emails that trick them into taking out their life savings and uploading that money into a crypto ATM. …
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · Senate floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Explains that the resolution is a companion to the previous bill and amends civil procedure rules 41 and 42 to set out how cases are transferred between the business and chancery court and the constitutional court.
▶ Watch at 34:30Read what they said
Yeah, that's correct. And so this is, uh, this is a companion bill to the last one that, uh, the Senator Mikel just presented on. What this does is it, it, it does two things. Number it, it creates a process as to how to transfer cases between these different courts. And so this amends Rule 41 of the, um, of the rules of civil procedure and excuse me, rule 42. And it essentially says in instances where it qualifies for the business and chancery court, these are the ways that a judge will evaluate the transfer. And then it provides the methodology by which transfers can be made, uh, for the court, the constitutional court as well. And so …
H.B. 79 Governmental Immunity Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Presents the bill, which restores governmental immunity from suit for government entities and employees responding to disasters or potential disasters and for first responders providing emergency medical services, reversing a 2025 Supreme Court decision (Armenta v. Unified Fire).
▶ Watch at 48:10Read what they said
Alright. Uh, thank you. Uh, what this does in 2025, there was a Supreme Court decision. This is one of about four decisions that there's legislation to correct what the Supreme Court did. Uh, what the Supreme Court did in this one is they said that, uh, emergency response employees of governments are no longer immune from lawsuit for anything that happens while they are responding to an emergency. This is a big deal for our firefighters, for our EMS. And so what this does is it puts the law back to what everyone believed the law to be prior to the Supreme Court, uh, issuing the decision called Armenta the Unified Fire. And this provides that a government entity …
S.B. 121 Medical Cannabis Program Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks how many bills and changes have been made to the medical cannabis program over the sponsor's time involved.
▶ Watch at 36:34Read what they said
Uh, over the time that you've been involved in the legislation related to medical cannabis, can you estimate, you know, how many bills and how many changes there have been to the medical cannabis program?
S.B. 121 Medical Cannabis Program Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks whether changes have altered the governance structure and how committee members are selected for medical cannabis issues.
▶ Watch at 37:30Read what they said
Okay. And in some of those changes, does it change, uh, for example, the governance structure and how board members are, are, you know, committee members are selected in order to work on issues related to medical cannabis?
S.B. 121 Medical Cannabis Program Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor feels there is clarity about whether the many medical cannabis changes stay within the bounds of altering and reforming government.
▶ Watch at 38:49Read what they said
Senator Grammar, my last question would be, uh, you know, do you feel like you have clarity as to whether you're within the bounds of whether or not we are altering and reforming government with the hundreds, if not thousands of changes related to the medical cannabis program amendments?
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Moves to lift Senate Joint Resolution 5 to the top of the second reading calendar.
▶ Watch at 40:01Read what they said
Uh, I would make a motion that we lift, uh, Senate Joint Resolution five to the top of the second reading calendar. And I'm happy to speak
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Explains the motion is to place the resolution at the top of the calendar so a substitute can be adopted today and run tomorrow alongside a related Rep. MacPherson bill on the constitutional court.
▶ Watch at 40:29Read what they said
Go ahead and speak to that motion while we're Yes. So this is not actually to move it right now, it's so that we can adopt a substitute because the substitute deals with an issue that we'll be dealing with tomorrow. And then we'll move, we'll run it, uh, tomorrow in conjunction with another bill. So this is, this is related to the constitutional court, uh, which is a Representative MacPherson bill. And that will go tomorrow. But this is the court procedure related to it. And so we're trying to line it up so that those both go at the same time and we can have a debate at or about the same time with all of them. And …
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Moves to substitute the resolution with a second substitute that adds constitutional court case-entry provisions to the business and chancery court changes in the original bill, and says he will circle it for the body to consider.
▶ Watch at 43:08Read what they said
Yeah, so I have a, uh, I would make a motion to substitute with second substitute. Second substitute joint resolution five. And I'm happy to speak to that. Go ahead. So the original bill only dealt with, uh, with amending the rules related to the business and chancery court on how you get cases into that. We've added the provisions related to how to get cases into the constitutional court. And so that's the substance of it. So it deals with both of those issues. It's the same rule of civil procedure, um, but now it addresses both. And so we wanted to get that substituted so that it's on the board. And then after this I'll circle it and …
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says the bill would run on second reading the next day and that the current step is only to adopt the substitute.
▶ Watch at 43:52Read what they said
And that's probably the 10th. So everybody knows the process. Yes. So for right now, it's just to adopt the substitute.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says he voted no in committee, is concerned about the flat 5% cap on tax increases and the sizing of reserve funds, and will vote no for now while working with the sponsor.
▶ Watch at 56:29Read what they said
Thank you. Um, there's a, you know, I was one of the no votes in committee on this, and I, you know, I still have several of the same concerns. I know that the bill sponsors working on a lot of those. There's, there's not a lot of tax policies that the bill sponsor and I really diverge on. Uh, oftentimes we are the quorum in rev and tax. Uh, and so we're, we're oftentimes voting on, on a lot of these. Um, but there's a couple that I would still like to see address and I can't quite get there. There's other problems that he's addressing that I think are absolutely essential. Um, and I, and I think it's …
S.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Jury Selection · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks what share of jury trials are felony, civil and misdemeanor cases.
▶ Watch at 48:34Read what they said
Yeah. So about what percentage of the jury trials that go forward are felony cases versus civil cases and misdemeanor cases other?
S.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Jury Selection · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Suggests other tools, such as virtual pre-screening and earlier questionnaires, and argues in-person selection lets attorneys see jurors' body language, and asks why efficiency should outweigh those concerns.
▶ Watch at 49:46Read what they said
and then the other question I had is, I mean, uh, there are plenty of other tools that, that could be employed in different ways to get there. Before this, for example, uh, you know, you could satisfy this by doing virtual jury selection for the first, you know, to pare it down to say, 30 jurors. You can do the questionnaires earlier. There's lots of things that you could do and then still have an in-person group come. But, you know, part of the, you know, I've done, uh, criminal, uh, jury trial selection. I mean, I mean, it gets down to where, you know, I wanna see where they have tattoos. I wanna see if they're cutting their …
S.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Jury Selection · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks why judges were not brought to testify and says they could appear before the committee.
▶ Watch at 54:37Read what they said
If I could ask one question, I mean, couldn't you have brought some judges to talk today to us? I mean, they are not barred from the legislature, but they never show up. I mean, could you bring some judges and tell us about it and Yeah, absolutely. You know, come to the, you know, if this goes through, then go to the house committee and have the judges talk about their experience. But, you know, they don't need a study item to come talk to the legislature. Like they can come, like, it's okay.
S.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Jury Selection · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Spoke on the bill.
▶ Watch at 55:46Read what they said
You need, you were the one who suggested we need the judges to come up and tell us how it's working.
S.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Jury Selection · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks whether the Utah State Bar has taken a position on the resolution.
▶ Watch at 1:03:18Read what they said
Senator Brammer. Yeah, I do have one quick question. Has the bar taken a position on this one?
S.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Jury Selection · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks whether the bar received feedback from attorneys about the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:04:08Read what they said
Did the bar administration, Did the bar receive any feedback from, uh, attorneys opposing this? Or were all the attorneys In favor, Position,
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked how many of the 31,000 rejected Arizona registrations were from non-citizens.
▶ Watch at 1:22:45Read what they said
Okay. You mentioned that in Arizona they rejected 31,000 ballots and you said mostly from citizens. Yes. How many were not
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked whether there is a threshold number of non-citizen voters she would consider too many.
▶ Watch at 1:23:00Read what they said
How many is enough? Like how, like at what point do you say, like, is there ever a number that you say this is too many? Like, is there a threshold for you?
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Sen. Brammer asked whether she would accept about 3% of voters being non-citizens.
▶ Watch at 1:23:26Read what they said
Yeah. 'cause 'cause that's my concern, right? I mean, if 31,000 of the, if all of them were non-citizens, What if it was like a thousand of them? A thousand? What's the percentage? I mean, I think 30 divided by 31. I don't know. Whatever that is. Okay. So say 3% For me per, for Non-citizens voting For me personally? Yeah, You, uh, would you be okay with 3% non-citizens voting?
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Sen. Brammer said Arizona lacked the federal carve-out this bill has and that many of the held registrations could have been non-citizens.
▶ Watch at 1:23:57Read what they said
Well, and, and the point that I'm getting at is, you know, when Arizona did it, you know, number one, they had some problems 'cause they didn't have a federal carve out. This does have that, which was the primary problem in, in Arizona. But number two, you know, when you say 31,000, uh, ballots were held, you know, and had to go through this process, and most of them were citizens. I mean, that could be 16,000 and 15,000 were non-citizens trying to vote. Mm-hmm. I think that's a big problem. If, if that's the case, even if there's, but there's a, there's a point where even like mwe would say this is a problem, right? Like, if there's …
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Sen. Brammer said scale matters and asked her to send the Arizona results.
