Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Initiatives And Referenda topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves easier process for Utahns to remove names from initiative and referendum petitions
Summary
The Utah House on March 3 approved second substitute Senate Bill 275, 50–24, creating a process for petition signers to remove their names by filing identifying information with county clerks who forward requests to the lieutenant governor; supporters said it levels the playing field, opponents called the timing a rule change 'midstream.'
The Utah House on March 3 passed second substitute Senate Bill 275, 50–24, a measure sponsored in the House by Representative Wimmer that changes how citizens can withdraw their names from initiative and referendum petitions.
Under the bill, a signer who wishes to be removed would submit a form including their name, address, the last four digits of their Social Security number, their driver’s license number and a signature to their county clerk. County clerks would forward validated removal requests to the lieutenant governor for final removal from petition lists.
Supporters said the bill corrects an unfair imbalance in the current process, which can require a notarized paper to remove a signature. "It allows the citizens to do away with the really arduous task of finding a notary," Representative Wimmer said during floor remarks, arguing the change gives citizens the same practical ability to remove a name as they currently have to add one.
Opponents said the change alters the rules while petitions are circulating and could be perceived as changing the process "midstream." "I do not think that they should we should be changing this law at this time," Representative Allen told colleagues during debate, urging more deliberation before altering petition rules.
Members debated several technical and fairness points: one amendment (Amendment 3, King) would have synchronized the deadline for adding and removing names, but it failed on a recorded vote (34 yes, 38 no). Lawmakers exchanged questions about whether initial petition packets are public once turned in (the sponsor indicated packets become public records when delivered to county clerks on the April 15 filing date) and about the availability and cost of notaries in rural counties.
Backers noted the growth of e‑signature collection and said a cumbersome removal process—requiring a notary or travel long distances—creates an imbalance. Critics warned about potential strategic targeting of signers in small counties if removal windows differ from submission windows. The House ultimately approved the second substitute, which the clerk recorded as passing 50 yes and 24 no; it will be returned to the Senate for further action.
The floor debate included extended exchanges among sponsors and representatives on both sides of the issue and procedural motions to end debate and to call the previous question before final passage. The House recorded earlier votes on many other items before and after this debate; SB275 was the longest, most contested item on the day’s calendar.
