This page provides an overview of resources addressing the laws and procedures that govern statewide and local ballot measures in Utah, including the initiative and referendum process, constitutional amendments, signature requirements, recall procedures, and campaign finance regulations.
Explore the links below for more information:
Laws governing ballot measures in Utah
Laws governing local ballot measures in Utah
- The ability to amend municipal charters is established by state law.
- The only charter city is Tooele City and it has Initiative and Referendum powers explicitly in its charter. The procedures and requirements are very similar to those of general law cities.
Signature requirements for ballot measures in Utah
- In Utah, the number of required signatures is tied to the number of active voters as of January 1 following the most recent regular general election.
- For indirect initiated state statutes, Utah requires signatures before submitting the petition to the legislature and a second round of signatures following legislative inaction or rejection. The first round of signatures requires a number of signatures equal to 4% of active voters and the second round requires an additional 4%.
- For directly initiated statutes and veto referendums, proponents must gather signatures equal to 8% of the total number of active voters.
- Campaigns must submit the signatures by 316 calendar days after the day on which the original initiative application was filed, or February 15th immediately before the next general election, whichever is sooner.
- In Utah, ballot measures are subject to a distribution requirement:
- For direct initiatives, petitioners must collect signatures from at least 8% of active voters in at least 26 of the 29 Utah Senate districts.
- For indirect initiatives, petitioners must collect signatures from at least 4% of active voters in at least 26 of the 29 Utah Senate districts. If a second round of signatures is collected, all signatures, as a whole, must meet the requirements for direct initiatives.
- For veto referendums, signatures must be collected from each of at least 15 of the 29 Senate districts in Utah equal to 8% of active voters.
Campaign finance requirements for Utah ballot measures
- A political issue committee (PIC) must submit a statement of organization by January 10 of every year until it files a statement of dissolution. If the PIC forms after January 10, it must file a statement of organization within seven days of raising or spending $750.
- Utah does not have a law restricting the amount of money a PIC may spend or receive. However, PICs may not spend a contribution if the contribution totals more than $50 in cash from an unknown source.
Changes to laws governing ballot measures in Utah
- See also: Changes to laws governing ballot measures
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
- See also: Changes in 2025 to laws governing ballot measures
- House Bill 0481: The bill is contingent on voter approval of a constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot. The bill was designed to require the lieutenant governor to publish the full text of constitutional initiatives for 60 days preceding the next general election and require the lieutenant governor to publish the question for any other type of ballot measure for 60 days preceding the next general election.[1]
| HB 0481 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
28 |
0 |
1 |
70 |
0 |
5
|
| Democratic (D) |
5 |
0 |
1 |
14 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
23 |
0 |
0 |
56 |
0 |
5
|
| HJR 10 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
29 |
0 |
0 |
70 |
0 |
5
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
23 |
0 |
0 |
57 |
0 |
5
|
- Senate Bill 73: The bill requires initiative applications to include information on sources for funding the proposed initiative; requires initiatives to be published in newspapers in the same manner as constitutional amendments.[3]
| SB 73 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
21 |
6 |
2 |
50 |
19 |
6
|
| Democratic (D) |
0 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
1
|
| Republican (R) |
21 |
1 |
1 |
50 |
6 |
5
|
- Senate Joint Resolution 2: The proposed constitutional amendment, which requires voter approval in 2026, would require citizen-initiated ballot measures to receive at least 60% voter approval to make certain tax-related changes, including (a) imposing a new tax; (b) expanding an existing tax to apply to additional items or transactions; (c) increasing an existing tax rate; or (d) adjusting a property tax rate in a way that reduces the rate less than it would decrease under current law.[4]
| SJR 2 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
21 |
8 |
0 |
55 |
17 |
3
|
| Democratic (D) |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
1
|
| Republican (R) |
21 |
2 |
0 |
55 |
5 |
2
|
- See also: Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
- Utah Amendment D:
d The measure was found to be unconstitutional by the Utah Supreme Court. Though the measure was printed on ballots, the court ruled that votes on the measure would not be tallied. The measure would have provided in the constitution that the state legislature has the power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative. The amendment contained a provision stating that the power would apply retroactively. The amendment would have also prohibited foreign individuals, entities, and governments from influencing, supporting, or opposing a ballot initiative. The amendment would have given the state legislature authority to further provide for the scope and enforcement of the prohibition in state law.[5]
| SJR 401 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
20 |
8 |
1 |
54 |
21 |
0
|
| Democratic (D) |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
20 |
2 |
1 |
54 |
7 |
0
|
| SB 107 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
23 |
1 |
0 |
67 |
0 |
0
|
| Democratic (D) |
5 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
18 |
1 |
0 |
56 |
0 |
0
|
