Legislators / Grant Amjad Miller
Grant Amjad Miller
Democrat · House District 24
Hear from them directly
Contact Rep. Grant Amjad Miller
- Email: gmiller@le.utah.gov
- Phone: 801-520-0099
- Office: 350 N State Street, Suite 350, Salt Lake City, UT, 84114
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.
Grant Amjad Miller serves on:
- Criminal Justice Appropriations Subcommittee
- House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee
- House Judiciary Committee
- Government Operations Interim Committee
- Judiciary Interim Committee
- Retirement and Independent Entities Interim Committee
What they've said
75 remarks on 29 billsS.B. 283 Court Fees and Administration Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents the Senate bill, saying it removes obsolete court statutes, modernizes court provisions, raises the OCAP filing fee for the first time in about 20 years, and removes the law clerk bailiff program.
▶ Watch at 19:43Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this bill removes, uh, obsolete, uh, statutory provisions regarding the courts. Uh, the Bill Modernizes court statutes improves efficiency in government filings and strengthens court health security while preserving access to, uh, protective order applicants and modifies the ocap filing fee that hasn't been moved in about 20 years. Ocap is a wonderful mechanism. It's called the Online Court Assistance Program. Helps people file divorces and other legal documents without an attorney. It saves people thousands. Um, we're increasing the price of, of the fee a little bit to keep up with inflationary costs, um, and maintenance fees. Uh, this also does away with some obsolete things in the courts that haven't existed for a …
S.B. 283 Court Fees and Administration Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Responds to the Speaker's remark about his suit matching another representative's, saying they swapped ties.
▶ Watch at 20:56Read what they said
Mr. Speaker. It is true. He chose my liner, I chose his. And so that's the only difference in the two suits.
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents the bill, which clarifies that fines are eligible for a program where money spent on a class or rehabilitative treatment can be credited toward a fine, and notes prosecutors may object and the Statewide Association of Prosecutors supports it.
▶ Watch at 1:30:17Read what they said
or rehabilitative treatment, the money spent on the class can be credited towards their fine. The bill from last year has been working well. Many judges want to know if this applies to mandatory fines, which prompted this bill to clarify. So this clarifies that fines are eligible for this program. Prosecutors have the right to object if they feel it's not in the best interest of justice or the victim, et cetera. Um, it is dis, uh, discretionary for a judge to enforce. This bill is supported by the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. And with that, I will yield to any questions.
S.B. 270 State Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Supports the bill, saying it began in Salt Lake County with consolidated calendars and would benefit defendants, landlords, and tenants by speeding evictions and enabling pro bono attorneys to help in one place.
▶ Watch at 59:51Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in enthusiastic support. This is a great bill. Um, this is, it is hard to hear me say that normally I'm saying no, no, no. But, uh, yes, yes, yes. On this bill. This bill started, uh, in Salt Lake County. There was a judge that consolidated these calendars. It was great for defendants because pro bono attorneys could just show up in one place and help people being evicted, helping them through that process and negotiating on their behalf with, uh, landlords. Landlords liked it because it expedited the, uh, eviction process. And it's really good for tenants, uh, because tenants have an instinct that they wanna fight for the home they're being …
S.B. 270 State Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Supports the bill, saying a Salt Lake County consolidated calendar helped defendants, landlords, and tenants and let pro bono attorneys assist more people efficiently.
▶ Watch at 59:51Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in enthusiastic support. This is a great bill. Um, this is, it is hard to hear me say that normally I'm saying no, no, no. But, uh, yes, yes, yes. On this bill. This bill started, uh, in Salt Lake County. There was a judge that consolidated these calendars. It was great for defendants because pro bono attorneys could just show up in one place and help people being evicted, helping them through that process and negotiating on their behalf with, uh, landlords. Landlords liked it because it expedited the, uh, eviction process. And it's really good for tenants, uh, because tenants have an instinct that they wanna fight for the home they're being …
S.B. 283 Court Fees and Administration Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Rep. Miller said he is the floor sponsor of the bill and called it a good bill.
▶ Watch at 51:23Read what they said
Good. I am the floor sponsor on this bill, So I was hoping it was a good bill. That's great. It's a great bill.
S.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Jury Selection · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Says the resolution's effective date could cause mistrials for jury selections scheduled before the end of the week, and describes experiences with virtual jury selection in his trials and supports in-person selection.
▶ Watch at 1:37:48Read what they said
Uh, while we're waiting for a substitute, I'll, uh, uh, sort of, uh, expound on, uh, on what the bill sponsor kind of said here, because I think that the in-person jury selection's really important. Uh, first and foremost, I want to just, just recognize the courts and their advocacy, because I do know that this is gonna be really hard for them. That's a hard lift. And, and hopefully the substitute that we comes that's coming is gonna help alleviate part of that. Um, and, uh, you know what, what I kind of worry is that in these, uh, uh, resolutions, they go into effect the moment both houses, um, approve of them without governor's signature. So if this …
H.R. 8 Resolution Admonishing and Censuring Judge Don M. Torgerson · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Opposes the censure, citing concerns about process and context, and says the judge should have an opportunity to explain his statements before the House acts.
