Utah Constitutional Amendment E, Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment (2020)

Utah Utah Constitutional Amendment E
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Hunting and fishing
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Utah measuresUtah Constitutional Amendment AUtah Constitutional Amendment BUtah Constitutional Amendment CUtah Constitutional Amendment DUtah Constitutional Amendment EUtah Constitutional Amendment FUtah Constitutional Amendment GSubmit

Utah Constitutional Amendment E, the Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment, was on the ballot in Utah as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported establishing a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Utah.

A "no" vote opposed establishing a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Utah.

Election results

Utah Constitutional Amendment E
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,063,212	74.92%
No		355,848	25.08%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Constitutional Amendment E do?

See also: Constitutional changes

The amendment established a state constitutional right to hunt and fish for the people of Utah. The amendment subjects the right to hunt and fish to statutes that, according to the amendment's text, promote wildlife conservation and management and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. The measure declared that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife in Utah.

The measure was set to take effect on January 1, 2021.

Why was this measure on the ballot?

See also: Support and Path to the ballot

The amendment was sponsored in the Utah House of Representatives by Rep. Casey Snider (R). The House approved the measure by a vote of 61-9 on February 28, 2020. The Senate passed the measure with amendments on March 10 by a vote of 21-7. The House concurred with the Senate's amendment in a vote of 59-11 on March 11, 2020, certifying the measure for the 2020 ballot.

House Sponsor Rep. Casey Snider (R) said, "Hunting and fishing has always been a critical component of our state. ... It's a part of who we are. This bill is not only about protecting who we are, but preserving who we are going forward. ... It is not unforeseeable, and history bares this out, that 30 or 40 or 50 years from now, those participating in [hunting and fishing] will be a very significant minority, more so than they already are. It is not a foregone conclusion that these sort of activities will be eliminated from the public sphere and from conservation generally and at large."

What other states have a constitutional right to hunt and fish?

See also: Constitutional rights to hunt and fish in the U.S.

As of 2020, 22 states had constitutional provisions providing for the right to hunt and fish. The most recent right to hunt and fish amendment was approved in North Carolina in 2018. Vermont was the first state to constitutionalize such a right in 1777. The other 20 states have all adopted right to hunt and fish amendments since 1996. The state constitutions of California and Rhode Island include constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to fish, but not to hunt. Florida and New Hampshire had statutes establishing a right to hunt and fish, but not constitutional amendments.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:

“

Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to: preserve the individual right to hunt and to fish, including the right to use traditional hunting and fishing methods subject to certain regulation; and establish public hunting and fishing as the preferred way of managing and controlling wildlife? For ( ) Against ( )

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Utah Constitution

The measure added Section 30 to Article I (the Declaration of Rights) of the Utah Constitution. The following underlined text was added: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Article I, Section 30. [Right to hunt and fish.]

(1) The individual right of the people to hunt and to fish is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.

(2) The right under Subsection (1) includes the right to use traditional methods to hunt and to fish, subject only to statute, and rules and regulations adopted as provided by statute, to:

(a) promote wildlife conservation and management;

(b) provide reasonable regulation of hunting and fishing activities; and

(c) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

(3) Public hunting and fishing shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

(4) This section does not affect:

(a) the law relating to trespass or property rights;

(b) the State's sovereign authority over the State's natural resources; or

(c) the State's obligation to manage lands granted to the State under the Enabling Act.

Impartial analysis

The impartial analysis for Constitutional Amendment E was included in the 2020 voter guide was as follows:

“ Constitutional Amendment E adds a section to the Utah Constitution that preserves the individual right to hunt and to fish, including the right to use traditional hunting and fishing methods. The Amendment also establishes public hunting and fishing as the preferred way of managing and controlling wildlife. Under Constitutional Amendment E, the right to use traditional hunting and fishing methods may be affected by laws, rules, and regulations that: promote wildlife conservation and management; provide reasonable regulation of hunting and fishing activities; or preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Constitutional Amendment E states that the Amendment does not affect: laws related to trespass or property rights; the state’s authority over its natural resources; or the state’s duty to manage lands that the state received when Utah became a state. Effective Date If approved by voters, Constitutional Amendment E takes effect on January 1, 2021 ”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement for Constitutional Amendment E was as follows:

“

The Legislative Fiscal Analyst has determined that Constitutional Amendment E will have no fiscal effect and will not result in any increase or decrease in revenue or cost to the state or to local governments.

