Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Utah Amendment D, Provide for Legislative Alteration of Ballot Initiatives and Ban Foreign Contributions Measure (2024)
| Utah Amendment D | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2024 | |
| Topic Direct democracy measures | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
Utah Amendment D, the Provide for Legislative Alteration of Ballot Initiatives and Ban Foreign Contributions Measure, was certified for the ballot in Utah as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. On September 12, 2024, 3rd Judicial District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that the measure was unconstitutional. Although the measure was printed on ballots, votes on the measure were not tallied. The Utah State Legislature appealed the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's ruling on September 25, 2024. In its opinion, the supreme court wrote, "The submission and publication requirements are not mere boxes to be checked before votes can be tallied; they are constitutional safeguards designed to ensure that voters have the information and time necessary to cast an informed vote on a matter as weighty as a constitutional amendment. If those requirements are unfulfilled, it would be unconstitutional to allow a proposed amendment to go into effect. ... Because Amendment D was not submitted to the voters in the way our constitution requires, it is void."[1][2] To read more about the lawsuit, click here.[3]
Overview
How would Amendment D have effected legislative alteration of ballot initiatives?
- See also: Text of measure and Legislative alteration
Amendment D 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.[3]
The legislature also passed Senate Bill 4003, which would have taken effect if Amendment D was on the ballot and approved. SB 4003 would have allowed the state legislature to amend a voter-approved initiative by amending the law in such a way that, "in the Legislature's determination, leaves intact the general purpose of the initiative." The amendment would have allowed the state legislature to amend a voter-approved initiative "in any manner determined necessary by the Legislature to mitigate an adverse fiscal impact of the initiative".[4]
The term legislative alteration refers to when lawmakers repeal or amend citizen initiatives after voters have approved them. Utah is one of 11 states (out of 21 states with a process for initiative statutes) that does not restrict legislative alteration of voter-approved initiatives.
The last time a citizen initiative qualified for the ballot in Utah was 2018, when three initiated state statutes appeared on the ballot. Voters approved all three of the initiatives. All three were later amended by the state legislature. Before 2018, the last time an initiated statute was on the ballot and approved by voters was in 2000.
How would Amendment D have effected legislative alteration of ballot initiatives?
Amendment D would have 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.[3]
As of 2024, at least nine states have passed laws prohibiting foreign nationals or governments from contributing to ballot measure committees. However, the definition of foreign national may vary by state. Those nine states are California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington.
How would Amendment D have changed veto referendum requirements?
- See also: Veto referendums in Utah
Senate Bill 4003, which would have taken effect if Amendment D was on the ballot and approved, would have increased the amount of time for sponsors to gather veto referendum signatures by 20 days (from 40 days to 60 days).[4]
As of 2024, in Utah, referendums must be filed within five days following the end of the legislative session during which the bill was passed. The number of required signatures for veto referendums in Utah is 8% of the total active voters as of January 1 of each year. For 2024, the veto referendum requirement was 134,298 total signatures (25% of 134,298 amounts to 33,575 signatures).
Veto referendums are a type of ballot initiative in which citizens gather signatures to place a bill enacted by the state legislature on the statewide ballot for voter approval or rejection in the hopes of overturning the law. Utah is one of 23 states with a referendum process. Utah has had a total of four veto referendums: two in 1954, one in 1974, and one in 2007. Utah is the only state where voters have repealed every law put before them through the veto referendum process.
Why was this measure placed on the ballot?
The Legislature convened a special session to pass the amendment in response to the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling in League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature. The court ruled on July 11, 2024, that the Legislature could not repeal or undo an initiative meant to reform government: “The people’s right to alter or reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement of the initiative in a manner that impairs the reform enacted by the people.”
The amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 401 on August 20, 2024. On August 21, 2024, the Senate passed the bill in a vote of 20-8. Among Senate Republicans, 20 were in favor and two were opposed. All six Senate Democrats voted against the bill. The House passed the bill on the same day in a vote of 54-21. Among Republican Representatives, 54 were in favor and seven were opposed. All 14 Democratic Representatives voted against the bill.[3]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for the amendment would have been as follows:[5]
| “ |
Should the Utah Constitution be changed to strengthen the initiative process by:
If approved, state law would also be changed to:
For ( ) Against ( ) [6] |
” |
Ballot language lawsuit
League of Women Voters of Utah filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Amendment D and have it removed from the ballot, or, if it does appear on the ballot, prohibit votes cast on the measure from being counted. Plaintiffs alleged that the ballot language was not certified until two days after the official state deadline according to state law and also alleged that the ballot language is false and misleading. The lawsuit claims "The language violates the inherent accuracy requirement of Section 1 of Article XXIII because it fails to submit the amendment to the voters for a popular vote."[7]
To read more about the lawsuit, click here.
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, Utah Constitution and Article VI, Utah Constitution
The amendment would have amended Section 2 of Article I and Section 1 of Article VI of the Utah Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added and struck-through text would have been deleted:[3]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
Article I, Section 2. All political power inherent in the people.
All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government through the legislative processes established in Article VI, Section 1, Subsection (2), or through Article XXIII as the public welfare may require.
Article VI, Section 1. Power vested in Senate, House, and People -- Prohibition of foreign influence on initiatives and referenda.
(1) The Legislative power of the State shall be vested in:
(a) a Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah; and
(b) the people of the State of Utah as provided in Subsection (2).
(2) (a) (i) The legal voters of the State of Utah, in the numbers, under the conditions, in the manner, and within the time provided by statute, may:
(A) initiate any desired legislation and cause it to be submitted to the people for adoption upon a majority vote of those voting on the legislation, as provided by statute; or
(B) require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.
(ii) Notwithstanding Subsection (2)(a)(i)(A), legislation initiated to allow, limit, or prohibit the taking of wildlife or the season for or method of taking wildlife shall be adopted upon approval of two-thirds of those voting.
(b) The legal voters of any county, city, or town, in the numbers, under the conditions, in the manner, and within the time provided by statute, may:
(i) initiate any desired legislation and cause it to be submitted to the people of the county, city, or town for adoption upon a majority vote of those voting on the legislation, as provided by statute; or
(ii) require any law or ordinance passed by the law making body of the county, city, or town to be submitted to the voters thereof, as provided by statute, before the law or ordinance may take effect.
(3) (a) Foreign individuals, entities, or governments may not, directly or indirectly, influence, support, or oppose an initiative or a referendum.
(b) The Legislature may provide, by statute, definitions, scope, and enforcement of the prohibition under Subsection (3)(a).
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people's exercise of their Legislative power as provided in Subsection (2) does not limit or preclude the exercise of Legislative power, including through amending, enacting, or repealing a law, by the Legislature, or by a law making body of a county, city, or town, on behalf of the people whom they are elected to represent. [6]
Support
Supporters
Officials
- State Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R)
- State Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R)
Arguments
Opposition
Opponents
Officials
- State Rep. Raymond Ward (R)
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
Better Boundaries opposes the amendment. During the calendar year 2024, the committee reported $3,466.15 in cash contributions and $5,609 in in-kind contributions. Utahns for Responsive Government provided 100% of the in-kind contributions.[8]
Ballotpedia did not identify a campaign registered to support the amendment.
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Oppose | $3,466.15 | $5,609.00 | $9,075.15 | $7,076.27 | $12,685.27 |
| Total | $3,466.15 | $5,609.00 | $9,075.15 | $7,076.27 | $12,685.27 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Amendment D.[8]
| Committees in opposition to Amendment D | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Better Boundaries | $3,466.15 | $5,609.00 | $9,075.15 | $7,076.27 | $12,685.27 |
| Total | $3,466.15 | $5,609.00 | $9,075.15 | $7,076.27 | $12,685.27 |
Donors
Utahns for Responsive Government contributed 62% of the total donations.