▶ Watch at 1:20:54Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, I rise in opposition to this censure. Um, I'm worried about process. This body rarely censure people. Uh, in recent memory, this body did censure someone, but there were a public official. This is a political body. It's not designed for trial or punishment. We have professional tribunals for that. I think it's very different when we take disciplinary action against a government employee. Uh, when we take disciplinary action against a public employee, we take matters into our own hands. It's important to weigh factors that are relevant and discipline. What I want to know here, and what I hear echoed from my colleagues across the aisle that support this resolution is that they …
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Presents HB 94 as a cleanup bill that lets mandatory fines be reduced by credit for completed court-ordered classes or treatment, subject to prosecutor objection and judge discretion, and updates the community service credit rate to $12 an hour.
▶ Watch at 1:17:42Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief. This is a cleanup bill, uh, last year, if you recall, ran a court fines bill. And the purpose of the bill was that if you were ordered by a judge to do a court fine, and you're also ordered to do a class or, or substance abuse treatment or mental health treatment, you could keep your receipts for what you did and go back and credit that against your fine. Um, the good news is it's been working well across the state, but judges have had questions about whether or not this applies to mandatory fines, fines that happen in like DUIs or sex solicitation cases. And I said, that's a …
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Responds to a question about the bill's title and jokes about the committee's power to amend.
▶ Watch at 1:20:49Read what they said
That's a good question. Um, this was, I mean, if we, you're the committee. You got the power To amend. Just kidding. Oh, we got a motion to amend. No, I'm just kidding. Okay. Um,
S.B. 233 Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks why the appellate timeline requirements are placed in statute when they are usually in the Code of Judicial Administration.
▶ Watch at 48:31Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, quick question on lines, uh, 9 37 to 9 49. Uh, my understanding is the, these requirements are usually in the, uh, code of judicial administration. What, why are we publishing them here in statute?
S.B. 12 Sunset and Repeal Date Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend SB 12 to the House floor.
▶ Watch at 2:03:22Read what they said
Uh, I move to favorably recommend Senate Bill 12 to the house floor for their consideration.
H.B. 183 Sex Designation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks to confirm the substitute removes a child custody provision on parents refusing to recognize gender identity.
▶ Watch at 2:12:35Read what they said
And that's what you intend to run today? Yes. Um, and, and to clarify, this second substitute is different than how this bill was presented last night. When I was looking at this bill last night, there was a provision that said that in child custody matters, a judge had to, uh, uh, give certain preference if a parent refused to recognize gender identity, all that stuff that is now removed with the, with the substitute that you are running.
H.B. 183 Sex Designation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Thanks the sponsor for addressing his concern.
▶ Watch at 2:13:14Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was concerned about that and I appreciate that. Thank you.
H.B. 183 Sex Designation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Thanks those who came to advocate for trans rights and says equal protection is a right for all.
▶ Watch at 2:35:36Read what they said
Thank you. I'll be very, very short, uh, because, uh, we're very late for a vote and they're holding a gavel. They need us on the floor right now. What I want to do is recognize and thank everyone who came here to advocate for trans rights. I wish we had more time to listen to you. I'm sorry you got cut off. Uh, your advocacy means something. Uh, when you advocate for trans rights, you're advocating for civil rights. Equal protection under the law is not a luxury for some, it is a birthright for all of us. I just wanna thank you and just know that you have people up here who support you, who are listening to …
S.B. 225 Public Corporation Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asked about the 200,000-gallon water cap and whether the bill changes boundaries, and was told local maximums apply and the bill only prescribes how minor boundary changes occur. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:30:51Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, and thank you Senator for bringing this bill. I, I had a few, uh, emails about the, uh, 200,000, uh, a gallon water cap. Um, but my understanding is that the noose, uh, modifies that and it goes by local maximums. Is that correct? Yes, it does. But the 200,000 gallon cap came directly out of, uh, out of our, uh, Salt Lake City. And that they, and they, that property is all considered in Salt Lake City's boundary declarations. And so what, but whatever the city comes up with, we will adhere to those, those practices. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Uh, I, I have a question for you. There's …
H.B. 315 Human Development Instruction · House Education Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Rep. Miller supported moving on, saying standards already exist and mandating a video is too prescriptive amid efforts to limit screen time.
▶ Watch at 1:20:51Read what they said
Thank you. Um, Mr. Chair. I, I support the motion to move on. I, um, I, I agree completely with the importance of teaching human growth and development. Our kids need to have that knowledge and need to understand that and really applaud the sponsor, um, for the work that she's done in this area and, and for sharing the video with us. Um, but I do think that the standards are already there. Um, and I think mandating a three minute video is, does become too prescriptive. Um, especially at a time when, um, we've, or passing a bill through this session that's, uh, severely restricting and prohibiting screen time, and we're emphasizing asking our teachers to emphasize hands-on, …
S.B. 68 Disability Litigation Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asked whether the bill would preempt the federal ADA and whether a remedy period is within state authority.