”

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 9, and the FRE is 47. The word count for the ballot title is 45, and the estimated reading time is 21 seconds.

Support

Supporters

Officials

• Utah State Senator Allen Christensen (R)
• Utah State Representative Casey Snider (R)

Arguments

• Utah State Representative and measure sponsor Casey Snider (R): "Hunting and fishing has always been a critical component of our state. ... It's a part of who we are. This bill is not only about protecting who we are, but preserving who we are going forward. ... It is not unforeseeable, and history bares this out, that 30 or 40 or 50 years from now, those participating in [hunting and fishing] will be a very significant minority, more so than they already are. It is not a foregone conclusion that these sort of activities will be eliminated from the public sphere and from conservation generally and at large."
• The National Rifle Association (NRA): The NRA supports Right to Hunt and Fish (RTHF) amendments. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action said, "America’s sporting heritage is under attack like never before, by well-funded, national anti-hunting groups that want to ban all hunting, trapping, and fishing. ... [RTHF amendments protect] America’s rich sporting tradition from well-funded efforts by national animal extremist groups to get hunting banned."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Constitutional Amendment E written by Utah State Representative Casey Snider (R) and Utah State Senator Allen Christensen (R) that appeared in the official voter pamphlet:

“

Including the right to hunt and fish in Utah’s constitution ensures these opportunities are protected for future generations of Utahns. Recognized as 'natural rights' for most of human history, the right to hunt and fish has been understood as the right to procure healthy, natural food for oneself and family. However, special interests are actively working to take away these opportunities and, in a growing number of States, they have been successful. In Europe, before the founding of our country the legal right to hunt had been limited to nobles and the monarchy. But on the American continent settlers found bountiful wildlife and the freedom to pursue it. From native peoples they learned to depend on food from the land. They viewed the equal rights to hunt and fish as proof of their liberty. Though these rights were understood, these were not included in the United States Constitution. They were left to the states. In the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776, the right to 'fowl and hunt in seasonable times…and…to fish' was enshrined. Vermont’s constitution adopted similar language in 1777. Recently, many other states have noted the need to protect these rights and amended their constitutions to do it. At least 20 other states have passed such legislation. These include our neighboring states of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. Utah has no similar constitutional protections. The need for states to constitutionally protect hunting and fishing was spurred by actions of special interests who have succeeded at removing opportunities to hunt and fish in other states. In California, Colorado, New Jersey and elsewhere, special interests whittle away at hunting - attacking specific seasons, hunting methods and even certain types of game. The same special interests openly declare that they will continue this fight. Unfortunately, their actions are uninformed and short sighted. They are removing a source for citizens to procure healthy, natural organic food. They are also removing the management tools and funding that state wildlife agencies depend on. Utah has vibrant and varied wildlife populations. Those populations exist because of the contributions of hunters, anglers, and sport shooters – not despite them. Since the 1800’s they have supported reasonable regulation of hunting and fishing. In fact, money from the sale of licenses and taxes on firearms, fishing gear and archery equipment fund most wildlife and habitat conservation in the United States - nearly $2 billion each year. Utah will continue to protect wildlife resources for all citizens, allocate wildlife resources following rules of law, protect against frivolous and illegitimate killing of wildlife, provide equal opportunity for everyone to hunt and fish, and manage wildlife using the best science available. This amendment does not change that. The equal right to hunt and fish in America is part of our unique history. It continues to sharpen our appreciation of nature and the world around us. It is a sign of our liberty and responsibility. Amendment E ensures these opportunities and experiences are available for all Utahns, today and in the future. Vote FOR Amendment E

”

Opposition

If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Constitutional Amendment E written by Utah State Senator Karen Mayne (D) and State Representative Marsha Judkins (R) that appeared in the official voter pamphlet:

“

Hunting and fishing are essential and undeniable parts of Utah’s cultural identity and economy and protected in statute. We love and cherish many things about our great state. Few are so vital they must be enshrined in our state’s most sacred document. The Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and our Utah Constitution guarantee our rights to keep and bear arms and individuals’ rights to protect themselves and their families. These sacred constitutional liberties are not about hunting and fishing. We should not dilute them by adding to them or defining them as something they are not. If we do not carefully scrutinize what goes into it, the entire document will lose value. That is not to say that we should not protect hunting and fishing—we absolutely should. But if we do not draw a line between rights that are fundamental and privileges that extend from those rights, we will no longer be able to tell the difference. Nobody is threatening our right to hunt and fish. Any threat is hypothetical or imaginary. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is an agency of outdoor sports professionals and enthusiasts dedicated to preserving and managing Utah’s vibrant hunting and fishing traditions, culture, and industry. The protections and promotion that they provide is woven deep into the laws of our state and are not going anywhere. Legislative supporters of Amendment E admit that the amendment will not make any meaningful difference in how hunting and fishing is managed in the state. It will have no meaningful impact on people’s access to hunting and fishing. These activities are and will continue to be open to all. Without the amendment, you will still be able to hunt and fish, and the state will continue to promote and protect these activities as they always have. No one is even considering taking away our hunting and fishing rights, so why are we considering inserting unnecessary language into our constitution? By adding this amendment, we will dilute our fundamental rights, like our right to protect ourselves and families, our right to free speech, and our right to peaceably assemble. Vote NO to protect the power of our constitutional rights. Vote no on amendment E.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Utah ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$0.00
Opposition:	$0.00

Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered in support of or in opposition to the measure.

If you are aware of a committee registered to support or oppose this measure, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Constitutional rights to hunt and fish in the U.S.

See also: History of right to hunt and fish constitutional amendments

As of November 2024, 24 states had constitutional provisions providing for the right to hunt and fish. Vermont was the first state to constitutionalize such a right in 1777. The other 22 states have adopted right to hunt and fish amendments since 1996. The state constitutions of California and Rhode Island include amendments guaranteeing the right to fish, but not to hunt.

List

The following is a list of state ballot measures to adopt right to hunt and fish amendments:

State	Year	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
FL	2024	LRCA	Amendment 2	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and fish	a	6,941,307 (67%)	3,365,987 (33%)
UT	2020	LRCA	Constitutional Amendment E	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and to fish	a	1,063,212 (75%)	355,848 (25%)
NC	2018	LRCA	Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife	a	2,083,123 (57%)	1,563,090 (43%)
IN	2016	LRCA	Public Question 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	1,893,467 (79%)	492,300 (21%)
KS	2016	LRCA	Constitutional Amendment 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	926,970 (81%)	213,104 (19%)
TX	2015	LRCA	Proposition 6	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	1,260,763 (81%)	294,973 (19%)
AL	2014	LRCA	Amendment 5	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including traditional methods	a	789,777 (80%)	199,483 (20%)
MS	2014	LRCA	HCR 30	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	524,423 (88%)	71,683 (12%)
ID	2012	LRCA	HJR 2	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	456,514 (73%)	165,289 (27%)
KY	2012	LRCA	Amendment	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife	a	1,298,340 (84%)	238,320 (16%)
NE	2012	LRCA	Amendment 2	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife	a	557,534 (77%)	169,250 (23%)
WY	2012	LRCA	Amendment B	Provide for a state constitutional right to harvest wild bird, fish, and game	a	212,561 (89%)	25,564 (11%)
AR	2010	LRCA	Amendment 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife	a	612,495 (83%)	127,444 (17%)
AZ	2010	LRCA	Proposition 109	Provide for state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife		714,144 (44%)	926,991 (56%)
SC	2010	LRCA	Amendment 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife	a	1,126,228 (89%)	139,668 (11%)
TN	2010	LRCA	Amendment	Provide for state constitutional right to hunt and fish	a	1,255,840 (87%)	181,465 (13%)
OK	2008	LRCA	State Question 742	Establish a constitutional right to hunt, trap, fish, and take game, granting authority to the Wildlife Conservation Commission.	a	1,082,341 (80%)	269,787 (20%)
GA	2006	LRCA	Amendment 2	Preserve the ability to fish and hunt in Georgia and ensure it is managed by law and regulation for the public good	a	1,626,226 (81%)	379,024 (19%)
LA	2004	LRCA	Question 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap	a	1,195,445 (81%)	279,926 (19%)
MT	2004	LRCA	C-41	Provide for a state constitutional right to harvest wild fish and game	a	345,505 (81%)	83,185 (19%)
WI	2003	LRCA	Question 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and take game	a	668,459 (82%)	146,182 (18%)
ND	2000	LRCA	Measure 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and take game	a	206,443 (77%)	61,531 (23%)
VA	2000	LRCA	Question 2	Provide for a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game	a	1,448,154 (60%)	970,266 (40%)
MN	1998	LRCA	Amendment 3	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and take game	a	1,570,720 (77%)	462,749 (23%)
AL	1996	LRCA	Amendment 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and fish	a	955,149 (81%)	218,350 (19%)