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utahns for Responsive Government | $0.00 | $5,609.00 | $5,609.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Background
League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature
League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature challenged the legislature's repeal and replacement of Proposition 4, a 2018 voter-approved initiative that sought to establish an independent advisory redistricting commission to recommend redistricting maps to the state legislature, which would have been required to enact them or reject them, though, upon rejecting a commission-recommended map, the legislature would have been required under Proposition 4 to create its own map using the same criteria. One provision of Proposition 4 was designed to explicitly prohibit the practice of "divid[ing] districts in a manner that purposefully or unduly favors or disfavors any incumbent elected official, candidate or prospective candidate for elective office, or any political party."[9]
In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the state legislature, in enacting Senate Bill 200, "rescinded critical Proposition 4 reforms and enacted watered-down versions of others," and alleged that the legislative redistricting committee violated Utahns' right to vote and right to free speech by dividing Salt Lake County, a county with the state's largest concentration of voters for minority parties, into four congressional districts.[9]
The court ruled on July 11, 2024, that the state legislature could not repeal or undo an initiative meant to reform government, writing that "the people’s right to alter or reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement of the initiative in a manner that impairs the reform enacted by the people."[10]
Legislative alteration
- See also: Legislative alteration
The term legislative alteration refers to when lawmakers repeal or amend citizen initiatives after voters have approved them. At the statewide level, it applies only to initiated state statutes since legislatures cannot change initiated constitutional amendments without voter approval. There are 21 states with a process for initiated state statutes. Eleven states have no restrictions on legislative alteration, two states—Arizona and California—require voter approval of substantive alteration, and the remaining eight states have either time restrictions, supermajority vote requirements, or a combination of the two.
Utah is one of eleven states that has no restriction on legislative alteration of ballot initiatives.
Of the 21 states that provide for initiated state statutes:
- Eleven states have no restrictions on when or how legislators can amend or repeal voter-approved initiated statutes.
- Ten states have restrictions on how and when the legislature can amend or repeal voter-approved initiatives.
- Eight states have a supermajority vote requirement or a time requirement.
- Two states require voter approval to amend voter-approved initiatives.
Hover over a state in the map below to read about its requirements and restrictions for altering approved citizen initiatives:
Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives
From 2010 through 2022, 143 initiated state statutes and three initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 146 total initiatives from 2010 through 2022, 29 were legislatively altered as of January 2023. To read about legislative alterations of ballot initiatives from 2010 through 2022, click here.
Laws governing foreign spending in ballot measure campaigns
Campaign finance rules for ballot measures differ from those for candidate elections. "Referenda are held on issues, not candidates for public office," wrote the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978 (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti).[11] The court has held that spending on ballot measure campaigns is similar to issue advocacy, such as lobbying, in the lawmaking process. In 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed that, under the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA), foreign nationals were prohibited from making contributions to candidates. However, FECA "does not bar foreign nationals from issue advocacy," according to the court.[12]
The Federal Election Commission, following the court's orders, has held that ballot measure campaigns are not regulated under FECA. According to the FEC, since ballot measure campaigns are similar to issue advocacy, foreign individuals, corporations, and governments can contribute to them.[13]
At least nine states have passed laws prohibiting foreign nationals or governments from contributing to ballot measure committees. However, the definition of foreign national may vary by state. Those nine states are California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington.
Ballotpedia tracked four ballot measures related to foreign spending in ballot measure campaigns.
| State | Year | Measure | Type | Description | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maine | 2023 | Question 2 | IndISS | Prohibits foreign governments, or entities with at least 5% foreign government ownership or control, from spending money to influence ballot measures or candidate elections |  |
| North Dakota | 2018 | Measure 1 | CICA | Ban political contributions from foreign government entities, foreign individuals, and foreign corporations | |
| Missouri | 2016 | Constitutional Amendment 2 | CICA | Ban committees from accepting contributions from foreign corporations[14] | / |
| Colorado | 2002 | Amendment 27 | CICA | Prohibits candidate committees and political parties from making or accepting certain contributions | |
Utah ballot measure statistics
Citizen initiatives on the ballot
The last time a citizen initiative qualified for the ballot was 2018, when three initiated state statutes appeared on the ballot. Voters approved all three of the initiatives. All three were later amended by the state legislature.
Before 2018, the last time an initiated statute was on the ballot and approved by voters was in 2000.