▶ Watch at 1:24:44Read what they said
I mean, you're here speaking for mwe and, and I guess that that's the concern that I have is it's not as if there wasn't some problem. 'cause otherwise it would be all 31,000 were, you know, citizens. So like the scale does matter. And so I'm trying to see, you know, 'cause a lot of times on this stuff, it isn't measured very well or it's not captured very well. It sounds like they captured a lot. And I'd be interested to know those results. Could you come back with those?
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Sen. Brammer supported the bill, citing 486 foreign-born registrants in the state audit lacking citizenship status and saying clean voter rolls matter for mail-in voting.
▶ Watch at 1:44:12Read what they said
So one of the things that, um, you know, I, I'm kind of in Todd's camp. I'm not always certain that there's a, a huge swath of illegal immigrants voting in our elections as far as just like a high number. Um, one of the things I would point out is the data that came back from the Lieutenant Governor's office and what hasn't been talked about in that. So, in that, they said, we only found one confirmed non-citizen, uh, who didn't vote and has since been removed. However, what nobody's talking about is they found 486 that did not list, you know, that were, you know, foreign born and did not list their citizenship status. And so we …
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Moved to replace SB 233 with the first substitute and offered to explain it.
▶ Watch at 2:07:07Read what they said
Uh, at this point I would move that we move first substitute SB 2 33. And I can explain that if you're ready.
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Explained the substitute's changes at the courts' and JPEC's request: some votes stay confidential, abusive-discretion language is softened, and JPEC is asked to explore metrics for poor judicial judgment.
▶ Watch at 2:07:17Read what they said
Were a couple of, uh, changes that were requested by the courts and by JP e uh, to clean up a couple of issues. Uh, we addressed those and those, that's what the substance of the, um, of the substitute is. Specifically the changes were they wanted some of the votes to be re to remain confidential so that attorneys could serve without feeling like, uh, judges would be upset if they voted to not recommend them on the JPEG evaluation. And then there were some other requests to soften some language related to abusive discretion. The point, the point of that is more, uh, not necessarily to prescribe that it has to be done, but to ask JP e …
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Explained that the bill sets appellate court docket and opinion timing standards in statute, loosens JPEC survey rules, and expands what JPEC can study, including judicial judgment.
▶ Watch at 2:08:46Read what they said
Alright, thank you. So what this does is, uh, you know, we've had some, uh, with this, almost all of this is dealing with the performance of our appellate courts. And there's a couple of things that are going on here. Number one, this encourages jpeg to create some docket management, uh, requirements for the courts. Meaning typically on our appellate courts, they don't really, their clock doesn't start ticking for purposes of JPEG until after the parties have submitted their briefing and then had oral argument, and then their clock starts ticking as far as whether they're going to, uh, to meet the minimum requirements for jpeg. But what this does, it says they should also be accountable for …
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Said the bill could apply to appellate judges and only lets JPEC explore a metric it would feel confident in, without requiring one.
▶ Watch at 2:12:45Read what they said
It could, yeah. Yeah. If they, if they chose to adopt a metric and felt confident with it. Okay. So this doesn't force them to do that. All it does is says JPEG can explore that possibility to see if there's a metric that they would feel confident in. Okay. Thank you. So, yeah, and with that, I'm open to any questions.
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Said he wanted to respond to several statements he considered misstatements before the vote.
▶ Watch at 2:28:41Read what they said
Can I just say something please real quick? Uh, some is the motion. So there's a couple of things that, uh, appeared to be misstatements that I wanted to respond to for the committee.
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Said surveys go to the parties involved, the bill codifies JPEC's existing standards rather than requiring courts to adopt metrics, appellate opinion output was low in 2023, and polling showed voters felt unqualified to judge retention; urged a vote in favor.
▶ Watch at 2:29:01Read what they said
Uh, so number one, this doesn't allow for the surveys. It allows for surveys to go to the parties that are involved, oftentimes the way that parties feel. And, and you can take that into consideration. I I can tell you that a losing attorney before a judge is just as biased as a party before a judge in many circumstances. Uh, you know, and, and attorneys that lose in front of judges oftentimes give survey results that are not as favorable to judges as they would like. Uh, the other thing that I would say is, uh, so this doesn't open it up to just a, the political retribution that people are talking about. It's let's survey the parties …
S.B. 256 Identity Protection Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Said this is a developing area of law that needs refinement, appreciated the sponsor bringing the bill forward, and said he will vote yes.
▶ Watch at 2:43:17Read what they said
Yeah, just real quick, I think, I think this is one of those new developing areas of law. I think it does need some help around it. I appreciate, uh, the sponsor bringing the bill forward. I think we can continue to refine it because it's unique and I think we need some, some additional protections in this space, especially with ai. Uh, you know, it's, it's, uh, uh, it's definitely a, an evolving area of the law and I, and I would like to see it move forward. And so for that, I'll be voting yes. Thank you.
S.B. 221 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Moves to replace SB 221 with the first substitute, SB 221S01.
▶ Watch at 2:45:56Read what they said
Yeah. So moved. Alright, we have a motion to delete Senate Bill 2 21 entitled and Bonnie replace it with first substitute, uh, Senate Bill 2 21.
H.B. 20 Correctional Facility Capacity Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Moves to recommend HB 20, first substitute, favorably.
▶ Watch at 2:51:51Read what they said
Senator Brammer? Yeah. Uh, recommend favorably HB 20 and I think, is it Sub first Substitute? Alright. Uh, thank you.
S.B. 127 Pediatric Care Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Asks how the bill can have a zero fiscal note when it appropriates $278,000 ongoing from the general fund within DPS.
▶ Watch at 7:15Read what they said
So I see the fiscal note is zero, but then it says that it appropriates 278,000 ongoing from the general fund within DPS. Um, can you help me understand Yes. How it re reallocates 278,000 with a $0 fiscal note? Yes.
S.B. 127 Pediatric Care Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Asks whether the funding already goes to the trauma network or is new general fund money going to a nonprofit.
▶ Watch at 8:17Read what they said
Okay, so, uh, I wanna make sure I understand it. So this is money that's already going towards this or is it money that's going outta the general fund to a not-for-profit? So it's money that's going in Senator Palm. Sorry.
S.B. 127 Pediatric Care Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Asks for clarification on whether the money is new funding to a nonprofit that already exists.
▶ Watch at 9:01Read what they said
Okay. Uh, so, and I I apologize for just making sure I have clarity. So this is not money that's already going to this. It is new money out of the general fund to a nonprofit that exists already using other funds. And this would be additional funds going to that nonprofit
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Explains that S.B. 145 adds transparency when a lobbyist has an interest in an entity affected by a policy or appropriation, lets nonprofit universities host legislators at events as public universities can, and raises the lobbying gift limit from $10 to $25 and the book limit from $30 to $50, along with some cleanup changes.
▶ Watch at 44:52Read what they said
Thank you. So the main thrust of this bill is we wanna make sure that lobbyists aren't lobbying for contingency. One of the things that this does is it tries to restrict or at least provide transparency when a lobbyist has an interest in an entity that if the policy passes or an RFA request for appropriation passes, that we know that that lobbyist is involved in that entity because that operates in the same way as a contingency. The other things that this does is, uh, in dealing with universities, currently universities can, uh, bring legislators to events on universities. This allows nonprofit universities to do the same. Additionally, this suggests the monetary amounts, uh, for purposes of lobbying, …
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Supports the bill, describing it as a small incremental cut and arguing that revenues and education funding grew while taxes were cut over the past decade.
▶ Watch at 1:02:04Read what they said
Yeah, I would rise in support of this bill. I have a lot of people in my life that would love to pay less taxes. Um, some of the things that I think are really good about this is it is an incremental cut. It's a very small cut. And one of the reasons why I really like this is we oftentimes have a view, view that the Piute is only this big and it can never grow. And we think if we cut taxes, we're taking away something from everyone. But that hasn't been how it's worked out over the past in the past 10 years. 10 years ago, in 2015, the education budget was 4.3 billion. In 20 …
S.B. 230 Consumer Credit Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Presents SB 230, which would prohibit prepayment penalties on closed-end consumer loans and second mortgages and treat upfront fees as earned at closing, and introduces Candice Pitcher to explain it.
▶ Watch at 47:11Read what they said
Thank you very much. Committee. So, uh, this relates to, uh, pre penalty fees. So oftentimes a pre penalty fee on some, uh, financing vehicles is quite complex and lacks a lot of transparency. And so what this does is it prohibits pre prepaid penalties for all closed end consumer loans and second mortgages. It also eliminates complex and burdensome prepayment penalty calculations. Um, upfront fees, uh, agreed to by borrower and lender are deemed to be fully earned at closing and subject to federal transparency laws. And it allows lenders to provide innovative financial products by eliminating some of these, uh, these fees. And I, uh, I have Candace pitcher here who is General counsel at First Electronic Bank …
S.B. 230 Consumer Credit Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Closes by saying the bill would give Utah industrial banks a level playing field and keep business in state, and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 52:56Read what they said
Okay, Senator? Yeah, and I would just close by saying, uh, before I open up for questions. You know, the industrial bank, uh, economy in Utah is one of the hidden gems that people don't, don't really know about, but is one of the backbones of our state and its financial success. Uh, what this does is it puts us on, on an even playing field that is easy for other, uh, you know, you can have a product and it's so easy to just partner with another bank out of state and move that business out of state and still offer the same product. This allows us to keep an in-state where we already have a, a competitive advantage …
S.B. 230 Consumer Credit Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Thanks the committee and those who presented and spoke in favor of the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:00:17Read what they said
Thank you committee, and thank you. Those who came and helped present and who spoken in favor of it. I appreciate that.