Map

The following map shows which states have constitutional rights to hunt and fish in their state constitutions:

Court cases related to Right to Hunt and Fish amendments

TCFA and TRFA v. TWRC

An American paddlefish illustration provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Tennessee Commercial Fishermen’s Association (TCFA) and Tennessee Roe Fishermen’s Association (TRFA) challenged the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission (TWRC) in court over restrictions on catching paddlefish. The TWRC limits paddlefish harvesting in some areas and bans harvesting in other areas. American Paddlefish are considered a vulnerable species, according to the IUCN. Commercial fishers catch them for their valuable meat and eggs. Their eggs are used to make caviar.

On May 14, 2015, Judge Russell T. Perkins of the Davidson County Chancery Court ruled against the TCFA and TRFA. He cited Tennessee's right to hunt and fish amendment in his decision, arguing that the amendment allows "reasonable regulations and restrictions" and does not "limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity." Judge Perkins also noted that restrictions of paddlefish harvesting were implemented before voters approved the amendment in 2010. The judge concluded that:

“	Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion, the language of this amendment does not appear to limit any right the state had to regulate commercial activity before the amendment passed nor does it indicate that it should be interposed to retroactively set aside previously adopted wildlife regulations. This provision does not, in itself, restrict the state’s right to regulate commercial fishing and does not turn the personal right to fish using traditional methods ‘to take non-threatened species’ into a limit on the state’s power to regulate commercial fishing.	”
—Judge Russell T. Perkins

Orion Sporting Group v. Nelson County

Orion Sporting Group, LLC, a firm owning a hunting preserve in Nelson County, Virginia, sought a permit for a sporting clays facility. Orion brought the denial of permit before the Virginia 24th Judicial Circuit, where Judge J. Michael Gamble ruled in favor of Nelson County on June 29, 2005. Orion argued that Virginia's Question 2, which provided a constitutional right to hunt and fish, protected the firm's ability to run a sporting clays facility. Orion's and Nelson County's lawyers argued over what counts as "hunting."

Judge Gamble determined that while "the constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest game under the Constitution of Virginia is a fundamental right," the "word ‘hunt’ in its plain, obvious, and common sense means the pursuit of game. Shooting sporting clays is not the pursuit of game."

Orion appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court, which declined to review it.

WCCCD v. Wisconsin DNR

Zenaida macroura, also known as the mourning dove, is native to Wisconsin.

In May 2001, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources established a hunting season for mourning doves during the months of September and October. In June, the Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Cranes and Doves (WCCCD) filed litigation against the DNR's action, arguing the department exceeded its authority. On April 6, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DNR, finding that legislation "granted broad authority to the DNR to set open and closed seasons for “game”… and mourning doves fall within the unambiguous definition of “game.” However, Wisconsin's Question 1, which instituted a right to hunt and fish, did not impact the court's decision. According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

“	The 2003 amendment does not impose any limitation upon the power of the state or DNR to regulate hunting, other than that any restrictions on hunting must be reasonable. … However, we do note that the fact that citizens of this state enjoy the right to hunt in the absence of reasonable regulations does not necessarily mean that it is "open season" on any species of birds not regulated by the DNR.	”
—Wisconsin Supreme Court

Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1996 through 2018, the state legislature referred 42 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 38 and rejected four of the referred amendments. All of the amendments were referred to the ballot for general elections during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on the general election ballot was between three and four. The approval rate at the ballot box was 90.48 percent during the 22-year period from 1996 through 2018. The rejection rate was 9.52 percent.

