“Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to require that citizen-proposed laws that increase taxes compared to existing law be approved by at least 60% of voters, instead of a simple majority?”

A few weeks back we dove into history and context around Utah’s ballot initiative, how legislation is made, and how difficult it would be for ballot amendments to pass if voters support it this election. In a nutshell:

• Prop B will undermine citizens’ power to reform their government using direct ballot initiatives.

• If Prop B passes, its 60% threshold is likely to undermine future citizen-led legislation.

• Prop B will broadly affect citizen initiatives, even ones that are not explicitly about taxes.

Since then, there has been significant noise for and against the amendment. Our position is that Amendment B is intended to undermine Utah citizens’ rights to reform their government. Many local elected officials (and fiscal conservatives and civic teachers) feel the same.

Context is important. State representative Ray Ward, a Republican, recently outlined the ways Utah’s state legislature has recently made ballot initiatives more difficult, including expanding the number of jurisdictions where signatures must be gathered, creating onerous rules about signature gathering, and adding significant time for signature removal. His email ends this way: “Amendment B looks to me like one more step towards the functional elimination of the citizen’s ballot initiative process, so I am not for it.”

We agree.

What initiatives would Amendment B impact?

One of the biggest questions voters should ask is simply “what initiatives would be impacted?” Getting any citizen-led initiative on the ballot requires serious effort and cost; anything worth the effort will likely require the state legislature to allocate or reallocate resources to make it happen. So in our (non-lawyer) opinion: potentially all of the initiatives worth pursuing.

Consider some potential future initiatives that would likely be impacted by Amendment B. This new constitutional amendment could be used to block any initiative intended to:

• Fully fund disability services for Utahns in need instead of continuing to have a significant backlog. Utah’s legislative body has routinely opted to cut income taxes rather than fund these services; the wait time for services currently averages 5.4 years.

• Expand Medicaid or other healthcare services to cover more low-income Utah citizens, like Prop 3, a 2018 ballot initiative which did exactly this. This initiative passed by 53.3% and has served over 70,000 low-income Utahns since.

• Increase public school funding from the current last-in-the-nation per pupil spending level, including by forcing lawmakers to spend the money already raised for education (Utah’s full income tax revenue). This is an ongoing fight. Back in 2018, public education proponents negotiated with legislators for increased education funding rather than running an initiative—the negotiating power was sufficient to create change. That would change if Amendment B passes.

• Support domestic and sexual violence victims with programs run from taxpayer funding. This is a real need: funding for Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault (UCASA), which operates rape crisis centers and the state’s only sexual assault hotline, was cut from Utah’s 2025 budget. UCASA’s requested full funding for the year was only around $250,000, a tiny fraction of state spending.

• Block restrictions on developers or data centers, if those initiatives were somehow shown to have a fiscal impact that “increases taxes compared to existing law.”

Probably not the types of measures you thought would “raise taxes.” We worry that Amendment B would thwart most priorities Utah citizens might want to tackle—potentially also including initiatives relating to homelessness, electoral reform, or other important issues where Utah voters and leaders differ.

Such measures may not require increasing Utahn’s overall tax rates (i.e., they could be funded by moving around or cutting other funding). But even when an initiative doesn’t explicitly raise taxes, we imagine that state leaders opposed to the initiative are likely to argue that it does “increase taxes compared to existing law.” Perhaps more importantly, Amendment B increases the likelihood that initiatives will get tied up in courts, requiring time-consuming and costly litigation to enact voters’ will. Legal fights occurred after every recent citizen-led ballot initiative, and we expect more of the same in the future.

We’re already concerned that Utah legislators are not listening to its citizens. As it turns out, we are also worried about burdensome taxes—specifically, shifting Utah’s tax burdens in recent years and what that means for our state’s future.

Does Amendment B actually mean lower taxes?