▶ Watch at 55:33Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so my question, um, regards whether or not this actually would preempt the a DA rule. 'cause my understanding is the a DA doesn't have this provision. Um, do we have the authority to limit the scope and allow for a remedy period? Um, and if we don't, would run the risk of, of further litigation and, and forcing the, the defendant, in this case, the small business owner, uh, to have to incur more attorney's Fees. Yeah. So, so
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Supports the bill if an additional guardrail is added, such as a hearing with corroboration before prior-act evidence is admitted, and says he votes no in committee for that reason.
▶ Watch at 1:25:03Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and thank you for the presentation. Um, this bill's been before this committee a few times, and so no one's going to be surprised at all. Uh, with, uh, my position and my, my position is this, I, I'd support the bill, uh, if, if there are appropriate guardrails, uh, someone testified earlier that, uh, in the federal system, these are well briefed, well argued, well articulated, well, well litigated in the interest of pursuing justice. If there is a guardrail here, like a hearing, we have 4 0 4 hearings for victims. We wanna bring in a prior sexual evidence if we do the same thing for defendants. I have no objection. Um, and …
S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asked whether administrative remedies still exist for wage claims over $10,000.
▶ Watch at 1:58:08Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, my questions for Mr. Tolman really appreciated your, uh, presentation. Uh, thank you. It was really engaging. You're really, oh, I wanna see you in a courtroom now. Yeah. Well, I'm a lawyer. You could hire me. Uh, It's, uh, just might, we'll see what, uh, what kind of trouble I get into. Um, just some quick follow up questions instead of, uh, the, the current statute, uh, if the, uh, um, I don't wanna use the word rares, but if, if the, uh, amount in controversy is under the $10,000, uh, there's administrative remedies, do those administrative remedies still exist if it's over $10,000?
S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asked whether the law only applies to matters over $10,000 that go to district court.
▶ Watch at 1:58:52Read what they said
Okay. Yeah. Um, for, so this law only, uh, applies to matters over $10,000 when you must go to the district court, then
S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asked whether the one-year limit applies when appealing an administrative decision to district court.
▶ Watch at 1:59:31Read what they said
Understood. Um, and in, if you seek administrative remedies under $10,000, um, and, and say that takes over a year and it's not in your favor, you want to then, now that you've exhausted the administrative of remedies, you wanna take it to the district court. This statute of limitations does not apply in that
H.B. 495 Capital Felony Case Amendments · House floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Miller opposed the bill, citing concerns about intellectual disability and competency standards, evidence timing, and the risk of wrongful convictions.
▶ Watch at 1:20:18Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, it probably comes to no one's surprise that I rise in opposition to this bill. Uh, our current law exists for a reason. What this bill does is it removes guardrails and diminishes guardrails in cases where the state moves to execute individuals with a mental disability. I know that I'm probably in a minority of this chamber that opposes the death penalty, but I'm also one of the minority of this chamber that has tried a murder case before a jury. And I hope that I can impart some counsel. I want to first talk about some of the technical aspects of the bill before finishing on just some fallibilities of what we can …
H.B. 454 Public Assistance Fraud Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor will yield to a question.
▶ Watch at 1:25:49Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the, uh, sponsor yield to a question? Representative Wilcox, will you yield to a question?
H.B. 454 Public Assistance Fraud Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Asks whether the bill applies the same restitution and penalties to a co-actor or conspirator in public assistance fraud.
▶ Watch at 1:25:56Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker? Uh, in cases of public assistance fraud, there is usually a penalty where you have to pay 100% restitution of whatever was defrauded of the government and then a 100% penalty. Uh, does your bill contemplate the same thing if, if a person's a co actor or conspirator in this process?
H.B. 331 Criminal Offenses Modifications · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asks Fortgang for examples of road blockades tied to a terrorist organization and what could be anticipated.
▶ Watch at 1:33:05Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a question for Mr. Fort Gang and a and a few for the bill sponsor, um, Mr. Fort Gang. Uh, you, you mentioned, um, that, uh, there's intent of the bill here for instances when, when protestors, uh, in a group block off a roadway, uh, and, and, and block traffic and do so in the interests of a, of a terrorist organization, which I thought was very specific. Do you have any examples of, of, of when this has happened, uh, in, in recent history or anything that you would anticipate happening that you'd wanna prevent?
H.B. 331 Criminal Offenses Modifications · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asks whether wearing kafiyas at a Palestinian rights protest could be treated as support for a terrorist organization.
▶ Watch at 1:34:57Read what they said
Um, let me ask a follow up. Uh, so in a situation where, um, there's a protest in favor of Palestinian rights, people are wearing kafis, could a prosecutor interpret this law as being a pro terrorist because Hamas also wears kafi, and that's a symbol in common?
H.B. 331 Criminal Offenses Modifications · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asks whether the intent requires direct coordination with a designated organization.