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2018
Total number	Approved	Percent approved	Defeated	Percent defeated	Annual average	Annual median	Annual minimum	Annual maximum
42	38	90.48%	4	9.52%	3.50	3.00	1	6

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Utah Constitution

In Utah, both chambers of the state legislature need to pass a constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote during one legislative session to refer an amendment to the ballot.

The amendment was introduced into the legislature as House Joint Resolution 15 on February 10, 2020. The House approved the measure by a vote of 61-9 with five representatives absent or not voting on February 28, 2020. The Senate passed the amendment with amendments on March 10 by a vote of 21-7. The House concurred with the Senate's amendment in a vote of 59-11 on March 11, 2020, certifying the measure for the 2020 ballot.

The amendment must be approved by a majority of voters voting in the general election, not just a majority of voters voting on the amendment.

Vote in the Utah State Senate March 10, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	21	7	1
Total percent	72.4%	24.14%	3.45%
Democrat	3	3	0
Republican	18	4	1

Vote in the Utah House of Representatives March 11, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 50  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	59	11	5
Total percent	78.66%	14.66%	6.66%
Democrat	9	7	0
Republican	50	4	5

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Utah

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Utah.

How to cast a vote in Utah

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times Utah is an all-mail voting state that offers vote centers for voters that choose to vote in person. All vote centers are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time. Utah voters are able to vote in person at any vote center. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration requirements Check your voter registration status here. To register to vote in Utah, an applicant must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of Utah for at least 30 days prior to the election, and at least 18 years old by the next general election. Pre-registration is available for 16- and 17-year-olds. 17-year-olds may vote in primary elections if they will turn 18 by the general election. Registration can be completed online or by mailing in a form. The deadline to register online or by mail is 11 days before Election Day. After this deadline, voters may register in person at a vote center by casting a provisional ballot and providing two forms of identification. Automatic registration See also: Automatic voter registration Utah does not practice automatic voter registration. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Utah has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration See also: Same-day voter registration Utah allows same-day voter registration at polling places during the 10 days preceding and on Election Day. Residency requirements Prospective voters must be residents of the state for at least 30 days before the election. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Utah does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, a person who commits fraudulent registration is "guilty of a class A misdemeanor" under Utah Code 20A-2-401. All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The Utah lieutenant governor’s office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website. Voter ID requirements Utah requires in-person voters to present non-photo identification while voting. The following list of accepted ID was current as of May 2025: “ "Valid voter identification" means: a form of identification that bears the name and photograph of the voter which may include: a currently valid Utah driver license; a currently valid identification card issued under Title 53, Chapter 3, Part 8, Identification Card Act; a currently valid identification card that is issued by: the state; or a branch, department, or agency of the United States; a currently valid Utah permit to carry a concealed weapon; a currently valid United States passport; or a currently valid United States military identification card; one of the following identification cards, regardless of whether the card includes a photograph of the voter: a valid tribal identification card; a Bureau of Indian Affairs card; or a tribal treaty card; or two forms of identification not listed under Subsection (79)(a) or (b) but that bear the name of the voter and provide evidence that the voter resides in the voting precinct, which may include: before January 1, 2029, an original or copy of a current utility bill, dated no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the election; before January 1, 2029, an original or copy of a bank or other financial account statement, dated no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the election; a certified birth certificate; a valid social security card; an original or copy of a check issued by the state or the federal government, dated no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the election; an original or copy of a paycheck from the voter's employer, dated no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the election; a currently valid Utah hunting or fishing license; certified naturalization documentation; a currently valid license issued by an authorized agency of the United States; a certified copy of court records showing the voter's adoption or name change; a valid Medicaid card, Medicare card, or Electronic Benefits Transfer Card; a currently valid identification card issued by: a local government within the state; an employer for an employee; or a college, university, technical school, or professional school located within the state; or a current Utah vehicle registration. ” Click here for the Utah statute defining accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Hunting and fishing on the ballot

Utah

• Utah ballot measures
• Utah ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• House Joint Resolution 15
• Statewide Ballot Questions