H.B. 17 Public Infrastructure District Meeting Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Presents HB 17, which provides anchor locations for public infrastructure district board meetings, or a nearby location when none is available, so affected residents can take part.
▶ Watch at 25:53Read what they said
Brammer. Thank you. This is the bill we heard yesterday. This is providing anchor locations when a public infrastructure district holds a board meeting. And if there is not an available anchor location, uh, then it needs to be nearby. The affected area. This is to make sure that when there are tax implications for an area that the citizens that are around that area have access to, uh, to give their thoughts and participate in the process of a public infrastructure district. So with that, I'm open to any questions. Thank you.
H.B. 17 Public Infrastructure District Meeting Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Moves that HB 17 pass on the third reading calendar.
▶ Watch at 26:34Read what they said
I would call to question to move that we pass, uh, on the third reading calendar, HB 17.
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · Senate floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Speaks against the substitute, saying the earlier vote was a mistake, that kratom should be studied but removed from gas stations, and that the product acts like an opioid. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:07:12Read what they said
Yeah, I, I would also speak against it. I think we, we made a big mistake in 2018 or 2019. That was one of the first votes that, that I had. It was, uh, I was against it in the committee. I was against it on the floor of the house when I was, when I was in the other body. Uh, it's time to go backwards. It's time to reset. I, I don't wanna see anything that would weaken, uh, that, that reset. Uh, you know, and we can, we can study whether there's benefits and how that should be done, but we don't use our people as a Petri dish, especially out of our gas stations. And that's …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asked about the fiscal note's startup costs and revenue projections, and said the tax should be used only for the restricted youth mental health account.
▶ Watch at 1:03:12Read what they said
Yeah. So, Um, Couple of things on this. Uh, so what I see is the kind of the startup costs on this are about $763,000, but then in, then it starts to generate revenue of 1.7 and 3.2 per year thereafter. Is that about what, how you're reading the fiscal note? I, I, I've seen, based on the changes that we're making, um, I've seen different calculations. I think on the, the bottom end, we're probably looking at probably 900. The top ends probably 1.8. Okay. So, we'll, we'll see. These are, these are hard numbers to Yeah. It's future. Yeah. It's, it's Really hard. Project may change and I totally get that. Um, but it looks like, you know, …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Moved to replace the bill with first substitute SB 73.
▶ Watch at 1:06:07Read what they said
Yeah. Uh, I would move that we, uh, substitute the matter with the, uh, substitute SB 73 with first substitute SB 73.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asked about the fiscal note, noting most of its cost comes from a Tax Commission reprogramming estimate.
▶ Watch at 1:09:40Read what they said
Yeah. In looking at the fiscal note, the, the majority of that fiscal note is coming from the tax commission with a 612,000 reprogramming, uh, uh, uh,
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Said the fiscal note would change because of the revised bill.
▶ Watch at 1:09:58Read what they said
Sure. And so that was on the gross receipt. So looking at that fiscal, it's all gonna completely change. Okay.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Acknowledged that the revised approach avoids a large reprogramming cost.
▶ Watch at 1:10:17Read what they said
Yeah, that makes sense. We don't have have to do that for here. Okay. So that we don't have to do that for here.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asked whether state employees would have to view pornography to administer the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:10:42Read what they said
Um, do you feel like, you know, as you're administering this, do you feel like we're gonna be asking state employees to look at pornography, Not Utah State Tax Commission employees, but some will have to it, because you see how the mechanism is set up?
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Said he shares concerns about employees having to review this material and about whether regulation changes behavior.
▶ Watch at 1:11:56Read what they said
Yeah. I remember, uh, I had similar concerns. If I remember, I was first or second legislative session, uh, there was an audit on strip clubs and behavior that had to go on at, uh, DABS now, uh, for, you know, auditing the things that go on in, in strip clubs. And that was, I mean, that was a hard vote to put somebody in the situation where it becomes their job to audit, look at these things. And I'm, I'm hopeful that most of it's looking at a database and, and doing those things. 'cause I have hesitancy about that part. I mean, that's, it's my primary concern about all of the, you know, regulation portions. Um, I haven't …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asked whether entities already report to the state on age gating and how that effort is going.
▶ Watch at 1:13:31Read what they said
Okay. How is, are, are, are entities already reporting already to the state on, on this behavior, or is this gonna be new? So there's, there's already age gating this mm-hmm. That's taking place, right? Right. Consumer protection's already been involved with this. And I, I've mentioned before, there's been lawsuits that are settled. That's part of where the seed buddy's coming through. Along these lines as well, How is the age gating going? That's my, you know,
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asked how a provider would know a viewer's location when a VPN is used.
▶ Watch at 1:14:29Read what they said
How would the provider know that, that, you know, that if somebody's using A VPN, they're using it to hide their location? So how would the provider know where the individual is?
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asked whether the state is enforcing laws that are not enjoined. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:18:29Read what they said
Yeah. Are we, are we following through and prosecuting, or, you know, pushing our limits that haven't been enjoined?
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asked about enforcement of the current pornography age-gating law, which is a private right of action. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:18:44Read what they said
Yeah. What about our age gating for pornography? Um, that one is a private, um, action, uh, private right of action right now. Not that doesn't have states enforcement as I understand the sub, it will change that. Yeah. In which case then we can Okay. Absolutely.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Read the bill's rebuttal presumption language about websites that market themselves as providing material harmful to minors. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:19:08Read what they said
Okay. If I, before Kay leaves, I just want to point out one other item that may be, may settle a little bit of your concerns about we had talked about earlier, and that is, uh, individuals within the tax commission or otherwise, or even within the division of con super protection on having to view, we get it, there's gonna have to be some portion of that, but there is a rebuttal on lines eight 17 through 8 23, and I'm just gonna read that verbatim real quick. There is a rebuttal presumption that a website contains a substantial portion of material harm for to Myers if the commercial entity markets or brands the website as primarily providing material …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Said he had seen that language and wanted to understand the harms. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:20:13Read what they said
Yeah. I saw that language. I just, you know, trying to figure out the harms, I guess.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asks whether the clerks assigned to the panels can be deployed to other court work when workload is low.
▶ Watch at 1:49:03Read what they said
Sorry for the clerks that are assigned to this court. If they are not, you know, I think that these cases are either become really heavy or they're not happening very often. Uh, you know, and so there's a chance that the amount of workload on the clerks may fluctuate quite a bit. Are they still, are the courts able to deploy them to assist in other areas during the period of time that they, that they're serving in this capacity, you know, to help with overflow and in other places?
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asks whether there is concern that a different judge cannot handle the remaining issues in a case after transfer.
▶ Watch at 1:58:10Read what they said
Ahead. And, and we've had some good conversations, so I don't, I don't pretend to to say that these are questions that we haven't gone through, but I also think it's important to have some of this just in the public as far as like how we're talking about it. Um, uh, you know, 'cause one of the questions that I have is, um, is there any concern that a different judge cannot equally handle the issues that remain in a case after a matter is transferred? And, and the reason I ask that is because, for example, you know, I've had, uh, I've practiced in lots of jurisdictions, oftentimes, in fact, more jurisdictions than not, the law and motion …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asks whether forum shopping across districts could undermine the judiciary.
▶ Watch at 2:00:27Read what they said
So let me, let me follow up. If, if I could chair, if I can have a little leeway on that. Um, and I, I understand that one of the, one of the concerns has been, let's say that, um, that if we were to take a series of cases that were filed in the fifth district down in St. George, that really impacted Salt Lake specifically, you know, to the detriment of Salt Lake, but were filed in the Fifth District because they felt like they were consistently getting a panel of judges that were, you know, that they perceived as, as being, uh, you know, in a, in a way, uh, that there was, that there was forum …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Notes that procedural rules change mid-case routinely and asks whether the issue is procedural rather than substantive.
▶ Watch at 2:01:57Read what they said
Sure. So I, and, and I guess I, I understand that there's procedural changes Midway through nearly every case that exists, or, I mean, I, I look at the rules of, of, you know, the Judicial council changes the rules, you know, every so often we change the rules mid-session, uh, you know, that happens in every case. And it, and it creates, you know, different rights procedurally in every single case that exists, that pertains to, you know, that could have relation to those. So that's not necessarily anything that is new in that regards as far as rules change. And they become effectively immediate effective immediately. And it's not just because the Judicial Council said so, or the …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asks what legislative checks on the judiciary are appropriate.
