Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Signatures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee delays action on bill to make petition signatures public
Summary
A Utah Senate committee heard public comment and debated Senate Bill 218, which would mark petition signers as public records; a motion to advance the bill failed and committee members agreed to let the sponsor seek consensus language.
Senators at a committee meeting heard public comment and debated Senate Bill 218, a proposal to make the names (and, in some versions, addresses) of petition and nomination signers a public record.
Supporters told the committee the change would increase transparency for initiatives and nominating petitions. "When people are signing to put someone on the ballot or to change public policy, their name should be made public," citizen Marilyn Momeni said. Ricky Hatch, chair of the Clerks Legislative Committee, said clerks support transparency in principle but raised privacy concerns for people with documented safety reasons and urged work with the sponsor.
The bill prompted several senators to press for broader, uniform language. Senator Thatcher said he supports public access to voter information but opposed moving the bill without resolving equity issues, arguing it would not treat all voters equally if some records remain private. He moved to postpone consideration so the sponsor could seek consensus language.
Senator Bridal offered a substitute motion to favorably recommend the bill to the full Senate. The committee rejected the substitute motion; the chair announced the chair’s ruling on the vote and noted Senator Sandoval voted in favor of advancing the substitute. The committee then passed the underlying motion to move to the next agenda item and asked the sponsor to return with revised language.
The committee heard references to multiple related measures, including Senate Bill 164 and two House bills (House Bill 374 and House Bill 457). Public commenters and the clerks urged consolidating language across proposals so the Legislature advances a single, consistent approach to signature transparency.
The discussion distinguished privacy concerns for certain public employees, such as judges or law-enforcement officers, from the general presumption of disclosure. Clerk representatives and petition-watch groups asked for technical clarifications and auditing provisions that another bill — Senate Bill 164 — would add, including an auditing step for signature verification.
No formal favorable recommendation to the Senate floor was recorded for Senate Bill 218 at this meeting. The sponsor was asked to return with consensus language.
The committee closed public comment after hearing multiple online and in-person speakers and moved on to other bills on the agenda.