Between 1952 and 2022, 23 citizen initiatives appeared on the ballot. Of the 23 initiatives, seven were approved (30.4%) and 16 were defeated (69.6%).
| Citizen initiated state statutes (1952-2022) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total number | Approved | Percent approved | Defeated | Percent defeated | ||||
| 23 | 7 | 30.4% | 16 | 69.6% | ||||
Veto referendums in Utah
In Utah, bills passed by the state legislature can be put before voters through a veto referendum petition. Bills passed by a two-thirds supermajority in the state legislature are not subject to referendum.
Utah is the only state where voters have repealed every law put before them through the veto referendum process. Utah has had a total of four veto referendums.
- Signature requirement: 8% of registered voters on January 1 after the previous general election
- Result of a yes vote: targeted law upheld
- Result of a no vote: targeted law repealed
- Does not allow for veto referendums on emergency legislation
- Successful veto referendum petitions suspend the targeted law until the election
| Year | State | Subject | Measure | Outcome for target law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | Utah | Education | Referendum 1: School Vouchers | Repealed |
| 1974 | Utah | Property | Referendum 1: Land Use Act | Repealed |
| 1954 | Utah | Education | Referendum A: Abolishment of Carbon College | Repealed |
| 1954 | Utah | Education | Referendum B: Dixie, Snow and Weber Colleges as Private Organizations | Repealed |
Referred amendments on the ballot
From 2010 to 2022, the Utah State Legislature referred 23 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 18 (78.26%) and rejected five (21.74%) 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.
| Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 2010-2022 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total number | Approved | Percent approved | Defeated | Percent defeated | Annual average | Annual minimum | Annual maximum | |
| 23 | 18 | 78.26% | 5 | 21.74% | 3.29 | 1 | 7 | |
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.
Senate Joint Resolution 401
The Legislature convened a special session to pass the amendment in response League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature. The court ruled on July 11, 2024, that the Legislature could not repeal or undo an initiative meant to reform government: “The people’s right to alter or reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement of the initiative in a manner that impairs the reform enacted by the people.”
The amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 401 on August 20, 2024. On August 21, 2024, the Senate passed the bill in a vote of 20-8. Among Senate Republicans, 20 were in favor and two, Sen. Daniel W. Thatcher and Sen. Wayne Harper, were opposed. All six Senate Democrats voted against the bill. The House passed the bill on the same day in a vote of 54-21. Among Republican Representatives, 54 were in favor and seven were opposed. All 14 Democratic Representatives voted against the bill.[3]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senate Bill 4003
Along with the constitutional amendment, the legislature also passed Senate Bill 4003, which would have taken effect if the amendment was on the ballot and approved. The bill 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 allows 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).[15]
| 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 |
Lawsuit
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment is misleading and inaccurate | |
| Court: Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake City, Utah Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters | Defendant(s): Utah State Legislature, Sen. Stuart Adams (R-7), Rep. Mike Schultz (R-12), Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson (R) |
Source: Fox 13 Now
League of Women Voters of Utah filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Amendment D and have it removed from the ballot, or, if it does appear on the ballot, prohibit votes cast on the measure from being counted. Plaintiffs alleged that the ballot language was not certified until two days after the official state deadline according to state law and also alleged that the ballot language is false and misleading. The lawsuit claims "The language violates the inherent accuracy requirement of Section 1 of Article XXIII because it fails to submit the amendment to the voters for a popular vote."[7]
Plaintiffs alleged that "The ballot summary plainly does not communicate that the Amendment eliminates a fundamental constitutional right that has existed since 1895 ... Second, somehow worse than failing to disclose that the Amendment eliminates a fundamental right, the ballot summary misleads voters into believing a vote in favor will strengthen their constitutional right to initiate legislation. The purpose of the Amendment is to weaken voters’ constitutional right to initiate government reform measures by authorizing the Legislature to amend or repeal them as it sees fit. Indeed, the text of the Amendment—in sweeping language— wholesale exempts the Legislature from complying with any constitutional provision when it acts to amend, repeal, or enact laws in relation to voter-approved initiatives."[7]