▶ Watch at 2:05:39Read what they said
Oh, yeah. I, I wanted you, you, you made a great point about checks and balances that each of the branches needs to check one another. What do you believe are the legislative checks that are appropriate as to the judiciary?
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Responds that checks and balances run in all directions and says the testimony should acknowledge checks on the judiciary.
▶ Watch at 2:07:12Read what they said
May, may agree or disagree. 'cause one, one of the concern, the only reason I bring that up, is oftentimes we hear it's a system of checks and balances. Mm-hmm. But there's never any identified check as to the judiciary, or there's a refusal to acknowledge what the checks are within our constitution as to what we should or should not do, or can or cannot do to the judiciary. And whenever there is something that might be perceived as a check on the judiciary, and I'm not saying that this necessarily is, but I do have a concern that structurally, that it's that, that we need to uphold the Independence of the judiciary, which when I go read our …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Gives personal views on timing of legislative checks and asks when they would be appropriate.
▶ Watch at 2:08:41Read what they said
Yeah. And, and that's okay. I think, I think the guest to your, uh, to your right Yes. Is more likely to want to talk about that. Exactly. And we can, we can talk about that too. But you, you brought it up and so that's why I wanted to Right. Ask about it. And I'm not trying to like, you know, be, uh, jumpy about it. It's just one of those issues that it's like, well, you can't say there's checks and balances, but then not acknowledge the checks that go the other way too. You know, I, I, I understand what you're saying and, and Yeah. You know, consider that valid. I guess my personal opinion, speaking just …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Asks whether the organization represents the church. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:10:30Read what they said
Yeah, that's fair. Mind if I ask you, uh, the name of your organization is Mormon Women for Ethical Government. Do you represent the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Notes there are no substitutes or amendments and moves to recommend HB 392 favorably.
▶ Watch at 2:26:55Read what they said
Um, we don't have any subs or amendments on this at this point. No Subs or amendments at this point. Okay. So I would move that we recommend favorably HB 3 92.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Speaks in favor of the motion, arguing the procedural change does not deny open courts, describing judicial resources added, and explaining the legislature's constitutional role in creating courts.
▶ Watch at 2:27:08Read what they said
Yeah, just, just briefly. And I, I appreciate, uh, number one, everyone who's commented, I, I appreciate just the tenor of it. I think it's been professional. I think everyone's, you know, been, uh, you know, good about talking through the issues. And, and I think that there's, um, you know, there, I, I can understand some of the concern. One of the things that I would, that I would say in response to some of the claims of Unconstitutionality, uh, you know, there's a very different analysis in terms of a procedural process versus a substantive, right? So for example, if you're looking at the uniform operation of law, that very much looks at the difference between the procedural …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Comments on the timer and says his point was made. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:31:48Read what they said
I, I apologize for my poor timer management skills, but I think my point was made either way.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Says he is working with the courts and the bar on allowing both parties, not only the state, to seek removal to a panel.
▶ Watch at 2:32:19Read what they said
Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair, and I appreciate this conversation too. 'cause I've been working quite a bit with the courts and the bar on this particular issue, and it's a concern that's come up. And I think that there's a, um, a, a potential, um, solution that we've been discussing on, um, allowing it to both parties, for example, assuming that they meet the entire criteria that's already outlined, uh, as far as that, that the state, uh, is a named party and the focus of the, of the issue, whether or not we can actually hammer that out, um, in this process. I'm discussing it with them. And I, I hope it's shown here that based on where …
H.B. 17 Public Infrastructure District Meeting Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 17) · Feb 5, 2026
Presents H.B. 17, which requires public infrastructure districts to hold their meetings within or near the district's boundaries, and opens the floor to questions.
▶ Watch at 7:32Read what they said
Yeah. So this bill arises from, uh, public infrastructure districts. Oftentimes they're created and there are various attorneys involved. They were holding their meetings in downtown Salt Lake at attorney's offices, uh, on a couple of them rather than near where the public infrastructure district would be impacted. So what this bill does is it requires a public infrastructure district to hold their meeting at a location within the boundaries of the public infrastructure. There are certain exceptions, uh, those exceptions would, uh, allow them to hold them nearby and there's certain virtual issues, but really the point is to try to create it so that if you're going to do a pi, you need to hold your meetings near …
H.B. 17 Public Infrastructure District Meeting Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 17) · Feb 5, 2026
Explains that the bill intentionally leaves "nearby" flexible so it can fit different situations, with the goal of letting affected residents be heard.
▶ Watch at 8:54Read what they said
Yeah, so if there, go ahead. Oh, I apologize. If there is not a, a suitable location to hold a typical meeting, uh, what the, what this says is it needs to be nearby. Now that, that can differ, and we've left it a little bit vague on purpose because there are different scenarios where nearby, for example, if you had a, a, a pit within a city boundary and they held it at city hall, that would be nearby. But you could have an, uh, something out in the West desert and there is nothing nearby in terms of a mileage ratio. But you'd want to go, you know, to a, a nearby city or county hall or, or …
H.B. 47 Vehicle Registration and Insurance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 17) · Feb 5, 2026
Brammer says the bill restores the ability to keep a registered vehicle that is not in use without insurance, and reports no comments or support from Democratic colleagues.
▶ Watch at 22:17Read what they said
Brammer. Thank you. Uh, so the main point of this bill is it restores the ability for people to, uh, have a registered car that is not in use and not have it be insured. And that is the substance of the bill. I don't open any questions or extreme support from my Democrat colleagues. It's gonna hard to, you're gonna be hard to beat the last, uh, die diesel. But anyway, uh, say no comments or support. I'm going back to you for a motion.
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Sponsor jokes briefly with the committee and says Mark Behrens will help with the presentation.
▶ Watch at 1:21:04Read what they said
I was worried they were here for mine. Yeah, Thank kidding. Uh, I do have Mark, uh, barons online to help me with the presentation.
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Sponsor says the bill is a clean bill that requires rules to be founded in sound science and lets the Rules Review and General Oversight Committee delay certain environmental and waste rules, and says the US Chamber of Commerce pushed it.
▶ Watch at 1:21:14Read what they said
Do you have any substitutes or Amendments? I don't. This one is a clean bill. It was perfectly drafted that so, so we're, we're good to go. Um, I appreciate the committee's time. Uh, I'll be quick. What this does is on administrative rules related to certain regulations, it needs to be founded in sound science and it also provides the ability to, uh, to delay the implementation date, uh, by the, uh, rules review and general oversight committee on, on certain rules involving Environmental health and Waste Management. The idea for that is, uh, I don't know if you guys have ever seen this, but in April, a lot of things happen as soon as we're done with session, …
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Sponsor says the bill lets rules be challenged before litigation, and that DEQ has raised language concerns that he is working on with the agency.
▶ Watch at 1:25:28Read what they said
Yeah, I think one of the things that I do like about this is before you get to the point where you have an industry that is then taking legal action, this provides a means whereby it can be challenged or at least reviewed before it gets to that point. And, and I think that's good for everyone down the line. Uh, you know, it, it's not putting the weight on, you know, which, which side wins, which side has the better science. That will still be an argument out there, but you do need to justify your actions as an administrative agency. Uh, I have been in contact with the DEQ, um, and they, they've said we may have …
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Sponsor says DEQ oversees inspections of federally set rules, that the bill only helps with paperwork, and that it does not seek primacy over nuclear regulation.
▶ Watch at 1:29:55Read what they said
Uh, our DEQ is actually just in am, uh, overseeing regulations that's already been set by the EPA. So I mean, the federal reg, they're already the regulating authority and our DEQ are the only ones that are doing the inspection rather than flying people in here from Washington DC to do the inspections. We have primacy over some things. But when you said we have primacy over the nuclear, that's not at all the case that we're even asking for or even pursuing. All we're trying to do is do the paperwork for them so that they're already overburdened with all the applicants that are wanting to nuclear to do nuclear, uh, things. And so I think that's a …
S.B. 190 Trailer Registration Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Presented amendment one to the second substitute of the bill and described its changes to trailer registration.
▶ Watch at 1:35:25Read what they said
All right. Uh, thank you committee. Uh, I have amendment one to the second substitute and I wanna thank the committee for your patience. It's been a frustrating Bill 'cause it's, I'm saying I'm not trying to mess with this and you guys are saying, I think you are and I wanna get it clear. Let's clear it up. So I appreciate the, the committee's, uh, patience on it. Alright, there. Okay, so if you've got your computer up, he's added as it was recommended on line 61 and, and is eligible for lifetime registration described in section 41, 1 A 2 2 8. I think that's what we ask for. Yes. Senator Ipson.
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Sponsor says the bill addresses how administrative agencies set standards, does not prevent the legislature from setting any standard, and requires agencies to meet a burden of proof.
