Utah House adopts rule creating special investigative committee to examine attorney general

The Utah House on July 3 adopted House Resolution 9,001, creating a special investigative committee to gather facts and evidence related to allegations involving the state attorney general.

The resolution, sponsored by Representative Dean Sanpai, authorizes a committee with investigative powers, including subpoena authority, and directs the committee to adopt guidelines and procedures for its work. Sanpai told the House the committee is intended to "gather facts and evidence specifically for the legislature," noting that other investigations have not been tasked with assessing fitness for public office.

Lawmakers spent hours debating the resolution's scope and safeguards. Representative Nielsen proposed an amendment (No. 11) to limit the investigation to matters tied explicitly to the Utah Constitution's impeachment provisions (Article 6) and to narrow inquiries to alleged malfeasance or fitness for office; she said she ‘‘cannot support this piece of legislation without a clear delineation of what it is limited to’’ and warned that, without limits, the effort could be perceived as a "witch hunt." Supporters of a broader fact‑finding mandate said the committee needs discretion to follow leads and assess credibility before the House applies legal standards.

The House adopted substitute amendment No. 13, which supporters said narrows the committee's inquiry to alleged misconduct that occurred while the subject served as deputy attorney general, while campaigning, or while serving as attorney general, but also retained committee discretion to investigate additional matters with committee approval. Representative Hutchings, who sponsored the substitute, said the change was intended to add transparency and "put a scope on it, that again, it's transparent, it's open, it's trustworthy." Representative Ivory urged caution about moving too quickly on a matter she called "as important as anything we do in the legislature," emphasizing the need to respect constitutional history and process.

Members also debated internal rules intended to provide oversight. Representative Val Peterson successfully offered an amendment requiring the committee to provide periodic accounting of investigation costs. Representative Derek Brown offered language clarifying that the committee's final and any minority reports "shall present the information and evidence gathered" and "may not include specific recommendations for actions, except for recommendations for legislation," a change supporters described as reinforcing the committee's fact‑finding role.

A motion by Representative McKiff to require a two‑thirds threshold (rather than a simple majority) before the committee could expand its investigation failed after a division and roll call. Multiple substitute proposals that would have set a fixed bipartisan composition or co‑chairs were also debated and defeated; members argued both for bipartisanship to preserve public trust and for the speaker's discretion in appointments.

After final debate, the House voted to adopt HR 9,001 by a vote of 69 yes to 3 no. The clerk noted the action amends House rules only; the resolution takes effect immediately upon final approval and will be signed and enrolled. Representative Dean Sanpai urged support on the grounds of restoring public trust, and the speaker directed staff to enroll the adopted rule.

Following passage, Representative Christiansen asked the Speaker and minority leader to prioritize a legislative audit of the Attorney General's Office to evaluate organization, caseload, use of outside counsel and performance; the Speaker signaled intent to support that request as part of the broader fact‑finding effort.

The House then adjourned. The resolution establishes the investigative committee and sets the procedural framework under which members said they expect facts to be collected and presented to the full House for any subsequent action.