Proponents of the measure argue that raising taxes should require a bigger majority. Utah’s top GOP leader recently argued that Amendment B will keep “Utah’s economy strong and our state financially responsible” as well as stand “up to special interests that want to use Utah’s ballot to raise taxes.”1

It’s worth analyzing those claims—because we believe increasing taxes should be done cautiously. What proponents of Prop B fail to say is that while certain state-controlled taxes may stay low (or continue to be cut), other tax rates will possibly go up as a result. At least, that’s what has recently happened in Utah.

Which taxes are likely to increase based on this bill?

The state legislature largely controls income and sales tax rates, the two largest funding sources for the state (after federal funds). Income tax is the largest single revenue-generator for the state, and is unique in that it is constitutionally earmarked solely for public education.2 Amendment B would have the effect of blocking initiatives that impact income or sales tax and receive less than 60% of the vote, thus keeping those tax rates low.

However, if recent history is any indication, lowering state income or sales taxes may have the opposite effect on your property taxes. Unlike the others, property tax is assessed at local levels and used by city, county, utility districts, and local school boards. (Property tax is not collected or distributed by the state, although certain lawmakers would like that to change).

What does property tax fund? First responders, local roads, parks, libraries, and public education—to name a few. For most Utah residents, public education is the largest portion of your property tax bill. And public education is primarily3 funded in two ways: through income tax and local property taxes. To balance the budget, when one source goes down, the other goes up.

Utah legislators have chosen to cut $1.4 billion from education via income tax cuts during the past 6 years. During the same timeframe lawmakers have also passed hundreds of bills—that’s not an exaggeration—regarding public education, including many that do not provide additional ongoing funds to meet these new requirements (some call these “unfunded mandates”). Read this excellent op-ed on how cutting income taxes hurts education.

Where is the money?

When Utah’s public schools lose funding from income taxes, they must turn to other sources. That largely means what local school boards can control: increasing local property taxes. Increases in property taxes are already happening around the state.

The result is a tax shift: a larger tax bill for working families and average Utahns, and a smaller one for corporations and high-income individuals.4

This is already happening. Take one real-world example: in 2023, Utah’s legislature passed a $208 million state income tax cut. For the state’s largest district, Alpine School District, that money would have equated to an additional $26 million in student funding had these resources been distributed to public education.5 A few short months after the state income tax cut passed, Alpine School District passed a $21 million property tax increase, exposing the financial needs of a school district weighed down by new mandates, inflation, and population growth. The money has to come from somewhere.

Ultimately, the state income tax cut amounted to a tax shift from income tax to property tax—resulting in some low- and fixed-income families saddled with higher taxes overall during the past few years. Tax shifts from income to property tax tend to hurt the elderly, those on a fixed income, and low-income families the most. We are not happy that Utah’s neediest families are paying more.

What can you do?

Let your neighbors know what B will really impact, from future initiatives you might support to your own bottom line. If this measure passes, Utah citizens lose a meaningful way to enact legislation their leaders are reluctant to approach—with real implications for the most vulnerable Utahns.

Protect your constitutional rights: vote against Amendment B. And as always, make sure to return your ballot well before 8pm on Election Day, November 3!

Unaffiliated voters comprise a big and growing group. Over 30% of current Utah voters are not affiliated with any party, the second-largest voter bloc in Utah. Many feel politically homeless, and we know voters here in the Beehive State who would prefer to be independent but affiliate to have a voice in closed primary elections.

What many voters may not know is that Utah has a third party designed to appeal to centrist voters. It’s called the Forward Party, with the tagline “Not left. Not right. Forward.”

A bit of history

Utah now has eight political parties. Only one of those is explicitly in the “center.”

In 2017, BYU professor Richard Davis spearheaded the creation of the United Utah Party (UUP), intended for moderate voters who were feeling politically homeless. The party ran its first candidate almost immediately: Jim Bennett, son of former Republican Senator Bob Bennett, ran in a mid-term race to replace Jason Chaffetz. The United Utah Party continued to run candidates in subsequent elections—many of whom got voter support well beyond what would be expected based on party affiliation numbers.