▶ Watch at 1:35:58Read what they said
And so let me ask just one final clarifying question. So the intent that I'm gathering here is that, uh, the, um, there has to be a direct correlation. Uh, the, uh, the intent is that, uh, the protestors or whoever is directly advancing the interests, um, that there, there's either a, a directive, um, or, or a very meaningful direct intent, uh, to act in coordination with, uh, a designated to terrorist organization. Is that my understanding?
H.B. 331 Criminal Offenses Modifications · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Thanks Fortgang and says his questions were answered.
▶ Watch at 1:36:49Read what they said
Okay. No, that's very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Fort gang. Those are all the questions, and that also answers the questions I was gonna ask the, uh, bill sponsor. I appreciate it.
H.B. 331 Criminal Offenses Modifications · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Opposes the bill for now, citing concern about the breadth of terrorism language, and asks for narrower wording on coordination with designated organizations.
▶ Watch at 1:51:30Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I oppose this bill, but I, I do want to clarify that I, I appreciate the sponsor and the presentation here. Uh, clarifying the intent of the bill. And I feel a lot better about this bill, knowing the intent, um, after reading the initial language, um, ultimately my concerns are that it, we're dealing with very sensitive subject matter. If, uh, we're expanding a definition and formalizing what a terrorist is, uh, I think that has to be very limited in scope, very narrowly tar tailored. Um, my fear comes from the fact that, uh, terrorism is a very charged word, um, and is used to paint people with a broad brush, particularly people …
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Miller explains that the bill lets a person ordered to pay a court fine receive credit for the cost of required treatment or classes, including mandatory fines subject to prosecutor objection and judge discretion, and for indigent people.
▶ Watch at 1:25:12Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, uh, this bill adds some clarifications to my court finds bill, that we passed last year. As a quick refresher, what this bill does is if, uh, you're ordered to do a court fine and you also ordered to do like a class or complete rehabilitative treatment, then you could credit the amount that you spend on that treatment or class against the fine. Uh, it's been working really well in the courts, but judges had questions about whether or not this bill, this law could be attributed towards mandatory fines. I worked with the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, uh, on a couple of subs here, which is why we're on the third. That …
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Miller says the bill does not include restitution, applies only to court fines and plea-in-abeyance fees, and excludes interest on restitution.
▶ Watch at 1:26:42Read what they said
That's a fantastic question. No, it does not include restitution. And so the, the third substitute's very clear here that it only applies to, uh, uh, court fines that are levied and plea and AB advances fees. That's, uh, the limitation to it. Um, it, I think it, it addresses that interest, uh, can be credited on court fines and plea and maintenance fees, but not interest on restitution. That's excluded.
H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asked whether the ankle monitor could be removed once the offender has a regular address, and it was confirmed it could.
▶ Watch at 1:12:25Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair, just a quick question. Um, once the offender, uh, stabilizes gets a regular address, that ankle monitor could be removed. Absolutely. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.
H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Opposed the amendment, saying a commencement date is needed because many current registrants may not know of the change and failure to register is a third degree felony.
▶ Watch at 1:34:46Read what they said
Um, thank you. Sorry. No, you don't need to apologize Mr. Chair. I just jumped in 'cause I, what, what popped into my head here is, um, those that are currently on the registry, um, I mean, if you're on the registry, their, their agent should be able to inform them of the change. But there's, if there's not a, a kickoff date where from this point forward, this is the rule. There's a lot of people already on the registry that would have to be educated. Violation of failure to register is third degree felonies, a zero to five for each month that you don't do it. Um, and so I'm kind of worried that people don't know. I …
H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend the first substitute of HB 370.
▶ Watch at 1:38:02Read what they said
Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. I move the, uh, to will we favorably recommend first substitute of House Bill three 70 to the house floor for their consideration.
H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Said from his experience representing unhoused registrants that the bill closes a gap that often leads to prison for failure to register.
▶ Watch at 1:38:12Read what they said
Uh, it is briefly. It's a good bill. Uh, I've represented, uh, uh, people in the sex offender registry that are unhoused. Um, it's a complicated thing for their monitoring agents. Um, and, uh, as I mentioned earlier, the third degree felony if you fail to register for every month, and, uh, people are unhoused often either blow it off or, or don't know that, uh, they still have to report and then they, they show up and their new housing becomes the Utah State Prison. This creates a stop debt gap for, for a, an overlooked, uh, uh, population that's, uh, in a catch 22 and it resolves that catch 22. So I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this legislation.
H.B. 540 Judicial Transparency and Information Access Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asked whether the cooling-off period addresses conflicts of interest and whether recusal rules could address that concern instead; the sponsor said a conflict concern is part of it and a recusal or court rule approach may be possible.
▶ Watch at 1:44:54Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my, uh, questions regarding the cooling off period. Um, are there any specific instances, uh, where, um, a judge or justice, um, re well, you retired and then went into private practice and then immediately litigated on a case that they presided over? Do you have any instances of that? So, so right now the, the, the piece that I have is, is right now four, we have four, um, that were involved in those cases. I, I, I'm not exactly sure. Um, and, and so I just wanna drill down on, on the purpose of the policy. Um, is, is the concern here on the cooling off period that there's a conflict of interest …
H.B. 217 Stolen Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Asks the sponsor to yield to a question.