▶ Watch at 1:41:08Read what they said
The, the one thing that I would, uh, remind the committee is this is related to administrative agencies and their abilities to, to set the standards. Now, that does not preclude the legislature from setting stand any standard that they choose to set. So, for example, when it came to vaping, uh, you know, they're still developing science, but we pulled back a lot on the regulatory environment regarding vaping. So what this does is it, it basically pushes a little bit more of those large industry distributed, uh, disturbing areas. It says, Hey, let's have that be legislatively done, as opposed to administratively done. And so, um, this does not change. I'm, I'm, I love the idea that, you …
S.B. 92 Prosecution Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Agrees with the concern about credit for time served, praises the sponsor's work, and recommends SB 92 favorably as amended.
▶ Watch at 2:41:53Read what they said
I would, uh, echoing your same thoughts. I, I agree with that. I think, uh, I think they'll find that Senator Wilson is great to work with and, and very reasonable as he moves forward. Uh, and with that in mind, I would recommend favorably SB 92 prosecution amendments as amended.
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Presents SJR 5, which amends the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to clarify how cases are transferred to the Business and Chancery Court.
▶ Watch at 2:43:46Read what they said
Sure. That's the joint resolution amending the Rules of Civil procedure regarding the business and Chancery court. Yeah. Yeah, I'm happy to. Um, so a few years ago we formed the Business and Chancery Court. Uh, what this does is it allows for a more clear process for transferring venue when the jurisdictional limit, you know, when the jurisdiction. Lemme
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Explains that the resolution lets a case be transferred to the Business and Chancery Court at the beginning of the case when that court's jurisdiction applies, rather than deferring to the original filing court.
▶ Watch at 2:44:11Read what they said
Yeah, no, no problem. Um, uh, we appreciate when people come up and especially when it's, uh, it's a very vulnerable point. This one is not so much a vulnerable type bill. This is a procedural bill related to the ability to transfer cases into the business and Chancery court. What was happening was people would, would apply to Intuit and under Rule 41, it gives deference for where the original case was filed, even if the jurisdictional, uh, uh, process for going into the Chancery court was satisfied even at the beginning of the case. And so this, this allows that at the beginning of the case, it's more of a, you have a right to transfer it into …
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Moves the substitute, which conforms the resolution's language to a recent change to Rule 41 made by the courts.
▶ Watch at 2:45:26Read what they said
Uh, let's see. Yes, let's move the sub. And, and what the sub does is it, uh, there's a change that was just barely approved to Rule 41 that the courts made, and the sub makes this congruent with those changes so that all the language is the same and everyone's working from the same thing.
S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution Amending the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Moves to advance the first substitute for SJR 5.
▶ Watch at 2:46:04Read what they said
like to make another motion? No, I would move that we move first substitute SGR five.
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Presents SJR 1 to align the rules of evidence for adult sexual assault cases with those already used for juveniles and in federal court, allowing prior sexual assault allegations to be used.
▶ Watch at 2:46:25Read what they said
And I have Ryan McBride here with me. Okay, Mr. McBride In the meeting packets. Uh, and, and this is one that we did last year. It was like third down from being heard on the house. Uh, there were some interesting dynamics on the house on another bill that, that kind of prevented this from being heard. And we're also distributing a letter from Paul Castell. He was here last week to testify, but unfortunately he's outta state today. Yeah. So essentially, um, this allows evidence of prior sexual allegation, uh, sexual assault allegations to be used in our adult sexual, uh, assault, uh, prosecutions. We already do that for juveniles, and we do this in federal court. This …
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says he is willing to work with the defense on its concerns, while staying congruent with the federal standard and the judge's gatekeeping role.
▶ Watch at 2:57:46Read what they said
I'm happy to work with them there. We do have a, we can respond to some of it. Rule 4 0 3 is already required and just putting it in 4 0 4 that you have to follow Rule 4 0 3 already violates how the courts typically prefer to do their rulemaking. Um, you are expected to follow the rules of evidence Yeah. You know, in civil procedure. And so I don't think that that one is necessarily required. Most of the other ones, um, what I'm mostly trying to do is I wanna make sure that we are congruent with the federal standard. Sure. Um, because when you are congruent with the federal standard, even though we are …
H.B. 47 Vehicle Registration and Insurance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Explains that the bill reverses a Department of Insurance interpretation so vehicle owners who are not using a registered vehicle no longer must maintain insurance during non-use, effective immediately upon two-thirds passage.
▶ Watch at 15:39Read what they said
Yeah. So, uh, last year we passed the bill to try to get Montana registrations that were moving out of state. Uh, in passing that bill, the Department of Insurance took a one word change and interpreted it pretty aggressively and, and basically said that anyone who is not using their vehicle needs to maintain insurance even through the period of non-use. If they're registering their their vehicle, this puts it back to what it used to be and it puts it back immediately upon two thirds passage. And that is the substance of the bill.
H.B. 52 Tribal Endorsement of Utah Driver License Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Presents the bill, which lets a driver's license applicant request a notation that they are an enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe.
▶ Watch at 24:57Read what they said
Thank you very much. Uh, this bill allows an applicant for a driver's license to request a notation on the driver's license, uh, stating that the individual is an enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. That's the substance of the bill.
H.B. 52 Tribal Endorsement of Utah Driver License Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Says an amendment in his name would change the wording to use the term federally recognized tribal member, and moves the amendment.
▶ Watch at 25:24Read what they said
Amendment? Oh yeah, let me move that amendment. Uh, this was an amendment that, uh, there's some specific language and what was preferred is that they used the name federally recognized tribal member. And so with that, I would move the First Amendment or the amendment one to HB 52. Thank you. That motion in order. Thank you so much.
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Asks whether the bill still allows landowners to place political signs on park strips they maintain, or whether that was removed.
▶ Watch at 41:39Read what they said
Okay. Uh, one of the, uh, early on in this bill, uh, in the interim committee, there was discussion of, uh, some level of allowing landowners that their own park strips to be able to place signs, uh, on land that they maintain, even if it's owned by the city on a park strip. Do you know if that was maintained within the bill or was it stripped out?
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Explains that residents who install and maintain park strips want to place political signs there and are frustrated when cities remove them.
▶ Watch at 42:22Read what they said
Okay. And, and the only reason I bring that up is that's become one of the issues of IR that a lot of citizens have. They feel like, yes, the city may own the park strip, but the city required them to put in the park strip and the city requires them to maintain it. They bought the trees for the park strip, they maintain the grass, they cut the grass, and they wanna put a political sign in their yard. And that's the car, that's the area closest to the street, which the purpose of the political sign is to advertise. And so they wanna put it on their park strip, and then the city comes and takes their …
H.B. 53 Community Rehabilitation Program Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Explains that the program matches state workforce vacancies with qualified individuals with disabilities, and that the bill extends the program's sunset and requires a report before the next sunset.
▶ Watch at 30:45Read what they said
Thank you very much. So this program has been going for about 20 years. What it does is it matches vacancies in the state workforce with qualified individuals with disabilities, and gives them an opportunity to apply for those employment vacancies. Now this al so what this does is it extends the Sunset, but it also creates a reporting mechanism where they have to submit a report before the next Sunset. And that's the substance of the bill. And I'm open to any questions.
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked how often in the last year DCFS was denied a 3(a) removal warrant.
▶ Watch at 1:16:43Read what they said
Yeah, I'm curious on the three, A standard that's currently in existence. How many times in the last year has DCFS been denied a warrant that they've requested This kind of warrant or a removal warrant? A three a warrant, A three day warrant? Three A. It's a removal. Oh, A three A, I'm sorry, A three. It's a Removal, Um, in the last year. Yeah.
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether she could recall any instance of a denial.
▶ Watch at 1:17:12Read what they said
We can obviously get, can you think back to, can an instance where you've been, where DCFS has been denied a warrant?
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said in his experience courts are quite permissive on protective orders and warrants and he would be surprised by frequent denials.
▶ Watch at 1:17:18Read what they said
I'm trying to understand, you know, how much the threshold is because, you know, we haven't, I'm, I'm in the courts enough with regards to, you know, I'll occasionally be there on the civil side with regards to stalking injunctions. And I find that the courts are quite permissive on anything to do with protection of the public, whether that's issuing warrants or stalking injunctions or anything like that. And so I'd kind of be surprised at, you know, how off, you know, if you're denied warrants very often they seem to be pretty permissive.
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether DCFS has ever entered on a removal warrant and decided not to remove the child.
▶ Watch at 1:18:18Read what they said
Now, have you ever had an instance where you've gone in on a removal warrant and you've seen the conditions and thought this actually isn't what we thought and you just did not remove the child?
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Pointed out DCFS need not remove a child under a 3(a) warrant if criteria are not met, questioning the stated need for 3(b).
▶ Watch at 1:18:36Read what they said
Because one of the things that you said is on three B, part of the reason you want this is to not have to go in and remove the child. Correct. But you don't have to remove the child if you meet three A and go in and decide that it's not meeting the criteria. Correct. Okay. Thanks.
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Moved to recommend SB 125 favorably, citing the endorsements from prosecutors, the Sentencing Commission, and defense attorneys.
▶ Watch at 1:31:46Read what they said
I move that we with that glowing endorsement from three pillars of our criminal justice system, I move that we recommend favorably SB 1 25.