- Senate Bill 4003: This bill was contingent on approval of a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 2024 ballot, Amendment D. Amendment D was ruled invalid, therefore the bill will not take effect. Sb 4003 would have allowed the state legislature to amend a voter-approved initiative by amending the law that, "in the Legislature's determination, leaves intact the general purpose of the initiative" and woudl have allowed the legislature to "amend the law in any manner determined necessary by the Legislature to mitigate an adverse fiscal impact of the initiative". The bill would have also increased the amount of time for sponsors to gather VR signatures by 20 days (40 days to 60 days).[6]
| SB 4003 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
21 |
7 |
1 |
58 |
15 |
2
|
| Democratic (D) |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
21 |
1 |
1 |
58 |
1 |
2
|
- House Bill 79: Provided a process for disabled individuals to sign initiative petitions and an alternative verification process for elections officials to verify such signatures.[7]
| HB 79 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
28 |
0 |
1 |
68 |
0 |
7
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
2
|
| Republican (R) |
22 |
0 |
1 |
56 |
0 |
5
|
- Senate Bill 100: Provided that local government decisions to issue bonds are subject to veto referendums, provided that a veto referendum must be filed within five days (instead of seven) after the local legislation was passed.[8]
| SB 100 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
29 |
0 |
0 |
70 |
0 |
5
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
23 |
0 |
0 |
56 |
0 |
5
|
- Senate Bill 217: Required the local school board to update financial information and project status for general obligation bonds before the beginning of each new fiscal year and at least 30 days before a vote on a bond issue.[9]
| SB 217 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
28 |
0 |
1 |
70 |
0 |
5
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
22 |
0 |
1 |
56 |
0 |
5
|
- Senate Bill 221: Provided for creation of new school districts through initiative petition.[10]
| SB 221 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
27 |
0 |
2 |
75 |
0 |
0
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
21 |
0 |
2 |
61 |
0 |
0
|
- House Bill 3003: Provided for creation of new school districts through initiative petition.[11]
| hb 3003 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
23 |
1 |
5 |
65 |
7 |
3
|
| Democratic (D) |
4 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
5 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
19 |
1 |
3 |
56 |
2 |
3
|
- See also: Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
- House Bill 38: The legislation made technical changes to citizen-initiated ballot measure terms and definitions, such as adding the word initiative or referendum before petition in relevant statutes. HB 38 also criminalized paying someone for their signature on an initiative or referendum petition.[12]
| HB 38 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
25 |
0 |
4 |
70 |
0 |
5
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
19 |
0 |
4 |
56 |
0 |
5
|
- House Bill 68: HB 68 merged provisions related to signature gathering, including for initiative petitions, into a single section of the Election Code and made conforming and technical changes.[13]
| HB 68 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
27 |
0 |
2 |
63 |
0 |
12
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
0 |
1
|
| Republican (R) |
21 |
0 |
2 |
50 |
0 |
11
|
- House Bill 69: Among changes to other areas of election policy, the bill allowed information that appears on a separate ballot insert regarding an initiative to instead appear on the official ballot itself.[14]
| HB 69 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
26 |
0 |
3 |
71 |
0 |
4
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
0 |
1
|
| Republican (R) |
20 |
0 |
3 |
58 |
0 |
3
|
- Senate Bill 43: The bill changed some of the rules governing notices for public hearings before initiative petitions are circulated. SB 43 eliminated the requirement that a notice be published in a newspaper, among other changes.
| SB 43 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
26 |
0 |
3 |
67 |
0 |
8
|
| Democratic (D) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
2
|
| Republican (R) |
20 |
0 |
3 |
55 |
0 |
6
|
- See also: Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures
- House Bill 218: The bill made several changes to the ballot initiative process in Utah, including establishing a process for electronically collecting signatures, within the presence of a signature gatherer using an approved device.[15]
- Senate Bill 38: The legislation redesigned the language that appears on the ballot for state ballot initiatives. Previously, a ballot title was prepared for each citizen-initiated ballot measure. Under SB 38, a ballot title to not exceed 25 words and a ballot summary to not exceed 125 words are prepared.[16]
- See also: Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures
- House Bill 23: The legislation allowed local referendums related to legislative actions taken after April 15 to appear on the ballot during the same year, rather than the following year, with agreement from the local clerk, the county clerk, and attorney for the municipality. HB 23 also made changes to the definition of land use law.[17]
- House Bill 136: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Utah, including:[18]
- banning pay-per-signature and instead requiring payment of signature gatherers to be based on time;
- enacting a badge requirement for paid petition circulators;
- requiring signature gatherers to present the entire text of initiatives and referendums to potential signers;
- requiring initiative or referendum petition sponsors to send an email to petition signers (who add their emails to the petition sheet) that informs the signers how to remove their signatures from the petition;
- requiring that a statement about tax increases be included on initiative petitions that increase taxes; and
- revising formatting requirements for initiative petitions, among other changes.
