Karianne Lisonbee

• S.B. 323 Criminal and Juvenile Justice Recodification · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Rep. Lisonbee says the bill creates a Department of Criminal Justice with a commissioner and two deputy commissioners to consolidate criminal justice programs and improve oversight and accountability, and that it has no fiscal impact. She then opens the floor to questions.

  Read what they said

  You Mr. Speaker. So this is a really important bill. Currently, the CCJJ sentencing Commission, all of the different, uh, departments within, or programs within criminal justice under the executive branch are, um, disorganized. There's no real reporting structure. And so what this does, it establishes a new Department of Criminal Justice in Title 75 E. Um, and it includes a commissioner and two deputy commissioners so that there's improved chain of, of command and oversight and accountability. It also consolidates the existing programs into a single structure. Under that leadership structure, it enhances oversight of the commissions, legislative processes, agency operations and licenses, or excuse me, finance. And it does all of this without a fiscal impact. So there's …

  ▶ Watch at 1:03:03

• S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explained the conference committee agreement: the statute of limitations stays at one year for administrative cases and two years for civil cases, and the effective date changes to May 6, 2026.

  Read what they said

  Yes. We came to an agreement on the statute of limitations for administrative cases will remain the same as it was before of one year and for, uh, civil side two years and we changed the effective date to May 6th, 2026.

  ▶ Watch at 1:38:36

• S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Says the bill has been revised with several members and defers presenting it to the sponsor of the substitute.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In order not to waste the body's time, I, we've worked carefully with several members to significantly revamp this policy. So I will forego, presenting and just, um, defer to the sponsor of Substitute two, the good representative from West Valley City, uh, to introduce his substitute.

  ▶ Watch at 1:45:29

• S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explains that the substitute separates the claim time limits: claims filed within one year may name both the company and its executives, while claims filed up to four years later name only the company, and implementation is delayed until 2027.

  Read what they said

  Yes. So, uh, this is actually a pretty complicated change. Um, so I apologize. I'm gonna take just a moment. Currently under, uh, unpaid Wages Claim Act, um, you can file either an administrative or a civil claim. And there's been some, um, confusion over what the lim uh, what the, um, um, the statute of limitations is on this. A, um, federal district court had established a separate, um, timeline for this. And a state district court had established a separate, uh, timeline recently. And so there does need to be an adjustment to this code, but the adjustment is a little more complicated. So what this does is goes into the Unpaid Wages Claim Act that currently defines …

  ▶ Watch at 1:46:06

• H.B. 48 Criminal and Juvenile Justice Changes · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Explains that the bill adds factors a judge or the Board of Pardons must consider when deciding whether to change housing arrangements for a minor under 18.

  Read what they said

  Yes. Thank you Mr. Speaker. So this just adds some factors that a judge has to consider or the Board of Pardons has to consider when they are looking at making a motion to change housing arrangements for an, um, ary who is under 18.

  ▶ Watch at 2:32

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Asks to yield to the sponsor for questions.

  Read what they said

  Well, you wanna make, I wanna reserve the right to make a motion. Go ahead. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield Sponsor yield?

  ▶ Watch at 52:33

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Asks the sponsor to clarify the intent of lines 1052 to 1078 regarding free speech events.

  Read what they said

  I'm trying to understand, and I did look at this earlier and then as it's so busy, we, I had didn't have time to reach out. So I apologize that this is happening on the floor on lines 10 52 through 10 78. The intention there, I think you stated, but, but please clarify for me, is to allow the Capital Preservation Board to handle decisions regarding free speech events. Could you clarify that for me please?

  ▶ Watch at 52:45

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Asks the sponsor to clarify the intent of lines 1052 through 1078, including whether they let the Capitol Preservation Board handle decisions about free speech events.

  Read what they said

  I'm trying to understand, and I did look at this earlier and then as it's so busy, we, I had didn't have time to reach out. So I apologize that this is happening on the floor on lines 10 52 through 10 78. The intention there, I think you stated, but, but please clarify for me, is to allow the Capital Preservation Board to handle decisions regarding free speech events. Could you clarify that for me please?