S.B. 183 Surveillance Camera Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Brammer asked whether the substitute could be read as allowing law enforcement to tamper with trail cameras.
▶ Watch at 1:39:23Read what they said
Oh, yeah, Yeah. On the trail cameras, I mean, what I worry about on the substitute is, so are we saying that by doing this substitute, is it reasonable to interpret it as saying that law enforcement can tamper with trail cameras?
S.B. 183 Surveillance Camera Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Brammer said he would vote against the substitute because he uses trail cameras on his farm and wants that protection kept.
▶ Watch at 1:41:07Read what they said
Um, I mean, I, I'm gonna vote against that. I, I think it should stay in, I I occasionally put truck cameras out on my farm. I got a busy chunk of people that come in and out, and I've, I've got pictures of people trespassing on my farm multiple times. I'd hate to think that that would somehow disappear. I mean, I, I'd want the same protection that your bill does. I, so, I, I don't, I don't like that. I'd rather stay in.
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether insured people generally have lower medical bills than those paying cash.
▶ Watch at 2:14:27Read what they said
In, in a lot of the scenarios, if someone has insurance, they would likely end up having less medical bills as opposed to if it was a, a cash payout, right?
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Pressed that insured patients' actual bills are usually lower than those of patients treated on a lien.
▶ Watch at 2:14:41Read what they said
That's the classic lawyer answer. Uh, it it goes off rates. There's, there are many providers who accept charge Charge talking when you're about the evidentiary issue. Yes. The person who pay, who has insurance, the actual medical bill is probably less than the one who does it on a lien in most circumstances. Right.
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether the witness would accept including prior insurance premiums in damages since insured people pay for their lower rates through premiums.
▶ Watch at 2:15:01Read what they said
Well, I would, and let me, let me go further with this. If the person who, you know, part of this is generally they do pay a little bit less, there's bulk rates for insurers and the actual bill is typically less than for others, especially if they're on a lien because they're uninsured. But in order to pay less, they have to pay more over time through their policy premium. And so would you be opposed to including within the damages, the policy premiums for a period of time leading up to the accident so that they were able to pay less when they were damaged by that other person?
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Noted that approach would require telling the jury about insurance.
▶ Watch at 2:15:50Read what they said
See, and that would necessarily say that they have insurance and let the jury know that insurance covered part of this, right?
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked why, under Gardner, the value of gifted medical care should benefit the insurer rather than the injured victim.
▶ Watch at 2:16:01Read what they said
But you're also here because I have a question for you and I'm trying to get to the bottom of the policy issue. So, you know, I get that. The other issue that I have is if, if somebody is damaged and they receive a gift of care from their neighbor, let's say that they lose a tooth in an accident or something and their neighbor dentist fixes the tooth that would otherwise cost money. But they provided that as a gift. Now under the Gardner decision, typically that would come in as a zero damages amount for their medical costs related to that tooth. Right? Why should that benefit iner to the benefit of the insurer as opposed to …
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said he has to make a decision today. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:17:00Read what they said
Each case. I'm here to talk about it today and I have to make a decision today. I I
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Repeated his question about who should benefit from gifted medical services.
▶ Watch at 2:17:05Read what they said
So I mean you're saying everything, it depends, but, but what I'm trying to get at is in gifted medical services, why should the insurer benefit and not the person who was damaged?
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Gave an example of a gifted $750 dental repair and asked whether Gardner lets the insurer keep that benefit.
▶ Watch at 2:17:20Read what they said
Paid. Okay. So let's say that the tooth replacement cost was typically $750. Okay? So they didn't have to pay that $750, but they were given that as a gift from their friend because their friend felt bad. However, the person who caused the damage who was insured and the insurer, which strong and Han likely represents in the state of Utah, comes to them and they say you don't get anything because you didn't actually have to pay for that even though you suffered the damage and someone gave you the gift. We get the gift. Not you. Isn't that what Gardner does?
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether free services provided to a victim come off the damages amount.
▶ Watch at 2:18:14Read what they said
Somebody provides services for free to a victim Who, who gets the benefit? Does it come off the damages amount?
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said that would unjustly enrich the insurer who avoids paying for the gifted care.
▶ Watch at 2:18:30Read what they said
And it's an unjust enrichment to put it in legal terms to the insurer who does not have to pay the damages and who receives the benefit of the gift that they otherwise would've had to pay for.
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked which insurance company provided the 9 percent figure and questioned the claim that it was classified.
▶ Watch at 2:50:13Read what they said
Who's they? The insurance company. Which insurance company That's classified. Okay. I don't think it is it, you're not a government entity, you're saying you, you don't want to tell me which insurance company. He doesn't have To tell you. No, I you don't have to, but it's not
S.B. 211 Tort Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said that although he is friendly to insurers, tort reform is a policy decision for the Legislature, not the Supreme Court.
▶ Watch at 2:50:50Read what they said
And, and, and part of my problem with this is, look, I'm generally probably the most insurance friendly person up here. I've, I've represented insurance companies. I've done a lot of insurance defense. But part of the problem is something that you said is our Supreme Court moved towards tort reform. And that's the problem. That's not their job. That's the legislature's job that's called policymaking. That's not what Supreme Courts are supposed to do. So I want you to keep that in mind as you look at this. Like, you may love the policy, but it has to be done in the right body. And when a court takes the step to reform things, that's out of their lane. …
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate Education Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Presents the resolution to study a night and weekend law school at Utah Valley University, explaining the market need for attorneys and the proposed study of costs and feasibility.
▶ Watch at 1:33:28Read what they said
Oh, Alright. Uh, thank you so much, committee. Um, in terms of where this comes from, uh, so I chair the criminal justice sub appropriation committee and over and over again, every single agency that comes to that committee, which is a very attorney heavy committee, has says we can't find a attorneys. Our attorneys are getting poached. Um, we're trying to, and, and a lot of this comes from about five years ago when some of the large national firms came into the Utah legal market, pulled a lot of attorneys up into their market, which means the local firms then grab other attorneys. And a lot of times the government attorneys get pulled into the local firms. And …
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate Education Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Explains that the location was chosen for convenience and in-person instruction for night and weekend students.
▶ Watch at 1:38:59Read what they said
So there's a couple of reasons. Number one, if we were doing a traditional law school that it was three years straight through full time, I think going to Logan would make a lot of sense. But this is a little different in the sense that these are night and weekend students, and we don't want it to be online. We want it to be in person. I think it's important that you go and you have that Socratic method in person. And I hated that in law school, by the way. Yeah, yeah. Everybody needs to be humbled a little bit, and that's a good process for it. But the
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate Education Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Explains that the night and weekend format targets second-career students and that the Thanksgiving Point location is accessible from Salt Lake and Utah counties.
▶ Watch at 1:39:40Read what they said
but in any event, uh, you know, if you're going to have a night and weekend class, you need to be located in a place where the market can get to you on nights and weekends. And by placing it in UVU, and this isn't in the heart of UVU, this is actually, they have two commercial office buildings at Thanksgiving Point. And Thanksgiving Point has become that, that area at the point, which is on the Salt Lake side and Thanksgiving point, on the Utah County side, those are accessible by two major county economic machines, you know, with Salt Lake and Utah County being able to access those. And so all of those people, and, and to be …
H.B. 6 Criminal Justice Base Budget · Senate floor debate (day 10) · Jan 29, 2026
Presents HB 6, the criminal justice base budget, which covers several listed entities, includes an $11 million adjustment for jail contracting and reimbursement, and totals about $1.35 billion for fiscal year 2027.
▶ Watch at 10:36Read what they said
Uh, this pertains to the following, um, entities, attorney General Board of Pardons and Parole, department of Corrections Courts guardian ad Litem, the Governor's Office, uh, criminal Justice Department of Public Safety, and the Utah Communications Authority. Uh, the base budget has been adjusted by 11 million for jail contracting and jail reimbursement in this base bill by the Executive Appropriations Committee. This bill accounts for 942 or 949.2 million from the general fund and income tax fund and a total of 1.35 billion in fiscal year 2027. And we'll make adjustments as the season or as the session progresses. And with that, I'm open to any questions.
H.B. 47 Vehicle Registration and Insurance Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
As Senate sponsor, moves that the committee recommend HB 47 favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:25:12Read what they said
Yes, I'm the Senate sponsor on this. I would move that we recommend favorably HB 47.
H.B. 47 Vehicle Registration and Insurance Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says the bill fixes a one-word change from last year that was not intended to apply to insurance, describes frustration with the Department of Insurance enforcement, and supports the immediate effective date added by Rep. Kyle.
▶ Watch at 1:25:24Read what they said
Real quick? Uh, this has been one of the more frustrating things. This was based on a one word change last year that was never intended for this. And we're not sure how they, in how the Department of Insurance interpreted it as they did. And even when we contacted them, they said they would stop enforcement, yet they did not stop. And so it's been an incredibly frustrating, uh, bill on this. And, and they would send letters to everyone with my name and representative Kyle's name, you know, saying to blame us. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And it, it was incredibly frustrating and it felt like we were being targeted by agency. Um, you know, and so I, you …
H.B. 47 Vehicle Registration and Insurance Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Comments in a joking manner on the enforcement notices that named the sponsors as responsible.
