Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators weigh options for primaries if Utah wins a fourth congressional seat
Summary
During the override session lawmakers discussed contingency options for the primary calendar should a pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling award Utah a fourth congressional seat; counsel outlined legal constraints and staff estimated a statewide primary would cost about $600,000.
Members of the Utah House spent a portion of the April 24 veto-override session discussing contingency plans for the state primary schedule if the U.S. Supreme Court were to rule that Utah is entitled to four congressional seats.
John Cannon, research analyst for legislative counsel, told the House a favorable Supreme Court ruling could require a new district map and a new process for candidate declarations and filings. ‘‘If we win, we will arguably be eventually allowed to have four congressional seats to elect four representatives to the United States House of Representatives from Utah,’’ Cannon said, outlining that implementation timing is uncertain and that the legislature would have to decide how to structure candidate selection and potential primaries.
Legislative staff and members discussed three broad options: do nothing now and wait for the court’s decision; set the primary date to Sept. 10 and let parties adjust conventions accordingly; or keep June primaries for most races while creating an eight-week floating window for congressional contests once the court’s decision is final. Members repeatedly noted legal and logistical constraints, particularly federal and absentee-voter timelines.
On costs, staff reported the estimated expense for a statewide primary election is roughly $600,000, based on allocations used for a presidential primary that consolidated precincts. Members questioned whether holding two primaries or consolidating precincts further would materially change that figure.
Lawmakers emphasized trade-offs: moving dates could protect absentee and military voters and reduce confusion, but rushing changes could create legal vulnerabilities for parties and candidates. The House did not adopt a final binding schedule in the session; leadership said they would communicate options to the governor and party leaders for further action.
