Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House Republicans say HB 300 negotiable as lawmakers debate ID checks, opt‑in timing and ballot handling
Summary
At a Republican press availability, legislators discussed revisions to HB 300, an elections bill that would require voters to show ID when returning mail ballots, adjust opt‑in frequency for mail voting, and address signature‑verification and ballot cure rates. No formal House vote on HB 300 was recorded in the transcript.
Legislators from the Utah House Republican press availability said they are negotiating changes to HB 300, the election bill that would change how some Utahns return mail ballots and add identification checks at drop‑off points.
"We've had several discussions, and we started these discussions long before the session, and we've had several since," Speaker 5 said when asked whether the House and Senate had found common ground on the measure. He said the House had included county clerks in talks and expected continued negotiations before the Senate considers the bill.
Why it matters: supporters said they want to address what they described as reliability problems with the postal service and tighten signature verification to reduce delays in certifying results. "4% of ballots in the state were, were validated. That's 20,000 votes that were people were disenfranchised," Speaker 5 said, and he cited a separate figure that "65% of Utahns did return their ballot using a drop box" to underline concerns about mail reliability.
Key proposals and logistics: lawmakers discussed an "opt‑in" model that would let voters choose to continue returning ballots by mail; the frequency of that opt‑in was under negotiation. Speaker 2 said discussion had included extending the opt‑in window from five days to 10 days to reduce potential crowding at staffed drop boxes and to give voters more opportunities to return ballots earlier.
"Education is always a big piece of this," Speaker 5 said, describing plans to improve public information on what voters must do and when to avoid bottlenecks.
Operational concerns: county clerks flagged the risk of lines on election day if all ballots required ID at drop boxes. "If there ends up being lines on election day, we fail," Speaker 2 said, noting clerks’ emphasis on a seamless process. Lawmakers discussed that tightening signature thresholds could raise cure rates from the current cited 4% toward "8 or 10%," increasing administrative burden on counties.
Funding: Speaker 2 said the state should cover the majority of any new costs associated with the changes, including postage and additional labor to verify signatures and process cured ballots, and urged that estimated savings from reduced cure burdens be factored into cost calculations.
Voter rolls and ERIC: a later question raised Representative Lisonbee’s voter‑roll bill and whether a state exit from ERIC could risk losing data. Speaker 2 acknowledged problems with voter rolls and said he had heard there may be alternatives but deferred specific technical answers to Representative Lisonbee.
No formal action recorded: the transcript records continuing negotiations and statements of intent but does not record a House vote or formal passage on HB 300 during this session. Speakers repeatedly said the bill would next be considered by the Senate once the House finishes its process.
What’s next: speakers said replacements, substitutes and finer drafting were underway and that the measure was likely to reach the House floor within days; the Senate will have its own review once the bill leaves the House.