▶ Watch at 1:26:47Read what they said
you. I do love, I do love when things go wrong and they send out a notice to say, here are the two specific people that it was their fault. You know, it's always, yeah. It's really nice. Always Thoughtful. Yeah.
H.B. 47 Vehicle Registration and Insurance Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says the sponsor's point makes sense and jokes about placing the provisions in another bill. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:27:14Read what they said
Uh, so, uh, with that, I'll, uh, I appreciate where you're coming from 'cause that this makes a lot of sense. I'll Slipping those provisions. Ah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. It'll be fun. See, that's experience right there.
H.B. 47 Vehicle Registration and Insurance Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Jokes that any member voting no could be named in a future letter. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:27:53Read what they said
I, I figured if anybody voted no, we could put their name on the letter next time.
S.B. 65 Minimum Basic Tax Rate Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Encourages the sponsor to keep working with the State Auditor's office on auditing issues and says he will vote yes today.
▶ Watch at 1:41:42Read what they said
No, I think, uh, I would just encourage you to continue to work with the, uh, auditor's office or whoever they've pointed you towards. Yeah. Uh, to resolve any auditing issues. Uh, I'd like to not have this come back and, and hurt us in the, on the, you know, other side of the, of the legislation. So, so I'll be a yes today, but I'm hoping that you'll continue to work with them and, and find a good ground on that. He's stepping on my sum, Mr. Chair. But yeah, thank you.
S.B. 116 Income Tax Rate Modifications · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Asks about automatic tax reductions and says he is concerned that automatic cuts may not be tailored to each year's conditions and could discourage targeted tax policy.
▶ Watch at 1:56:09Read what they said
Yeah. So under this, it would, any tax cut would happen automatically. I wouldn't say any tax cut, but at least a reduction in the income tax rate would happen automatically. And then it would be up to the legislature to decide. 'cause if that happened automatically, we would still have a budget surplus. Uh, and in that case, we could decide do we want to still return, uh, uh, additional money to taxpayers or do we want to, uh, allocate that to other state needs. Okay. And I guess part of my concern is, um, you know, a I've generally been in favor of virtually, you know, most tax cuts. I I'm, and they're fun to vote for, aren't …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Said the deferral shifts tax to the estate, suggested allowing extensions beyond 10 years, said the program is easy to opt into, and said he would be in favor.
▶ Watch at 3:00:59Read what they said
First of all, I know the bill sponsor has worked for several years on this and I appreciate all the work. You know, one of the interesting things on this is, you know, we tie the current relief program to income, but what this is going to is more net worth. And when you're talking about a deferral to your children, paying your tax, what you're actually talking about is a deferral to your estate, paying your tax prior. So it is still your tax as part of your estate. And then what is left goes to your children. Like, you're still paying your taxes on that. And, and, and so I, I don't want that to be lost. And, …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says school districts pay most of property tax bills and that local governments have raised property taxes, and questions exempting school districts from the cap.
▶ Watch at 3:20:08Read what they said
And, and I think this is, you know, part of the issue is, um, we've had so many local governments raising property taxes, but it largely falls on school districts at 75 to 80% that have been of most people's property tax bill.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says many school districts participate in the minimum school program and that small cities would be hit hardest by the cap.
▶ Watch at 3:20:31Read what they said
Okay. If they're not participating in a minimum school program, that's, that they're a donor district, but many school districts are participating in the min in minimum school program. Yeah. And then part of my concern on this is there's a lot of cities with very small budgets. Mm-hmm. And the smaller the budget, the more that tax rate issue hits them.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says the 5% cap is a poison pill because it is hard for smaller cities to work with.
▶ Watch at 3:22:42Read what they said
Well, and I, I guess part of my concern is I'm Just being honest, right? And this is some of my, and, and you went through this as well, going from the house to the Senate and, and I know that we're more likely in the Senate to let the sausage continue because we have the second Yeah. Reading calendar and all of that. But that's a real poison pill for me on that 5% cap because I think it's impossible to work with for smaller cities.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Proposes amending the cap from 5% to 500%.
▶ Watch at 3:23:29Read what they said
Okay. Let me, let me do this. If I were to do a single amendment so that I could feel more comfortable voting for your bill and change that from 5% to 500% knowing that you're gonna change it, would you have an opposition to that?
S.B. 63 Assault Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Sen. Brammer said SB 63 came from a constituent involved in MMA and creates a narrow exception for choke holds used in mutual combat within the sport's rules.
▶ Watch at 52:30Read what they said
Yeah. This is SB 63 came from a constituent that does a lot of MMA fighting and they do have choking techniques in MMA. And so this Is the constituent Actually, you, I'm not gonna say Okay. One way or the other. That's fair. That's fair. There's a few cages around my neighborhood. We, it's fun. Um, no, but, uh, this just, it's a common practice. It's part of their rules. Uh, there are methodologies in how to do it and they don't want to be doing anything illegal. And so this creates a very narrow exception for mutual combat when it is within the rules of the mutual combat whereby there can be some level of, um, choke holds. …
S.B. 63 Assault Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Sen. Brammer said the bill was run last year, passed late, and did not make it through the last day of session.
▶ Watch at 53:29Read what they said
Yeah, it got it. It just didn't make it through the last day. I, it, it came through very late. I Remember hearing it and Okay. I'm just making sure I wasn't, Yep, same bill. Okay.
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Presents SB 68 as a safe harbor that gives websites 30 or 60 days after notice to fix ADA noncompliance before suits, with penalties for abusive litigation, citing mass lawsuits by plaintiff firms against businesses.
▶ Watch at 55:15Read what they said
Okay. So this is a bill to get out ahead of an issue that's happening nationally. Um, if, if any of you recall from a few years ago there were some a DA lawsuits that got a little out of hand in Utah, um, and my colleague here will talk a little bit about that. Uh, but what's happened on this is this deals with websites and accessibility for Americans with disabilities involving websites. Now, we certainly want Americans with disabilities to, to be able to have websites that they can use and that help them. Uh, but what we're, what this is about is, and really functionally what it does is it gives a, uh, a safe harbor period …
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Responds that the bill targets abusive litigation aimed at making money rather than remedying violations, that state law can regulate lawsuits related to the ADA, and that the chilling-effect concern is worth monitoring.
▶ Watch at 1:05:07Read what they said
Yeah, no, I, I think the concern about any chilling effect on the A DAI, I think that's something that we should definitely pay attention to and, and keep an eye on, you know, at, at the same time, we're balancing it with the chilling effect on, on businesses that are legitimately trying to do it, uh, do it the right way and just didn't know about, you know, whether that their website was accessible or not, which is not, um, you know, that that can happen. Uh, in terms of whether or not this is preempted by federal law. The A DA can be, uh, lawsuits related to the a DA can be regulated by state law. In this …
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Moves that the committee recommend SB 68 favorably to the Senate floor.
▶ Watch at 1:07:04Read what they said
I'll move that. We recommend favorably SB 68. We have a motion favorably recommend SB 68 to the floor of the Senate.
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Presents SB 145, which adds restrictions on contingency-fee lobbying and new disclosures, and asks Senator McCay to move Amendment 1.
▶ Watch at 39:14Read what they said
maybe I shouldn't have asked to go first, 'cause I've got the room full of lobbyists behind me on a bill regulating lobbyists. So, um, so this one is a bill that should be familiar to everyone. I've run it two years. This is the third year. Uh, it's gotten through, uh, both bodies, but not all the way through both times. And so, um, I think we've got it narrowed in and what the primary issue of the bill that we're trying to address. And then there's a few cleanups that whenever you open this section of code, uh, the, whenever you open this section of code, there's probably a few cleanups that need to happen because it doesn't …
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Says the bill raises gift limits from $10 to $25 and from $30 to $50 to track inflation, and treats nonprofit universities like public universities for lobbying interactions with legislators.
▶ Watch at 41:46Read what they said
Thank you. And then the other things that it does is it increases some of the, uh, limits on, uh, on gifting, uh, to, from like $10 to 25 and from 30 to 50 just marks those to, you know, rate of inflation. And then it treats our nonprofit universities the same way as our general public universities for purposes of, um, how they can interact with legislators. And we've had a problem with that in Utah County because we have this big university BYU, that doesn't know how to interact with the legislators in, in the same way that the University of Utah does, or UVU or others. So this puts them on the same playing field as far …
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Says the gift limits were last changed around the 2010 to 2011 period, and that he looked into it two years ago.
▶ Watch at 42:47Read what they said
I did, like two years ago when I first ran it. Um, I know that it was, it was like in the eighties that we did the $10 amount and it raised it from $10 to 25. The thing That we worked on that in 2010 or 11 about the same time too. Yeah. Yeah. So it, it was somewhere in there.
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Says there is concern about possible abuse of the statute but no specific instances he can point to, so the bill aims to address it early.