  ▶ Watch at 52:45

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Asks whether the language gives the Capitol Preservation Board authority to decide free speech event requests.

  Read what they said

  Thank you. I I probably didn't ask my question clearly enough. And so I'm gonna re-ask the question a little differently. Representative Peterson, will you yield to another question? Sponsor yield. Thank you. So this language is giving new authority to the Capital Preservation Board to make decisions and determinations on free speech events. I understand the time, manner, place, the, the Supreme Court, the, the case law surrounding that. What I'm asking is this gives authority to the Capital Preservation Board to make those determinations, yes or no?

  ▶ Watch at 54:05

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Re-asks whether the language gives the Capitol Preservation Board authority to make determinations on free speech events.

  Read what they said

  Thank you. I I probably didn't ask my question clearly enough. And so I'm gonna re-ask the question a little differently. Representative Peterson, will you yield to another question? Sponsor yield. Thank you. So this language is giving new authority to the Capital Preservation Board to make decisions and determinations on free speech events. I understand the time, manner, place, the, the Supreme Court, the, the case law surrounding that. What I'm asking is this gives authority to the Capital Preservation Board to make those determinations, yes or no?

  ▶ Watch at 54:05

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Describes a denied request to reserve Capitol time for a prayer caucus, expresses concern about the language, and supports circling the bill.

  Read what they said

  Okay. And this, this is my concern and I apologize that this is happening on the floor, but I recently reached out to the Capital Preservation Board to reserve some time for a prayer caucus. And I was told that my request was denied because of separation of church and state. That is a direct quote. I nearly dropped the phone. Um, very concerning that we are now basically giving over to the capital preservation board power to make those determinations. And I would just caution, I would like to have some more conversations about this. So I would support the motion to circle. At this point, I don't necessarily want to amend, 'cause I know this was carefully negotiated, …

  ▶ Watch at 54:46

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Says a request to reserve time for a prayer caucus was denied by the Capitol Preservation Board, expresses concern about giving the board this power, and says she supports the motion to circle.

  Read what they said

  Okay. And this, this is my concern and I apologize that this is happening on the floor, but I recently reached out to the Capital Preservation Board to reserve some time for a prayer caucus. And I was told that my request was denied because of separation of church and state. That is a direct quote. I nearly dropped the phone. Um, very concerning that we are now basically giving over to the capital preservation board power to make those determinations. And I would just caution, I would like to have some more conversations about this. So I would support the motion to circle. At this point, I don't necessarily want to amend, 'cause I know this was carefully negotiated, …

  ▶ Watch at 54:46

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Proposes adding language on line 1088 so applicants are notified of their right to appeal when an application is denied.

  Read what they said

  Um, I would like to insert on line after line 10 88 the additional language there, a section i, a subsection I that would read upon denial of an application, the board shall notify the applicant that they can appeal. And this is more than 10 words, which is why I wanted to circle. But at

  ▶ Watch at 1:01:00

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Proposes an amendment at line 1088 requiring the board to notify an applicant of the right to appeal when an application for a free speech event is denied.

  Read what they said

  Um, I would like to insert on line after line 10 88 the additional language there, a section i, a subsection I that would read upon denial of an application, the board shall notify the applicant that they can appeal. And this is more than 10 words, which is why I wanted to circle. But at The represent, this will be good news. You got 15 words. Okay, well if that works, then let's do it. Will you restate? So are you on line? 10 88. 10 88. And go ahead. We'll let, uh, staff will fi fix the grammatical and the proper, The board shall notify if they deny an application is the idea, and staff can work that …

  ▶ Watch at 1:01:00

• S.B. 192 Legislative Activities Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Explains the intent that applicants denied for a free speech event should be told they can appeal.

  Read what they said

  Will you restate? So are you on line? 10 88. 10 88. And go ahead. We'll let, uh, staff will fi fix the grammatical and the proper, The board shall notify if they deny an application is the idea, and staff can work that out in 15 words, then let's go. But the point is that at the very least, if they're going to deny an application for a free speech event, they should be notified that they have the right to appeal.

  ▶ Watch at 1:01:50

Show all 263 remarks →

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.