Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayoral recall proposal draws sharp debate; League to monitor multiple vote‑by‑mail and ID bills
Summary
A bill allowing mayoral recall petitions prompted opposition and debate among city officials; separate bills would change vote‑by‑mail access and verification. League staff collected Slido input from attendees and said positions are pending.
A proposed bill to allow voters to put a mayoral recall on the ballot drew divided reaction from Local Policy Committee members, who also discussed two separate vote‑by‑mail bills that would change how mail ballots are requested and verified.
The recall proposal, introduced to the meeting without a bill number, would let voters file a petition describing alleged conduct amounting to a “high crime, misdemeanor or malfeasance in office” and require signatures equal to 50% of the number of voters who voted in the previous mayoral race to place the recall question on the ballot. League staff said the League’s current recommendation is to oppose the proposal.
Speakers were split. Sherry Arne (Herriman) said the proposal gives voters recourse when a mayor’s conduct is harmful: “If you get to that point where you're high crime, misdemeanor, malfeasance, why would you want them to continue and continue to guide your city?” she asked. Other speakers urged caution, noting no other state officer currently faces a comparable statutory recall mechanism and that unproven allegations on a petition could carry heavy public weight before any court proceeding.
Concerns included lack of a statutory definition of “high crime,” the petition threshold’s sensitivity to turnout (50% of those who voted in the prior mayoral election), and a potential for political gaming after a recall. League staff said the League is recommending opposition to the measure as drafted.
On broader election changes, staff summarized two House bills: HB213 (would require voters to request a by‑mail ballot at a polling place beginning in 2026) and HB300 (would mail ballots to voters but require in‑person return with voter ID or ID when using drop boxes). Staff used a Slido poll to gather member views on the impact of vote‑by‑mail, and attendees reported mixed experiences: many cities said vote‑by‑mail increased participation and lowered per‑vote costs, though concerns about verification and a few isolated audit findings were raised.
SB56, a municipal governance bill by Sen. Keith Grover that would allow five‑ and six‑member councils to employ staff who report to the council (not the mayor), was held in committee. LPC members expressed concerns about the bill creating de‑facto second managers or conflicting legal opinions.
Why it matters: The recall bill would create a new, mayor‑specific removal path that several speakers argued could be abused or create inconsistent standards across officeholders. Proposed changes to vote‑by‑mail and verification would change local administration, staffing and access patterns for county and municipal election officials.
What’s next: Staff will monitor these measures and follow county clerks’ and the lieutenant governor’s office analysis; LPC members were asked to provide input via Slido and to reach out to county clerks for tours or technical questions about election operations.