- revised the statements that signature gatherers must sign;
- required petition sponsors to be registered voters, rather than registered voters who voted in a regular general election within the last three years;
- revised the timeline for certifying signatures; and
- required the names and voter identification numbers of those who have signed an initiative or referendum petition be posted on the attorney general's website, rather than a county's website.[19]
- See also: Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures
- House Bill 75: The legislation required the name and voter identification number, rather than the name and precinct, of each registered voter who signed an initiative petition to be posted on the county's website and clarified that a referendum petition is void when the Legislature repeals the targeted law.[20]
- Senate Bill 47: The legislation provided that signatures on a voter registration record, an initiative petition, and a request to withdraw a signature from an initiative petition are protected records.[21]
- Senate Bill 143: SB 143 made changes to the fiscal impact statements for ballot initiatives, including the length, form, and content of the statements and required the statements to analyze a period of time most useful to understanding the estimated fiscal impact of the initiative.[22]
- See also: Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures
- House Bill 119: The legislation changed several provisions governing local ballot measures in Utah, including:[23]
- requiring information pamphlets for local initiatives and referendums, including arguments for and against the measures;
- changing signature requirements for local initiatives and referendums depending on the county or metro township class or population;
- changing rules for signature verification and ballot measure qualification; and
- changing provisions related to the appeals made during the signature verification process.
- House Bill 133: The legislation modified the effective dates for voter-approved ballot initiatives. HB 133 provided that the effective date is at 60 days following the last day of the legislative session immediately after the election in which the initiative is approved, except for certain tax-related initiatives. Under HB 133, a tax increase initiative goes into effect on January 1 of the year following the next general legislative session after the election. A tax decrease goes into effect five days after the governor issues the proclamation of election results for the initiative. HB 133 also allowed courts, in addition to the Utah Supreme Court, to consider challenges regarding conflicts between two measures.[24]
- House Bill 145: The legislation changed several provisions regarding initiative petitions, including:[25]
- requiring county clerks to display the names of registered voters who sign initiative and referendum petitions on the county website;
- requiring individual petition sheet packets to be submitted no later than 30 days for initiatives or 14 days for veto referendums after the date of the first signature on the packet, thus requiring signatures to be submitted as they're collected instead of at once before the deadline;
- changing the deadline and process for signature removal requests;
- creating criminal penalties for knowingly placing or verifying a false signature date on an initiative signature packet a crime; and
- creating criminal penalties for paying a person to sign a petition or removing a person's signature from a petition.
- House Bill 195: The legislation changed the signature requirements for ballot initiatives and other laws governing ballot initiatives, including:[26]
- changing the signature requirement for initiatives and referendums from 10 percent (5 percent for indirect initiatives) of votes cast at the last presidential election to 8 percent (4 percent for indirect initiatives) of active voters as of January 1 of even-numbered years;
- changing the signature submission deadline and the deadline for signature removal requests from April 15 to February 15 before the election; and
- changing the deadline for initiatives to be certified for the ballot from June 1 to April 15, among other changes.
- Senate Bill 151: The legislation enacted new requirements for initiative fiscal impact statements and information:[27]
- requiring initiative petitions to contain information on funding sources, including percentages, for the costs associated with the proposed law;
- requiring the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, rather than the Governor's Office of Management and Budget, to prepare the fiscal impact statement for an initiative;
- requiring fiscal impact statements to be displayed at required public hearings on initiatives; and
- allowing courts, in addition to the Utah Supreme Court, to consider challenges regarding ballot titles.
- See also: Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures
- House Bill 491: The legislation provided that the Legislature can submit non-binding questions to voters by passing a joint resolution. The legislation provided that the official title for statewide non-binding advisory questions is Nonbinding Opinion Question #___, with a number assigned where the blank is.[28]
- Senate Bill 122: The legislation provided that a local political subdivision, such as a municipality or county, cannot receive an aggregate amount of funds from a bond that exceeds the maximum principal amount stated in the bond proposition by more than 2%.[29]
See also
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB 0481," accessed April 1, 2025
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 10," accessed March 26, 2025
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 73," accessed March 26, 2025
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 2," accessed March 11, 2025
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "S.J.R. 401 Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution - Voter Legislative Power," accessed August 22, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 4003," accessed August 31, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB 79," accessed April 2, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 100," accessed March 22, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 217," accessed April 2, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 221," accessed April 2, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB 3003," accessed July 8, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 38," accessed March 17, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 68," accessed March 17, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 69," accessed March 17, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 218," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 38," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 23," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 136," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 211," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 75," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 47," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 143," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 119," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House BIll 133," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 145," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 195," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 151," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 491," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 122," accessed June 28, 2023
