Legislative Updates - 17 February 2025

Bills catching our attention this week

HB140Sub1, “Assault Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Hawkins and Senator McKell, would create an aggravating factor for an assault or a threat of violence offense committed against a referee.

HB140Sub1 passed the House 54-17 on Feb 11th, and awaits action by the Senate Rules Committee.

We believe that inflicting reasonable punishment for assault or threat of violence is a proper use of government force. However, we question whether making a referee victim of assault more important than any other victim of assault, is consistent with the principle of Equal Treatment Under The Law. GrassRoots tentatively favors a “no” vote on HB140Sub1.

HB392Sub1, “Unlicensed Driver Amendments”, sponsored by Representative MacPherson and Senator McCay, would:

• define a driving credential to mean “a driver license, driving privilege card, or learner permit issued by the state of Utah” or a driver license issued by another state or country (see lines 39-45);
• require, with some exceptions, that law enforcement “shall seize and take possession of a vehicle, without a warrant, when an operator of a vehicle does not have a driving credential in the operator's possession unless the peace officer is able to verify that the operator has been issued a driving credential” (see lines 77-80);
• specify that law enforcement “is not required to seize and take possession of a vehicle as described in Subsection (3)(b) [see lines 77-80 above] if the division or a peace officer makes a reasonable determination that: (i) the operator has been issued a driving credential that is expired; (ii) seizing the vehicle would create a public safety concern to the operator or any of the occupants in the vehicle; (iii) seizing the vehicle would prevent the division or the peace officer from addressing other public safety considerations; (iv) the operator is less than 18 years old; (v) an occupant of the vehicle possesses a driving credential and is willing to operate the vehicle.; or (vi) an individual with a driving credential is reasonably available to pick up the vehicle” (see lines 85-95b);
• Increase the impoundment fee to retrieve a car from a tow yard from $425 to $600 (see line 311);
• specify that “An impound yard may not release a vehicle unless an individual with a driving credential . . . is present and able to drive the vehicle” (see lines 345-347);
• specify, with certain exceptions, that law enforcement shall fingerprint an individual driving without a driving credential (see lines 454-480);
• increase the penalty for driving without a license from an infraction to a class C misdemeanor (up to 90 days imprisonment), or a class B misdemeanor (up to 180 days imprisonment) for repeat offenders (see lines 483-486); and
• specify a minimum penalty of $500 for individuals that knowingly allow an unlicensed driver to drive their car (see lines 518-519).

HB392Sub1 passed the House Transportation Committee 9-3 on February 12th, and awaits consideration by the full House.

The rationale behind HB392Sub1 is understandable. The Deseret News reports: “In 2023, nearly 50% of the 2,000 serious car crashes in West Valley City involved an unlicensed driver, up from the four-year average of 30%, according to data published by the city police department.” Also, “From January to August 2024, nearly 50% of the 120 hit-and-run cases that were solved in West Valley City also involved an unlicensed driver, the department found” (link). This Deseret News article also mentions a 2013 study by California’s Department of Motor Vehicles indicating much higher rates of fatal motor vehicle accidents by unlicensed drivers, the vast majority of whom (unlicensed drivers) were unauthorized immigrants.

HB392Sub1 should raise some questions.

Do we consider it a crime, worthy of up to 90-180 days imprisonment, to drive without a license? (We might also ask: Are we currently imprisoning people too much, too little, or about the right amount?)

Is the bill written to reasonably guarantee that people do not get punished harshly simply for failure to be carrying the “government papers” on their person. (We are unsure of the correct answer to this question, but we would prefer to avoid extra hardship on struggling families for simply failing to carry proof of driving credential. Any generally-law-abiding citizens out there who have ever left their license at home?) Will there be cases of seizure and impounding in which the driver was licensed, but not carrying their license? If so, in such cases, will the licensed driver have to pay the $600 impound fee in order to recover their vehicle?

GrassRoots is not taking a position on HB392Sub1 at this time.

SB189, “Child Care Services Amendments”, sponsored by Senator Escamilla, would:

• create the Child Care Capacity Expansion Act (act);
• describe the goals of the act as follows: a) expand the state's supply of high quality and affordable child care seats; b) support employers seeking to secure a reliable workforce; c) support the economic prospects of parents of young children in the workforce; d) promote economic growth; and e) utilize obsolete state property;
• direct certain state departments to collaborate on implementing the act;
• provide for certain limitations on liability from operations of an expanded child care facility; and
• require an annual report to certain legislative committees.

The fiscal note for SB189 estimates increased government spending of over $2 million in Fiscal Year 2026.

SB189 passed the Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee 3-0 on Feb 6th, and awaits consideration on the Senate 2nd reading calendar.

We do not believe the social planning and interference in the market economy envisioned by SB189 to be a proper role of government. Provision for child care should be left to families and other actors in the private sector. We would prefer an additional $2 million tax cut, instead of this bill. GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on SB189.

Updated status on a bill covered in past weekly updates:

HB69Sub4, “Government Records and Information Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Gricius and Senator Musselman, would:

• classify as private a record or information regarding whether a voter returned a ballot with postage attached;
• prohibit a government officer from accessing or using government records or information for a “primarily personal purpose” (including “a political purpose”), unless the government officer gains access to the records or information in the same manner as a member of the public; and
• make it a crime (class B misdemeanor, with jail time up to 180 days) to intentionally violate the provisions described in the preceding paragraph.

Additional coverage of earlier versions of HB69 may be found in our updates of January 27th, February 3rd, and February 10th.

HB69Sub2 passed the House 72-0 on Jan 29th. HB69Sub3 passed the Senate 2nd reading 27-0 on February 13th. On the Senate 3rd reading, HB69Sub4 was substituted for the Sub3 version, and was then circled (meaning final consideration of the bill would be delayed until the bill is “uncircled”, which could happen at about any time that the Senate is in session).

Our concerns spelled out in previous updates on the various versions of HB69 still stand with the current (Sub4) version:

• Why are we classifying as private information regarding whether a voter returned a ballot without postage attached? Why is there a need to reduce election transparency in this way? Do people have a right to privacy about whether or not they push the cost of mailing their ballot onto the taxpayer? In our judgment, this is not a good justification for reduced transparency. In fact, it would probably make more sense to publish the names of people pushing this cost onto the taxpayer, than to classify this as a private record.
• As we read lines 392-422, and lines 774-775 of HB69Sub4, we find that a government officer may be subjected to up to 180 days in prison (class B midemeanor penalty) for accessing, using, copying, or releasing various public information. We consider this to be an abusive measure, and an unwarranted gag order, on government workers who may feel a need to reveal or highlight certain public information or even to serve as a whistleblower.

GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on HB69Sub4.

If you have any questions about these bills, GrassRoots’ position on these bills, or related matters, please contact either of us or any other member of the Board of Utah GrassRoots.

Sincerely,

Steve Stromness
Vice-Chairman, Bill Review Coordinator, Utah GrassRoots
steven.stromness@gmail.com
435-637-5248

Don Guymon
Chairman, Utah GrassRoots
donguymon@gmail.com

PS Do you want to contact a legislator? Go to le.utah.gov and click on “Legislators”.

Do you want to read and follow legislation yourself? Go to le.utah.gov and click on “2025 General Session Page” then click on “2025 Bills”.

Do you have other questions about how to effectively participate in the political process? Please contact us, and we will try to help as appropriate.

Do you have friends that would appreciate this legislative update? Please feel free to forward it to them.

Would you like to help us with review of legislation in a small or large way? Consider taking a special look at bills sponsored by your own representative or senator. Please contact us with your findings and/or with any questions we might be able to help you with.