▶ Watch at 43:48Read what they said
I think that there's fear that there is, but I don't know that there are specific instances that, that I can point to. Mm-hmm. And so there's, there's just a, a concern that this happens or it could happen and we're trying to get out ahead of it before it became an issue.
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Says the bill addresses lobbying that crosses between the executive and legislative branches, and that Amendment 1 leaves the cooling-off time limits unchanged.
▶ Watch at 46:02Read what they said
I don't think that it's for the, the trusting of lobbyists. Lobbyists are like attorneys where it's kind of, they get cursed and, and as an attorney, I get to say this, um, you know, where, uh, you know, they're not always, always trusted and people oftentimes don't understand their role, uh, totally. And, and what the benefits are until they need one. Um, but even in the executive branch, that's still different because you, um, you know, I, I don't think that it, it prevents someone who's working in the executive branch from getting another job in the executive branch. But in that lobbying field, what you want to make sure is, because not all the lobbying is just …
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Says the language was negotiated with lobbyists over several years and that the bill carries that language forward, except for one section added by a prior amendment.
▶ Watch at 50:14Read what they said
So, to be clear, I have worked for three years with the lobbyists lobbyist Okay. To work Through the language, didn't state Whatsoever, Which apparently the lobbyists have their own lobbyists that they hire to come and talk to me and lobby me about the lobbying for the lobbyists. So, um, you know, we have worked through a lot of that and we, we have smithed the, you know, works workshoped this language quite a bit. So I'm not sure that it captures, they've everything, but Am I raising concerns They've already Raised Yes. And fed it out. We, we've, we've worked through a lot of concerns back and forth for several years, and that's, you know, in some of …
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Brammer, participating remotely, apologized for not being present in person.
▶ Watch at 1:20:45Read what they said
Yes. Are We jumping? Yeah, thank you. And I apologize, I can't be there right now. I'm kind of doing,
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Brammer said the most acute need is district court judges and moved Amendment 1 to add a third district judge in the Fourth District.
▶ Watch at 1:20:56Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you. So I do have an amendment and I share many of the same concerns on this. And, and, and I think it's one that, that will, uh, you know, this proposal will pass. And, and although I do have some concerns on expanding the court, I'm, you know, I've been very concerned about the efficiency of the Supreme Court and the number of decisions and things like that. I'm not necessarily sure that adding more justices adds to that efficiency, but I do think that having more eyes on things is helpful to getting good, uh, uh, good reasoning. And so I, I do support it in that way. Uh, but I, I think the most acute …
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Brammer said he is unsure expansion fixes the Supreme Court's declining decisions but supports the bill for the added trial court resources, noting Utah County has had no new judge position in over 20 years.
▶ Watch at 2:26:34Read what they said
Yeah. And I appreciate the motion. I, you know, I've had my own concerns on, on this mostly because I, I've been kind of the biggest proponent on, you know, the, the declining number of decisions with regards to the Supreme Court over the years, that that's been a big problem in our state. That people are been waiting for justice or there being funneled to other courts when the Supreme Court, uh, could have handled things. Um, I'm not, I I think the court's doing better. I'm not sure that this solves that necessarily. I think it can, it can improve it. Um, but I'm also the chair of the appropriations for, you know, over the courts. And I …
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor would apply the same face covering and gear provisions to protesters.
▶ Watch at 2:53:00Read what they said
Yeah. You've got a lot about, um, facial coverings and military gear, things like that. Um, would you be opposed to including the same provisions for any protesters?
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Asks whether protesters may wear face coverings and body armor while ICE agents may not.
▶ Watch at 2:53:21Read what they said
Your view is that protestors should be able to wear facial coverings, body armor, and everything that way. But an ICE agent should not
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor knows why ICE agents typically wear face coverings.
▶ Watch at 2:53:49Read what they said
And do you have an understanding as to why ICE is wearing facial coverings typically?
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor would oppose coordinating with the federal government to enforce civil rights laws.
▶ Watch at 2:55:02Read what they said
And I have one other question. Yeah, please. Um, uh, now civil rights movement involved, the federal government coming in and enforcing integration, um, would you also be opposed to coordinating with the federal government to enforce civil rights laws?
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Notes the bill applies to ICE but not to protesters outside churches.
▶ Watch at 2:55:37Read what they said
Okay. And this only applies to ice. It doesn't apply to protestors outside of churches demanding that people not support ice.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says religious locations would be protected from ICE but not from protesters under the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:55:53Read what they said
So, religious locations are protected from ice, but not from protestors, Uh, Under your bill,
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Asked the sheriff what types of offenders ICE has detained in Utah County and how they came into custody.
▶ Watch at 3:27:51Read what they said
Uh, sheriff Smith, can you tell us, uh, can you expound a little bit on the, uh, the type of criminals that you've seen, uh, detained by ICE in Utah County and how they came to? Can you tell us a little bit about how that, how that happens?
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Clarified he meant people turned over to ICE and possibly deported.
▶ Watch at 3:29:35Read what they said
Or turned over to ICE and maybe deported. I don't know what, where you have numbers on that or
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Confirmed these were people arrested by local officers on probable cause for a crime.
▶ Watch at 3:30:44Read what they said
And that's after being detained for committing a crime that one of your officers arrested them for based on probable cause.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Said he saw the sponsor nodding at a call to abolish the police, that the bill goes in the wrong direction, and that more cooperation is needed.
▶ Watch at 3:51:48Read what they said
Yeah, just real quick. I, you know, when, when the last witness was, was talking about wanting to go further and he, he mentioned he wanted to abolish the police, I saw the bill sponsor nodding his head vigorously in support of Apol, um, abolishing the police. And, and, you know, that was, uh, I'm not willing to go down the path of anything that takes us that way. I think that this goes in the wrong direction. Uh, we need more cooperation. Uh, you know, this is just, you know, it's a statement, bill, and you've had your chance to make your statement, and I think it's time to vote. Thanks.
S.B. 101 Specialized Product Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 3) · Jan 22, 2026
Brammer moves to circle S.B. 75.
▶ Watch at 49:14Read what they said
Brammer. Motion to circle I Your mic on? I think so. Okay. Motion to circle.
S.R. 2 Senate Rules Resolution - Standing Committee Duties · Senate floor debate (day 2) · Jan 21, 2026
Says the resolution is not binding and that he is not comfortable putting committee best practices into code, so he will likely vote no.
▶ Watch at 24:08Read what they said
The only concern that I have is this isn't binding on, on anyone. And that may make you think, well, we don't need it, but, or we don't, you know, we can vote for it and it doesn't do anything. But I don't love the idea of law that puts in nothing that is required or, uh, you know, it's just something that could be done by a committee chair who wants to do it that way no matter what. And all we're doing is putting into code something that a committee chair can already do or could already not do. We're just adding to the code. And I'm not sure I understand the purpose of that. It's not what …
S.J.R. 2 Joint Resolution Regarding Constitutional Brackets · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Says the change solves a problem that has not arisen, could muddy the ballot, and is not worth putting before voters.
▶ Watch at 1:08:35Read what they said
Yeah, I I have a few concerns on this just in the sense that this seems to be, you know, a solution in search of a problem. It's never been a problem. There's never been some case that turned on brackets. I worry about it muddying the ballot for people. I don't think it's a problem worth fixing. And unless it becomes a problem, I don't think we should spend our time on it or put it in front of the voters, uh, for mere, uh, copy editing of our constitution.
S.J.R. 2 Joint Resolution Regarding Constitutional Brackets · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Says he will hold his remaining concerns for debate on the main bill.
▶ Watch at 1:09:15Read what they said
Okay, then I, I'll just consider that for the main bill. Uh, that way I don't say it again. Thanks.
S.R. 1 Senate Rules Resolution - Amendments to Senate Rules · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Asks whether the minority party currently receives certain resources and privileges as the designated minority party.
▶ Watch at 1:18:38Read what they said
So my understanding is currently the Minority Party does receive certain resources and privileges as the designated minority party. Is that accurate?
S.R. 1 Senate Rules Resolution - Amendments to Senate Rules · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Asks what the minority party would be if the bill were not passed.
▶ Watch at 1:18:50Read what they said
So if we chose not to pass this bill, then the Minority Party would be, uh, the senator from, from, uh, Eagle Mountain Twila area, correct.
S.R. 1 Senate Rules Resolution - Amendments to Senate Rules · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Asks whether the Forward Party would be the minority party if the bill is voted down.
▶ Watch at 1:19:22Read what they said
So if we voted no on this, then the minority party would be the forward party. Is that accurate?
S.R. 1 Senate Rules Resolution - Amendments to Senate Rules · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Says it would be interesting to treat the minority party as the party with the fewest representatives.
▶ Watch at 1:20:01Read what they said
No. It, it would be, uh, interesting if, if we were to treat the Minority party as the party with the least number of representatives. Um, and so that, that would be a fascinating possibility on that. Thank you.
From the official recordings' automatic captions, with speakers and summaries identified by AI. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.