Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House approves contingency dates for congressional primary to avoid extra $600,000
Summary
The Utah House passed an amendment to HB 3,001 on a 58-12 vote that sets contingent primary dates tied to a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on congressional seats: if no fourth seat is certified by May 15 the primary will be June 25, otherwise Sept. 10. Supporters said the change avoids the cost of a second primary.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on a voice and roll call vote approved an amendment to House Bill 3,001 that fixes contingent primary dates to limit the risk of a second statewide primary and the expense that would come with it. The measure passed the House 58-12 and will be referred to the Senate for further consideration.
Representative Carl Saunders, sponsor of the election-law measure, said the amendment is intended to avoid an additional election expense. Saunders said it would “certainly be a lot better to have 1 primary and not to expend the extra $600,000 that it would have cost us to to have a second primary.” He also told members that staff (John Fellows) could advise on the specific calendar questions.
The adopted amendment (pink copy dated April 29) instructs that, absent certification of a fourth congressional seat by May 15, the state primary would go forward on June 25; if the court process results in a fourth seat before that cutoff, the congressional contest would be set for Sept. 10. Lawmakers framed the change as a contingency plan to give candidates, election officials and voters greater certainty while a U.S. Supreme Court decision and Census certification remain pending.
Representative Jennifer Farren said she was initially undecided but supported the compromise to avoid the potential cost. “I’m not willing to gamble $600,000 of taxpayer money,” Farren said.
Opponents urged caution. One representative argued the House was acting too quickly and should wait for the court’s ruling rather than fix dates now. Representative Bush told colleagues that setting Sept. 10 as the fallback date would provide a definitive timeline for voters and candidates: “If the Supreme Court makes their decision later in the fall … there’s no way we’re going to change the Sept. 10 date anyway,” Bush said, arguing that a permanent date would remove uncertainty.
Members also noted that there had been no public hearing on this specific House bill; Saunders confirmed there was not a public hearing on the bill in the House. Lawmakers debated trade-offs between procedural certainty for elections and the risk of acting before the Supreme Court issues a ruling. Supporters emphasized planning and cost savings; opponents emphasized waiting for judicial clarity.
After brief procedural motions to end debate, the House adopted the amendment and passed House Bill 3,001 as amended. The clerk announced that the bill received 58 yes votes and 12 no votes and will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
Later in the session the clerk reported receipt of a substituted and amended third substitute Senate Bill 3,001 (election law revisions) transmitted by Senator C. Bramble; the presiding officer noted the Senate bill carried no listed House sponsor and offered Representative Bordeaux the chance to carry the Senate message in the House.
