HB 374, titled the Signature Collection Amendments, revises Utah’s election code rules for nomination petitions used by candidates seeking placement on primary and general election ballots. The bill creates a formal process for a voter to request removal of their signature from a nomination petition for a candidate of a registered political party that is not a qualified political party, and it also applies similar signature-removal procedures to qualified-party signature gathering and unaffiliated candidate certificates of nomination. In addition, it requires election officials to post the name and date of signature of each verified signer on the lieutenant governor’s website for at least 90 days, and it directs officials to notify prosecutors when a person claims their signature was placed on a petition without their consent.
The bill also makes several procedural and technical changes to petition circulation and verification. It clarifies that once a signature has already been verified, an election official may not later remove it at the signer’s request, and it sets deadlines for when removal requests must be filed and when officials must act. It updates form requirements for nomination petitions, preserves existing criminal penalties for false signing or improper circulation, and includes a coordination clause to align its timing provisions with H.B. 299 if both bills become law. The bill takes effect May 7, 2025, and does not appropriate money.
Impact
HB 374 amends multiple sections of Utah Code governing regular primary elections, qualified political party nomination by signature gathering, and unaffiliated candidate nomination petitions, primarily in Title 20A. Its practical effect is to add a public posting requirement for verified petition signers, create a limited post-signature removal process before verification, and impose notice obligations on filing officers when a signer disputes a signature. It also modifies petition form and verification language, and it coordinates with existing election timing rules and a separate time-computation bill, potentially affecting county clerks, the lieutenant governor, candidates, petition circulators, and voters who sign nomination petitions.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in committee and on the floor, but not unanimous support in the House. It received strong committee recommendations and passed the House on third reading with a clear majority, suggesting broad acceptance of the bill’s election-administration changes. The Senate committee later issued a substitute recommendation and then held the bill, indicating continued interest but also some unresolved concerns or the need for further review.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the balance between voter privacy and transparency, and the administrative burden on election officials. Supporters may view the public posting of verified signatures and the removal process as safeguards against improper petitioning and signature fraud, while opponents may worry that posting signer names and dates online could chill participation or expose voters to unwanted contact. Another likely concern is the cutoff that prevents removal once a signature has been verified, which favors finality and administrative efficiency but limits a voter’s ability to withdraw consent after verification. The Senate’s decision to hold the bill after a substitute recommendation suggests at least some unresolved policy or implementation concerns, even though no committee transcript is available.