▶ Watch at 1:13:36Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the, uh, sponsor yield to a question? Representative Teuscher, will you yield to a question?
H.B. 217 Stolen Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Asks whether there is a statewide standard and says the waiting period depends on the municipality, with some having a 10-day wait and others none.
▶ Watch at 1:13:44Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, so, so my understanding here, there's no statewide standard. It depends on the municipality. Some of them have a 10 day waiting period, some of them have no waiting period at all.
H.B. 217 Stolen Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Supports the bill, citing the need for a statewide cooling-off period and his experience as a public defender with rental companies reporting late renters' vehicles stolen.
▶ Watch at 1:13:54Read what they said
Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Um, I think that it's appropriate to have a statewide cool off period before rental companies can, uh, call in a stolen vehicle. A stolen vehicle is a second degree felony, that's a one to 15 year potential prison sentence. Uh, as a public defender, I've had experiences where rental companies have abused law enforcement as their own personal collection agency. Um, I recall one case where I had a client that, uh, rented a car with a mobile app, was late in the terms of hours, and was greeted with a detective and, uh, charged for the second degree felony, uh, because there was no minimum cool off period. Um, I've …
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Presents HB 94 as a cleanup of last year's bill, allowing a court credit for treatment or classes to be applied against mandatory fines with prosecutor and judge safeguards, and updating the compensatory service credit rate from $10 to $12 an hour.
▶ Watch at 2:55:00Read what they said
Chair, if I could present from here? Absolutely. Okay. Um, thank you fellow committee members. Uh, this bill is a cleanup bill for my court finds bill that I ran last year, um, was following the implication of how this bill worked through the courts. Um, and, uh, a lot of, uh, people were able to access and, and utilize, um, uh, a credit against their court finds. But there was a wrinkle in that judges did not know whether or not, uh, they could apply credit for treatment or classes against mandatory court finds. And I got a lot of text messages about it, and it's an ambiguity, and, uh, there was no clarification. And so I Uintah the …
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Says the substitute clarifies whether treatment or class credits can apply against fines and mandatory fees, and drops the original bill's hardship requirement for the judiciary, asking for the committee's support.
▶ Watch at 3:01:36Read what they said
Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, once again, this is a, mostly just a cleanup bill to, um, uh, modify or not modify, but clarify, uh, whether or not we could credit, um, compensatory service or, uh, or, or credit from, uh, a court, um, from, uh, uh, classes or, or treatment against a fine and, and mandatory whether or not that mandatory, uh, fees apply to that. This will clarify that. Uh, I do understand that, uh, this substitute's very different than the original, uh, bill, which contemplated, uh, uh, a requirement, uh, for the judiciary to implement this in times of hardship. Um, and, uh, while I dream of that happening one day, um, I don't think …
H.B. 223 Electronic Signature Collection Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Opposes the bill, citing concerns about asking signers to show driver's licenses to strangers, fraud risks, and the short timeline before the paper path sunsets.
▶ Watch at 1:07:33Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, rise in opposition to the bill. I, I appreciate, uh, the good bill sponsor here. Uh, and the effort here to really streamline, uh, verification of signatures. This would take a lot of man hours out of the process. That said, I have collected many signatures myself. I collected signatures to get onto the ballot. I've collected signatures for initiatives. Um, it is very inherent in the way that our system is structured to just want to put ink on paper. People are used to it. It's comfortable. Um, and it's an entirely different thing. It's very, very personal, very invasive to ask someone to pull out their driver's license. And then you have …
H.B. 223 Electronic Signature Collection Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Opposes the bill, saying signatures on paper are familiar and personal, and raising concerns about privacy and trusting signature collectors with driver license scans.
▶ Watch at 1:07:33Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, rise in opposition to the bill. I, I appreciate, uh, the good bill sponsor here. Uh, and the effort here to really streamline, uh, verification of signatures. This would take a lot of man hours out of the process. That said, I have collected many signatures myself. I collected signatures to get onto the ballot. I've collected signatures for initiatives. Um, it is very inherent in the way that our system is structured to just want to put ink on paper. People are used to it. It's comfortable. Um, and it's an entirely different thing. It's very, very personal, very invasive to ask someone to pull out their driver's license. And then you have …
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · House floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Says he is changing his vote to yes conditionally, hopes a juvenile defense attorney can be added later, and raises concerns about the fiscal cost of longer sentences and prison capacity.