Several years later, in 2022, the Forward Party emerged on the national scene, led by co-founders Andrew Yang (former Democratic presidential candidate), Christine Todd Whitman (former Republican governor), and others. The Forward Party gained traction and secured ballot access in Utah at the end of 2023.

Determining that two parties for centrists in Utah were one too many, UUP and Forward members formally voted to merge. Because of its ties to a national party, the new centrist party adopted the Forward Party name.

Platform versus values-based

Utah’s Forward Party aims to be different from other parties. Whereas most candidates pledge allegiance to their party’s platform, Forward party candidates sign a pledge indicating that they support certain values instead. Candidates are then expected to use their own judgment to arrive at policy solutions that meet the needs of their constituents—rather than answering to party bosses.

The Forward Party also relies on a grassroots approach to determine state-level priorities. Members suggest issues rooted in the party values and then vote on that list at the annual state convention, selecting as many as they’d like to see emphasized. Priorities picked by at least half of Forwardists are priorities for the year; those picked by at least two-thirds are the party’s top priorities.

This year, Utah Forward party members selected eight priorities and five top priorities: affordable housing, election and voting system reform, fair redistricting, separation of powers and judicial independence, and water conservation—including the Great Salt Lake. (We note these aren’t far off from the top priorities identified by Utah residents overall in the 2024 Utah Foundation Survey)

A different kind of special election

How do these principles work in action? So far, they seem to bring more voters to the table when decisions are made. We were impressed by the Forward Party’s willingness to disrupt the status quo in how they chose a replacement for state Senator Daniel Thatcher in Utah’s Senate District 11.

For context, Senator Thatcher changed his party affiliation from Republican to Forward before his term expired. When he resigned early for health reasons, the Forward Party could have done what Utah’s legacy parties do for mid-term replacements: gather a group of party delegates to choose a successor. Typically in special elections for state senate, up to 150 delegates—a tiny fraction of voters—make decisions for the rest of their district. (We’ll cover special elections in a future post, but it’s worth noting that around 25% of Utah’s current legislators were appointed this way, and these appointees then benefit from a ~97% incumbency re-election rate.)

Instead of limiting voting to party members, the Forward Party instead gave every voter in SD11 a chance to weigh in—regardless of party affiliation.

Five Forward Party candidates were vetted to run for the seat. Each candidate could spend a maximum of $300 to campaign and had three weeks in which to do so. The party gathered consistent information: a video introduction, resume, and sample legislation proposal from each candidate and made it available (and easy to compare) on a single website. Links to that information were also provided directly on the electronic ballot, where approval voting permitted voters to support as many of the five candidates as they wanted.

Over a thousand Senate District 11 voters participated (as many as 10x more voters than typical special elections). Local mom and nonprofit director Emily Buss was the top vote getter. For the past year, Ms. Buss has served as Utah’s only third-party legislator and is currently campaigning to win that senate seat outright in this year’s general election.

Options are good for voters

We hope to find common ground with people engaged in building up our state from all political parties and recognize the value in pursuing pragmatic, collaborative, ethical governance both within and without party structures. Our ultimate hope is good representation for Utahns. Competition leads to greater responsiveness, compromise, and collaboration—to better governance. In our view, a multi-partisan coalition, rather than a state where one-party dominates, will create better representation for Utahns.

As such, we see the Forward Party as an innovative and worthwhile addition to older legacy and third parties in Utah. We also believe in voting your conscience: if you’re dissatisfied with the status quo, perhaps its time to look at new options.

Reasonable voters will come to different conclusions. Some work to support good candidates and uphold their principles within existing party structures. Others prefer to remain independent. Yet other voters are needed to affiliate and build up third parties like the Forward Party. All are worthwhile strategies. Whatever you choose, please keep showing up and working towards good governance for our beautiful state.

And make sure your vote is turned in well before 8pm next Tuesday, November 3!

County commissioners oversee many county departments and work with local clerks, auditors, and sheriffs, and help manage natural resources and infrastructure on county land. Commissioners also create legislation for the county. Their budget comes from property taxes.

