Utah Legislature passes new rules for college funding and mail-in voting, opens the door to nuclear power. 

click to enlarge

• Benjamin Wood
• A large Utah Flag was displayed on the floor of the Capitol Rotunda on Wednesday, March 5, 2025.

Utah’s 2025 legislative session, which came to a close on March 7, was full of the usual debate and controversy. Over the course of seven weeks, constituents saw a flurry of new regulations and prohibitions, like the end of collective bargaining in the public sector—pending the outcome of a union-led referendum campaign—the start of state oversight on Salt Lake City-owned streets and new restrictions on the on-campus housing options for transgender students.

And in their final days on Capitol Hill, lawmakers pushed through bills altering higher education funding and mail-in voting, and taking the first steps toward an expansion of nuclear power in the state.

Higher Education
Lawmakers voted largely along party lines for HB265, which tasks Utah universities with reallocating 10% of their instructional budgets. In other words, administrators must identify specific programs, classes and faculty positions to cut and free up funding that can be reallocated based on six considerations: enrollment data; completion rates; professional outcomes; workforce demands; program cost; and the university’s role in Utah.

The bill is intended to ensure that Utah is “using our funds to the highest and best use,” Ogden Republican Sen. Ann Millner, the bill’s Senate sponsor, told her chamber colleagues on Feb. 26.

“[Funds] will not be cut from the institution if they have thoughtful plans for reinvestment of those funds,” she said.

The bill formally passed the Legislature on March 6 and is now on its way to Gov. Spencer Cox for his signature or veto. But the bill has been met with some skepticism from education stakeholders. Some worry that HB265 would unfairly target arts and humanities programs, though sponsors of the bill have emphasized that is not the bill’s intent.

Discussions in the Senate also touched on broader concerns over how funding decisions will be made. During a hearing of the Senate Education Committee, Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, asked whether the bill ensures due process for personnel who might face layoffs in the reallocation process.

“Every institution's policies are going to look a little different on due process, but [also] very similar because of the rights of employees,” said Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton, HB265’s sponsor.

But Riebe pushed back against Peterson’s response, noting how the bill on higher education reallocation coincided with the passage of another bill, HB267, that prohibits collective bargaining in the public sector. She suggested adding specific guidelines for personnel decisions into HB265.

“With the current climate,” Riebe said, “the personnel decision isn't really sacred anymore.”

Some public commenters also emphasized the need to include more voices in the conversations around how funding will be reallocated.

“One of the things that we would really like to see is the opportunity in writing for faculty and staff and students to be involved in the decision-making processes,” said Sean Crossland for the Utah College Council, an American Federation of Teachers union branch.

Riebe introduced an amendment to the bill on the Senate floor that would have required the Utah Board of Higher Education to consult with “some of the experts who are in the field, like the presidents of each institution and faculty, staff and students,” though the amendment ultimately failed.

In addition to establishing this reinvestment plan, HB265 bill also stipulates that bachelor degree programs take no longer than 120 credit hours, unless a program requires additional accreditation. Millner said they’ve asked the Utah Board of Higher Education to look into establishing three-year degree programs at universities.

Election Law
The second half of the legislative session saw lawmakers working through multiple iterations of and big changes to HB300, a bill that initially sought to all but end Utah’s use of mail-in balloting.

In its early drafts, the bill required all ballots be dropped off in person at polling stations—staffed by at least two people—alongside a valid form of identification. But, after the bill received significant pushback, subsequent amendments reversed that requirement.

“Utahns, in large numbers, have let us know that they like to receive voting by mail, and so this substitute in this bill will preserve that requirement of vote-by-mail,” Rep. Jefferson Burton, R-Salem, said while introducing the substitute on the House floor on Feb. 25.

Now, voters will have to provide the last four digits of their driver’s license—or another form of valid ID—with their mail-in ballots. Physical IDs will have to be shown at in-person polling places, for voters to elect to cast their ballots there.

By keeping an ID requirement, Burton said the bill will “better enhance the security of our election process.” He repeatedly cited a 2024 Pew Research Center study, which found 81% of Americans favor requiring voters to show ID, to justify his legislation.

To help ensure access to voting, the substitute also added that free state ID cards will be issued to voters who don’t otherwise have a valid ID, like a driver’s license. Voters will also have to initially opt in to mail-in voting under HB300, but the bill allows for that requirement to be satisfied through an online process, or while registering to vote or renewing a driver’s license.

Despite those changes, the bill received mixed reviews from several county clerks during a Senate Labor and Business Committee meeting on Feb. 27. Lannie Chapman, Salt Lake County clerk, said the bill still needs to be further developed.

“While many changes have been made, there are still substantial hurdles that this bill brings forward statewide,” she said, noting the extended amount of time it would take to administer elections while phasing in the law and the lack of funding provided for it.

Shelly Jackson, deputy director of elections in the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, spoke in support of the bill.

“There are a few concepts that we still need to brush up and sand off and things that didn’t get included in the new sub, but we have gotten to a place that makes this bill so much better for voters, and we are supportive of it,” she said.

While the majority of commenters spoke against the bill, pointing to worries about its feasibility and the potential disenfranchisement of voters, several supported the added security measures.

“Fraud disenfranchises my vote,” resident Caroline Phippen said.

The bill passed the Legislature on March 6, largely along party lines, but with some bipartisan crossover.

“I'm not going to say that every stakeholder got everything they wanted, and I think that's the sign of a good bill,” said Sen. Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, the bill’s floor sponsor. “I think we have a really good bill. I think it's a very appropriate bill. I think we tackle the security [while] at the same time preserving vote by mail.”

Nuclear Energy
After disagreements over whether the state “shall” or “may” negotiate with counties and municipalities where power projects are developed, HB249 passed through the Legislature on March 6. It’s now waiting for Gov. Cox’s signature or veto.

HB249 outlines a path through which nuclear energy production in Utah can be established. It does this by creating a new Nuclear Energy Consortium to guide nuclear development and the Utah Energy Council to facilitate the development of energy generation facilities.

In the last week of the legislative session, debate on the bill surrounded the power that local authorities would have in energy production projects. And after a third substitute to the bill was adopted on March 5, those concerns were heightened.

The third substitute made it an option for the Utah Energy Council to negotiate with local municipalities, not a requirement. It was rejected in the House that same day, and a conference committee was organized to work out the issue.

“Those of you who are getting your phones blown up by your county commissioners, your clerks—and I am too—just relax,” Rep. Carl Albrecht, R-Richfield, said on the House floor. “Take a pill. Cool your jets. We're going to fix this in committee.” The final bill, under a fourth substitute, now clarifies that the council “shall” negotiate with counties and municipalities. It also adds guidelines for the use of tax differentials—or the difference in tax revenue before and after a development project.

The bill also requires the Utah Energy Council to negotiate with municipalities over how this new revenue will be spent. At least 10% of the funds given to municipalities must be used for “impact mitigation and affordable housing,” the bill says.

“We made some changes that helped the counties, the cities and everybody went away with a smile on their face,” Albrecht said.