Better Boundaries, the group leading the campaign in opposition to the amendment, said, "Amendment D would do the opposite of what the misleading ballot language claims and would weaken Utahns ability to make their voice heard through the ballot initiative process. By changing the rules to draft deceptive ballot language for Amendment D, Senate President Adams and House Speaker Schultz now find themselves back in court. We fully support the League of Women Voters Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government in their pursuit of integrity."[7]
Senate President Stuart Adams (R-7) and House Speaker Mike Schultz (R-12) said, "It’s ironic that the very people who claim to advocate for greater voter engagement are the same ones trying to obstruct Utahns from having the opportunity to vote on this important matter. The plaintiffs are clearly concerned about leaving it to voters to decide. Before initiatives overwhelm and significantly alter our state, Utahns should have the opportunity to voice their opinions."[7]
On September 12, 2024, 3rd District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that the measure was unconstitutional. Although the measure will be printed on ballots, votes on the measure will not be tallied. The Utah State Legislature appealed the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court. Gibson ruled that "the people of Utah are entitled to an accurate summary of any proposed amendment that impacts their fundamental rights and they are entitled to the constitutionally required notice, by publication in a newspaper two months before the election. These requirements are fundamental to the integrity of our democracy."[16]
On September 25, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, blocking votes on Amendment D from being counted. In its opinion, the supreme court wrote, "The submission and publication requirements are not mere boxes to be checked before votes can be tallied; they are constitutional safeguards designed to ensure that voters have the information and time necessary to cast an informed vote on a matter as weighty as a constitutional amendment. If those requirements are unfulfilled, it would be unconstitutional to allow a proposed amendment to go into effect. ... Because Amendment D was not submitted to the voters in the way our constitution requires, it is void."[17][18]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Utah
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Utah.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ KUTV ,"Ballot measure to give Utah lawmakers final power over voter initiatives will remain void," accessed September 26, 2024
- ↑ Utah Supreme Court "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature," September 25, 2024
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Utah State Legislature, "S.J.R. 401 Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution - Voter Legislative Power," accessed August 22, 2024
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Utah State Legislature, "SB 4003," accessed September 6, 2024
- ↑ Utah Secretary of State, "2024 Proposed Constitutional Amendments," accessed September 10, 2024
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Fox 13 Now, "Opponents of Amendment D ask court to remove it from the ballot," accessed September 9, 2024
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Utah Disclosures, "Better Boundaries," accessed September 10, 2024
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Justia Law, "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature," accessed August 23, 2024
- ↑ Salt Lake Tribune, "Lawmakers ignoring ballot initiatives violates Utahns’ constitutional rights, Utah Supreme Court rules in redistricting case," accessed July 11, 2024
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti," April 26, 1978
- ↑ FEC, "MUR: 6678," April 30, 2015
- ↑ FEC, "Stop 1-186 to Protect Mining and Jobs ," accessed December 14, 2022
- ↑ The ban was ruled unconstitutional.
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 4003," accessed September 6, 2024
- ↑ Fox 13 Now, "Judge rules Amendment D is 'void' but will remain on the ballot," accessed September 12, 2024
- ↑ KUTV ,"Ballot measure to give Utah lawmakers final power over voter initiatives will remain void," accessed September 26, 2024
- ↑ Utah Supreme Court "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature," September 25, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, “Utah Code 20A-1-302. Opening and closing of polls on election day.” accessed May 13, 2025
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Utah State Legislature, “Utah Code 20A-2-101. Eligibility for registration.” accessed May 13, 2025
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Utah Lieutenant Governor, “Welcome to the Utah Voter Registration Website,” accessed May 13, 2025
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Utah State Legislature, “20A-2-207. Registration by provisional ballot.” accessed May 13, 2025
- ↑ NCSL, "State Profiles: Elections," accessed May 13, 2025
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, “Utah Code 20A-2-401. Fraudulent registration -- Penalty.” accessed May 13, 2025
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 Utah State Legislature, "Utah Code 20A-1-102. Definitions." accessed May 13, 2025
 |
State of Utah Salt Lake City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