You can see the specific assignments of each of the three current commissioners here.

Davis County Commission Seat B comes down to Bret Millburn (unaffiliated) and Susan Lee (Republican).

We resoundingly recommend voting for unaffiliated candidate Bret Millburn for this seat. Mr. Millburn brings deep experience, having previous served on the county commission from 2007–2018. He’s also worked in the state auditor’s office. Among his priorities are fiscal responsibility, economic development, public safety, and transportation. We believe that the experience and independence he would bring to this role are vital.

That’s particularly true since the county commission has been in a period of turmoil since last year, as a result of Commissioner John Crofts’ actions. Those actions spurred an independent investigation, resulting in Crofts being censured and removed from the commission chair role and supervisory responsibilities this July. Since Crofts can’t be forced out of the commission, we need someone who can hit the ground running as the third member of the commission. That’s Mr. Milburn. (Read why he entered the race—one reason being “People are fed up with the parties,” he said. “They’re fed up with the extremes. The average citizen is not represented anymore.”).

Susan Lee (R), the Republican contender for this seat, has a degree in accounting and has served on the Kaysville City Council and Power Commission. She’s been very active in local Republican party leadership and as president of the county GOP’s Lincoln Club. Our experience is that these groups tend to be highly partisan and extreme, and expect Ms. Lee to be the same.

She is running to protect conservative principles, protect taxpayers, strengthen our communities, and promote smart growth. She has, at least in the past, openly endorsed the MAGA movement, and we believe shares the views of her son Trevor Lee, who ran many culture war bills in the legislature before resigning amid recent fraud allegations. While we do not know Ms. Lee personally, Network members have not found that many culture warriors (like Mr. Crofts and Ms. Lee) prioritize the needs of their constituents and govern wisely.

Learn more about Mr. Millburn in this League of Women Voters video and about both Ms. Lee and Mr. Millburn in the Ogden Standard-Examiner. Read more in the Weber County Hive. Including, for reference, our full article on the primary race in June.

Voter guides are a big part of that effort. We’d hoped to prepare information for as many races as possible before ballots dropped. Turns out, that was more than our founding team could manage. Instead, we’re trying out a new format and will continue publishing as we receive information on candidates.1

That’s where you come in! This is a team effort. So far we’ve sourced insights about candidates from several dozen politically-engaged Utahns around the state. We’d love to hear from even more. If you’d like to contribute what you know about a candidate or race in your area—personal experiences are always helpful—our inbox is open at networkofutahmoderates@gmail.com. (Of course, we carefully edit every guide before publishing).

List of voter guides

Without further ado, here’s the current list of our guides for the 2026 general election. These voter guides cover races from US House representative to state representative to county auditor, as well as judges and the two statewide amendments.

• US Congressional Districts

• Utah House

• Utah Senate

• Judicial retention

• Amendment A

• Amendment B

• Utah County

• Davis County (Commissioner B)

Rather than spamming you with emails, we’ll keep adding new races to these guides and updating this list with new information. For example, look for more state representative races to be added in the “Utah House” guide later this week. We also plan to publish information for several state school board and county contests. We’ll link them here, so keep coming back to this article for more information.

Also—please leave a comment on this post if there is a specific race you’re hoping to find information on.

In the meantime, we’ve written about topics that can help you better understand Utah’s political system. Learn how candidates get on the ballot, the dangers of a one-party supermajority, why looking beyond incumbents and party labels is necessary, and the importance of free and fair elections.

Beyond the Network of Utah Moderates

Good information comes from many sources. We aim to provide helpful, concise guides, but we always encourage voters to dig deeper and explore additional information. Here are some additional resources to help you make an informed vote.

General Utah Voter Information

• Utah’s official ballot pamphlet

• Find out what will appear on your ballot; more nonpartisan information at VOTE411

• Utah voter registration

• Track your ballot

Find specific information about candidates

• Official candidate websites are a good place to start for candidates’ positions, priorities, and experience as well as any social media. We have linked candidates’ officials website—when we can find one—in every voter’s guide to make it easier.

