Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tobacco Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate on cigarette tax amendment ends in 37-37 tie; key amendment sought to fund Huntsman and U. of Utah
Summary
Lawmakers debated competing amendments to a proposed cigarette-tax increase that would fund tobacco prevention, Medicaid services and research. Sponsor Representative Yerkes proposed allocating 4¢ per pack to both Huntsman Cancer Center and the University of Utah; after extensive floor debate the second substitute failed on a 37–37 vote.
Members of the Utah House spent several hours Feb. 7 debating competing amendments to the second substitute of House Bill 238, a package to raise the cigarette excise and direct new revenue to public-health and research priorities.
Representative Yerkes offered amendment number 12 to the second substitute, proposing that 4 cents per pack go to the Huntsman Cancer Center and 4 cents to the University of Utah Medical School. “So bottom line is that I am proposing 4¢ for both the Huntsman and 4¢ for the University of Utah,” Yerkes said when opening the amendment.
Opponents, led by Representative Saunders, said the amendment would divert funds from tobacco prevention and cessation programs. “To put a tax on tobacco and not use 1¢ of that money for cessation or prevention… I think is absolutely wrong,” Saunders said, reading letters from students and faculty urging funding for prevention efforts.
Other members proposed alternative earmarks. Representative Morgan offered a substitute that would keep the sponsor’s earmarks but direct an additional portion of the proposed 30¢ increase to enhance Medicaid services. Representative Allen proposed setting the tax increase at 5¢ per pack and sending the money to the University Health Science Center with discretion on allocation between research and education.
Throughout the floor debate members raised implementation and equity concerns: that higher local prices could drive cross-border purchases, that some counties run their own emissions and inspection programs, and whether research-focused allocations would substitute for prevention funding rather than supplement it. Representative Butters warned of impacts on low-income smokers who might cross state lines to purchase cigarettes.
After debate and multiple motions to amend, the House moved to a recorded roll-call on the second substitute to HB 238. The bill failed on a tie vote, 37 yes and 37 no, and therefore did not pass on the floor that day.
Next steps: sponsors may rework the measure or pursue alternative amendments in committee; members also used circling/uncircling procedural motions during the session to allow time for follow-up and clarification.