▶ Watch at 28:08Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. I, I had a very different bill, uh, or I had a very different speech prepared, uh, for everyone today. Um, I, I appreciate, uh, colleague, good representative from Hooper, uh, with the amendment to, uh, keep defense lawyer on here. Um, and so I'm, I'm changing my vote today conditionally to yes, with hope that we can continue to negotiate this work, uh, bill and make good policy and have a good commission. Um, my hope is that at the end, we could also keep a juvenile defense lawyer on juvenile, uh, uh, justice system is very different than the adult system. I wouldn't dare, uh, practice one day in the juvenile justice system. …
H.B. 186 Judicial Conduct Commission Amendments · House floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Supports the bill, saying it closes gaps so the Judicial Conduct Commission can act on judicial misconduct as its constitutional mandate requires.
▶ Watch at 11:03Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. The good sponsor, uh, from uh, South Jordan articulated it well. Uh, we do serve on the JCC together, and this bill is sorely needed. Uh, the JCC is created by mandate by the Utah State Constitution. It's a good organization. It's structured well. And our job is to make sure that, uh, when there's misconduct from judges on the bench, that we hold them accountable. The problem is sometimes the judge will do something, it'll get on the news and there's nothing we can do about it until someone reports 'cause we can't self-initiate. This fixes those loopholes. When a prosecutor files charges on a judge, they have …
H.B. 48 Criminal and Juvenile Justice Changes · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Commends the sponsor and says the bill has improved, explains his vote is informed by juvenile justice testimony, and expresses optimism that consensus can be reached.
▶ Watch at 1:58:59Read what they said
This is a much better time to pipe up. Sorry about that. Uh, no, I just want to, um, uh, uh, commend the sponsor of the bill. Um, even though like this is a no, this bill has come a long way, and I, I want to acknowledge that there's some very positive changes. Um, I'm, my, my vote is informed by the JJYS, uh, a testimony. Um, but, uh, but I, I'm, I'm optimistic that I think that, uh, consensus could be reached. So I just wanted to explain my vote and, and not just, uh, uh, seem like I'm, I'm voting against substitutes for no reason, uh, trying to clarify that here. Anyway, thank you.
H.B. 241 Charter School Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Says the revolving fund makes sense but has concerns about offering surplus property to charter schools and possible unintended consequences.
▶ Watch at 1:24:07Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. There is is also a lot I like about this bill. Um, the charter, charter school revolving fund makes a lot of sense. Um, I do, um, share similar concerns to Representative Voxer about, um, offering surplus property to charter schools. Um, I think there will be some un unintended con consequences of that and, um, we're not always be in the best interest of the community.
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend HB 250 to the House floor.
▶ Watch at 1:31:19Read what they said
Well, with that, uh, Mr. Chair, I move that we, uh, favorably recommend, uh, house Bill two 50 to the house floor for their consideration.
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Supported the marketplace approach, citing uncertainty about Social Security and the need to encourage Utahns to save for retirement.
▶ Watch at 1:31:32Read what they said
Briefly? Um, I, I think that the bill sponsor and uh, the state Treasurer make, uh, very compelling points. I like the marketplace approach. Um, and I think that the concern about whether or not Utahans are saving up for retirement's a very real one. I don't know whether or not social security's going to really exist in the continuation of my lifetime. And I look at my colleagues and, you know, as we all get along in age, I don't know who's looking after themselves in the future generations. And so this creates a realistic pathway forward to encourage people to do the right thing. And I, I'm really compelled by the argument. So, uh, based on that, I …
H.B. 265 Non-nicotine Inhalation Product Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether the cannabinoid framework in the bill is separate from the medical marijuana framework and whether the two overlap.
▶ Watch at 2:17:33Read what they said
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, and I, I think you satisfied this in, in your presentation, but, uh, just to clarify that the cannabinoid, I guess, cannabinoid can cannabinoid, cannabinoid. I've heard it like five or six different ways. It's however you wanna pronounce it, but I know what you're saying. K Yeah. Yeah. Batman. There you go. Cannabinoid. Um, sorry, I'm having too much fun over here. Um, and so, like th this, this, this regulatory framework I is, is completely separate from the, um, the, the medicinal marijuana framework. They, the, the, the two don't overlap.
H.B. 265 Non-nicotine Inhalation Product Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said he had misunderstood the bill last year and had voted against it, and moved to adopt the first substitute and favorably recommend the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:22:37Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, testing one, two. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, representative, I keenly remember this bill from last year. I completely misunderstood it. I voted against it. I was the only no on the board. And then after, uh, that passed, I reread your bill and realized I completely misunderstood it. And I'm very embarrassed to this day about that. I'm glad that you have this so I can make it up to you. I want to move favorably, uh, substitute one, the amendment, and then I want to move to, uh, favorably recommend the whole bill. We'll,
H.B. 265 Non-nicotine Inhalation Product Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Moved to adopt Amendment #1 to the first substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:24:04Read what they said
I move the amendment, We're gonna move the amendment, um, amendment one, not just any amendment. The first amendment. That's what it is.
H.B. 265 Non-nicotine Inhalation Product Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Explained that the amendment is technical language cleanup intended to close any potential loopholes or uncertainty.