• The Salt Lake Tribune has contacted every candidate and published a standardized questionnaire for every race. Note that not all candidates answer.

• League of Women Voters recorded events (mostly Davis County races)

• Utah Debate Commission events for recorded debates of federal races

• Utah Public Radio Cache County Voter Guide

• The Ogden Standard Examiner publishes written Q&A responses from participating candidates in Davis and Weber counties

• Utah Election Info features guides from an independent local journalist, primarily for Utah County races

Judges

Judges hold significant power, and while many do good work and deserve to be retained, not all do. Voters should take the time to evaluate their records and performance.

• Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission: https://judges.utah.gov/s/

• Better Utah Voter Guide: https://utahvoter.guide/judges

Other Civic Groups we recommend

• Engage Forum, a nonpartisan movement for civic engagement

• Utah Civics Project, bite-sized civic education (on Instagram and Facebook)

We believe that the more informed Utahns are, the stronger Utah becomes. We hope these guides and resources help you feel more prepared to vote, and we’d love your help making them even better.

Remember, your ballot must be received by November 3. So fill out all those bubbles and mail it in soon (postmarks received after Election Day no longer count), drop it in any dropbox in your county, or march over to your nearest voting location.

Happy voting!

In Utah, judges are appointed rather than elected in traditional campaigns, although voters determine at the ballot box whether to retain them. This has worked well: Utah’s independent judicial appointment process has actually won national acclaim. As the Utah Bar Association reports, [judicial] “candidates are carefully screened for qualifications, experience and temperament, then nominated by the governor from a vetted list and confirmed by the Senate.”

Changes in judicial appointments

Over the past few years, state lawmakers have removed several guardrails designed to prioritize merit over partisan loyalty. In 2023, a new law (SB129) altered the rules for appointing members of Utah’s judicial nominating commissions.

Last year a new law shifted the selection of Utah’s Supreme Court Chief Justice from the court itself to the governor. This year, despite overwhelming pushback from the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Bar Association, state legislators voted to expand the size of the court from five to seven justices.

Perhaps not coincidentally, two Utah Supreme Court judges, including longtime chief Justice Durrant, left the bench earlier this year. An additional two justices were appointed after state lawmakers expanded the size of the court. That means a majority of our Supreme Court justices were appointed just this year under the new more ideological process. We note that several of these selections—including Justices Jay Jorgensen, Michael Menssen, and Stephen Dent—had no prior experience as a judge before being appointed to the state’s highest court.

Why does this matter?

These changes are particularly significant because they follow growing tension between the legislature and the courts. During the same time period, several high-profile judicial decisions conflicted with the priorities of the Republican supermajority—most notably on gerrymandering.

We are concerned that weakening established safeguards and expanding the court amid growing political conflict risks undermining public confidence in judicial independence.

A judicial system cannot function as intended if justices must fear losing their positions whenever their decisions conflict with the priorities of the state legislature or a particular political party. Retention elections exist so voters can evaluate judges. That evaluation should consider the judge’s qualifications, conduct, fairness, and the application of the law—not simply whether a particular ruling produced a politically popular result.

Justice Jill Pohlman

Justice Jill Pohlman was selected under the old process. When she was appointed to the state’s highest court in 2022, Ms. Pohlman already had deep judicial experience and strong reviews, having previously served on the Utah Court of Appeals. (See her court biography).

She is now the target of a coordinated Utah Republican Party leadership effort to derail her retention because of her role in decisions that challenged legislative power. The public calls to remove Ms. Pohlman, combined with the broader legislative changes affecting the judiciary, raise serious concerns about whether retention is being used to evaluate judicial performance or to punish judges for rules that political leaders oppose.

Look at her evaluation, conducted by Utah’s nonpartisan Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC). She gets outstanding marks. Mr. Pohlman’s reported scores were consistent with or above those of her appellate-court peers across every category: legal ability, integrity and judicial temperament, administrative skills, and procedural fairness.

