Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes bill reclassifying some bigamy cases as infractions, preserves felony penalties for related crimes
Summary
Senators approved first substitute SB 102 to reclassify consensual polygamy among consenting adults from felony to infraction while retaining enhanced penalties when accompanying crimes are committed; sponsor said the bill 'does not legalize polygamy.'
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Utah Senate voted to pass first substitute Senate Bill 102 on Feb. 18, 2020, changing criminal classifications related to bigamy while increasing penalties where additional crimes are present.
Sponsor Senator Henderson told colleagues the measure ‘‘reclassifies the crime of bigamy from a felony to an infraction’’ for consensual adults, but preserves felony penalties when fraud, coercion or other felonies accompany the conduct. She said the aim is to codify the long-standing charging policy of some prosecutors while maintaining enhanced penalties for serious offenses.
During floor debate, senators raised public concern that the change could be read as "legalizing polygamy." Senator Davis asked directly, "Does this bill legalize polygamy?" Henderson replied, "No, this bill does not legalize, polygamy," and emphasized the bill retains felony options where other crimes are involved.
Senator Vickers and others asked that the record be clear the measure does not remove penalties for welfare fraud, assault or other crimes that might accompany abusive situations; Henderson confirmed those acts remain illegal and that lines 62–70 of the bill specify enhanced felony options when accompanying crimes occur.
The bill passed by recorded vote, 27 yeas, 0 nays, 2 absent, and will be transmitted to the House for consideration.
Supporters framed the change as providing prosecutorial clarity and aligning statute with current charging practices; opponents questioned public messaging and the optics of downgrading an offense historically associated with polygamy.