▶ Watch at 2:24:24Read what they said
Uh, I, I don't have any, I just for, for clarification, these were all, um, this amendment is, is basically all technical language. We were just wanting to make sure that we were buttoning everything up. I'm making sure that we weren't leaving any kind of, um, uh, language that can, could create a loophole or, or not be certain. So, um, yeah, it was just cleaning up language. And appreciate your support in the amendment.
H.B. 265 Non-nicotine Inhalation Product Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend HB 265 to the House floor.
▶ Watch at 2:25:11Read what they said
You, Mr. Chair. Uh, I move that we, uh, favorably recommend house Bill 2 65, uh, to the house floor for their consideration.
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 11) · Jan 30, 2026
Miller opposes the bill, saying the cost of expanding the Supreme Court and paying justices' salaries is too high and that funds should go to clerks and district court judges instead.
▶ Watch at 8:12Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the bill. Uh, I do wanna say that the bill does some good, and I wanna start off there and, and, and credit to the good, uh, um, good sponsor from Paradise. I've also spoken with the, uh, good senator here, uh, who informed me that, uh, a lot of resources are being allocated to clerks and to district court judges, which is sorely needed because that's the element of our courts that interface with the public, and it's that part of the branch of government that's necessary for the public to access. What concerns me here is the great expense that would have to be incurred by the state to …
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Miller asked whether the sponsor would yield to questions.
▶ Watch at 48:14Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Speaker. If, uh, Madam Chair, if the, uh, speaker would yield to a series of questions?
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Miller asked whether the bill was requested by any law enforcement or victims organization.
▶ Watch at 48:24Read what they said
I, um, did this bill come at the request of, uh, any law enforcement organization or, or, or victims organization?
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Miller asked whether other states have sentencing commissions without defense attorneys.
▶ Watch at 49:02Read what they said
My apologies. Of course, Madam Chair. Uh, Madam Chair, uh, my follow up question, are there any other, um, uh, states that have a commission like this, that don't have, uh, defense attorneys on those commissions?
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Miller noted defense lawyers hold three of 15 seats and asked whether there is evidence they had outsized influence on the guidelines.
▶ Watch at 50:48Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. And if I could ask one more question, um, it appears to me that the, uh, defense lawyers here are three out of 15 on the commission, uh, representing a super minority. Are there any instances, uh, from the commission record, uh, to show that, uh, the defense attorneys had an all outsized influence on developing the guidelines?
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Miller asked why the remedy would not be adding victim representatives rather than removing defense attorneys.
▶ Watch at 51:53Read what they said
And and Madam Chair, can I just follow up one last question? I apologize. Um, uh, and I, I do appreciate, uh, that victims do need to have a meaningful presence on the commission. Um, would a remedy here, why wouldn't the remedy be, uh, uh, more consistent with that ideology to add more representation from the victim's rights community as opposed to removing defense attorneys?
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Miller said those were all his questions.
▶ Watch at 53:08Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are all the questions I have. I appreciate it. Thank
H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Miller explained his no vote, saying the bill adds law enforcement members but no new victim representatives while removing all defense voices, and that defense lawyers act as auditors of justice.
▶ Watch at 1:36:18Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, wanna put on the record, uh, my no vote. I know it's not a surprise to anyone that I, I oppose this bill, but I, I, I wanna make clear, uh, a couple of things and a lot that echoes my, my colleague, um, to the, to the victim's representatives and the victims in this room testified today, I hear you. Um, there's a common thread in here that victims' voices aren't being heard loud enough in this process. And, and that is something I respect. And, and I think that, uh, if that's what the, the substance of this bill about, I certainly would not oppose. Um, what I'm looking at here is the …
H.B. 53 Community Rehabilitation Program Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Presents HB 53, which extends the community rehabilitation program's Sunset by 10 years and adds reporting requirements on contracts, persons served, spending, and compensation, then takes questions.
▶ Watch at 2:22:28Read what they said
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. This bill is not nearly as exciting, uh, but I hope some people stay all the same. It's quite fun. You all voted for it already. In interim, uh, this was a committee bill, uh, came through unanimously, came through the house unanimously. This called, uh, community Rehabilitation Program Amendments. What this does, it extends the Sunset and creates report back conditions. Uh, in this state, we have a program that matches, uh, vacancies in the state workforce with adults with, uh, qualified disabilities. We contract with community rehabilitation organizations and they find, uh, individuals with, uh, qualifying disabilities. And we get them, uh, in touch with vacancies in our workforce. Uh, …
H.B. 186 Judicial Conduct Commission Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Explains that commission members see full complaint details in executive session and that most complaints involve dissatisfaction with rulings rather than misconduct.
▶ Watch at 57:35Read what they said
Can I just add something? Yes. Um, just if I understood your question correctly, to add a, um, just a little bit to, to what Alex was saying, for the members of the commission, we, we see everything. So we'll go into an executive session, we'll see exactly the complaint, who made the complaint, who the judge was, all the information for the investigation, everything that they had. If, you know, if they had to get a subpoena for record, all of that comes to the, the 11 members on the commission. Um, and then they can take action and decide, you know, what they wanna do with all of that information. It's been interesting to see, and I don't …
H.B. 186 Judicial Conduct Commission Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Asks permission to make the motion before commenting on the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:08:45Read what they said
Thank you, Madame Chair. I'm asking for leave to, uh, comment on the bill and, and then make a motion reserve for a motion. Would that Be okay? We make the motion first and then comment,
H.B. 186 Judicial Conduct Commission Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Moves to adopt the first substitute and says the bill fills gaps in JCC authority, allows coordination with law enforcement, and keeps the process transparent through public findings.
▶ Watch at 1:08:55Read what they said
I'm happy to do that. Uh, making a motion to, uh, well adopt the substitute and then afterwards I'll make a, uh, uh, a motion to favorably recommend. Uh, so as, uh, uh, the, uh, the good sponsor, uh, as, uh, as mentioned, Mr. Peterson has mentioned, I may also sit on the, uh, judicial Conduct Commission. Um, and it is, uh, an extraordinary experience, uh, to be able to, uh, work in such an independent fashion with so many different professionals, uh, to hold judges accountable. This bill fills up a lot of gaps. We don't really have the ability to initiate an investigation against a judge. Um, sometimes judges will, uh, will get arrested. There's no mechanism, uh, …
H.B. 186 Judicial Conduct Commission Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend H.B. 186 as substituted to the House floor.
▶ Watch at 1:15:42Read what they said
Representative Miller? Thank you Madam Chair, I, uh, move to favorably recommend House Bill 180 6 to the house floor for their consideration. Thank
H.B. 182 Genetic Information Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Miller asked whether the Attorney General's office has the capacity to enforce the bill's civil penalties.
▶ Watch at 1:43:20Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Oh, Testing, 1, 2, 3, go. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, and, uh, uh, thank you representative for, uh, bringing this bill. It's, uh, uh, something that I hadn't thought about and, uh, now you've given me a lot to think about. Uh, so hopefully you don't mind if I have a couple of questions to ask you to clarify my understanding. Um, so looking at the, uh, my first question regards, uh, a penalty. This is, um, my understanding, this would be a civil action that would be taken on behalf of the Attorney General's office. Correct. Um, and, uh, have you spoken with the Attorney General's office? Would they have the capacity, the …
H.B. 182 Genetic Information Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Miller asked why Congress had not acted and why states needed to fill the gap.
▶ Watch at 1:43:58Read what they said
Excellent. Um, one thing that caught my eye here is it sounds like there's a, a collection of state governments that, uh, have already enacted this. Um, but this is a sort of thing that I would expect Congress to act on, is, is there any reason why the federal government hasn't acted on this and why there's a gap here?
H.B. 182 Genetic Information Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Miller asked whether the bill would hinder academic, genealogical or medical research.
▶ Watch at 1:45:30Read what they said
Okay. Uh, and, and you kind of allude to something that also caught my interest. Um, would this meaningfully affect, uh, our academic institutions, those us doing genealogical research and medicine? Um, would this inhibit, uh, our ability to research
H.B. 182 Genetic Information Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Miller asked whether a foreign doctoral student taking a laptop home would violate the statute.
▶ Watch at 1:46:07Read what they said
And, uh, one final question. 'cause thinking along the lines of, uh, academia, uh, I suppose it's not impossible to envision like a doctrinal candidate from Russia or, or China studying, uh, uh, geology or medicine in the United States. And if they were to, to take their laptop home on like a trip, would they be in violation of the statute?
H.B. 182 Genetic Information Amendments · House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Miller said his questions were answered and thanked the sponsor.
▶ Watch at 1:47:02Read what they said
Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I know that was a lot of questions, but I Appreciate Thank you.
H.B. 53 Community Rehabilitation Program Amendments · House floor debate (day 3) · Jan 22, 2026
Miller presents H.B. 53, which extends the Community Rehabilitation Program's sunset and adds reporting requirements so the state can evaluate it later.
▶ Watch at 23:07Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, rehabilitation, uh, community rehabilitation program amendments HB 53. What it does is it extends a Sunset, creates report back conditions. Uh, if you look at the handy, uh, flyer that I passed out yesterday, so you could all throw it away in advance of this, uh, it lays out the details of the underlying pro, uh, program that we have. What the state does is if we have some vacancies and the state workforce that, uh, disabled adults can, uh, participate in. We contract with community rehabilitation programs. They find individuals and they put 'em in touch with those vacancies. Um, programs been going on for about 20 years, so this is a Sunset extension. …
H.B. 53 Community Rehabilitation Program Amendments · House floor debate (day 3) · Jan 22, 2026
Miller says the reporting requirement applies to individuals placed into the program, after confirming this with legislative counsel.
▶ Watch at 24:58Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I, I appreciate the good representative from Illa. Uh, as, uh, we discussed this in advance, I appreciate the clarification for the record here. I was on the phone with, uh, legislative counsel about this and have confirmed that that reporting requirement is on the individuals that have been placed into the program, so that way we know who's actually in the program and how many people we've actually helped.
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.