In our view, the evidence surrounding Justice Pohlman’s contested retention raises a broader concern about the future of Utah’s judiciary. When political leaders respond to court decisions by organizing efforts to remove the justices who issued them, voters should ask whether judicial independence is being respected. Her record shows extensive legal experience, years of judicial service, and a strong evaluation from the commission responsible for assessing her performance. The public campaign against her—in the context of the redistricting dispute and broader changes to Utah’s judiciary—raises serious questions for us about political pressure on the courts.

We urge Utah voters to retain Justice Jill Pohlman. Our courts should be accountable to the Constitution and the law, not to the political preferences of those who hold power.

Retention elections

We also encourage voters to strongly consider retaining other judges whose work has merited that vote of confidence. From our own ballot research, that seems like most of them this election cycle (with a few notable exceptions).

The Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission has a nonpartisan site that provides extensive information to help voters assess judicial performance. You can also find easily digestible information for your specific judges at the Better Utah judicial retention guide.

Few of us are familiar with our judges, so it’s helpful to review the official evaluations of every judge on the ballot. This can take time. Consider hosting a voter party and sharing the work with family, friends, or neighbors and looking through biographies together. We have found such gatherings a meaningful way to complete our civic duty.

Be aware that judges who get low marks generally opt to retire from the bench rather than to face a retention election, which is why voters see so many judges with high marks. There are a few exceptions—and those judges may not deserve to remain in their positions.

As always, happy voting!

With 15 state senate races, we will cover as many races as we can (and have good knowledge about). We always appreciate insights from Network members who have met, worked with, and talked to these candidates—please reach out at networkofutahmoderates@gmail.com if you have additional information to give!

This article will continue to be updated with more races before Election Day, November 3.

For each race we cover, you’ll see our recommendations along with quick background and rationale. We seek candidates who demonstrate leadership through:

• A commitment to the public good and remaining accountable to constituents, not just party leaders or delegates.

• Respect towards constituents, opponents, and others.

• Willingness to put in the work.

• Interest in basing decisions on good data, not merely ideology.

• A commitment to creating and upholding just laws and Constitutional checks and balances.

See the other values we’re looking for. We recommend candidates of many parties, including the Republican, Democratic, Forward Party, and unaffiliated.

We also believe strongly in the necessity of greater checks and balances in our state house. Utah is currently dominated by one party—over 80% of Utah’s current state legislators are Republican. In our view, this lack of need to compromise, slow down, or listen to constituents is causing problems. Because of this, as a network we often have a preference for non-incumbent and non-Republicans this year, although it still depends on their character, the candidates, and the specific race.

Utah Senate

Senate District 5 | Ogden, South Ogden, Riverdale, Washington Terrace, Roy, Clearfield, and South Weber to Enterprise

We strongly recommend CJ Hernandez (D) in this race. Ms. Hernandez brings an impressive background as a senior US diplomat and would bring unique experience working in defense, diplomacy, and human rights all over the world. She values fiscal responsibility and people-focused policies. We’ve personally met Ms. Hernandez and were impressed by her depth of knowledge, experience, and care for her community.

The Republican candidate, Jill Koford (R) is a current Utah House Representative and educator. While we appreciate some of Ms. Koford’s answers and experiences, we also noticed hyperpartisan talking points throughout her website—including a line stating that “democrats would like us dependent on the government.” We view this as a straw-man argument and are looking for less partisanship in our state government.

Read more answers from Ms. Hernandez and watch their League of Women’s Voters event.

Senate District 6 | Clearfield, Kaysville, Layton, Syracuse

We recommend either Josh Smith (Forward Party), or Jared Neal (D). Mr. Smith is a software engineering manager born and raised in northern Utah. He is focused on education solutions, Utah values, and housing—and believes in looking at data and changing opinions when presented evidence otherwise.

Mr. Neal is a risk manager working with financial, insurance, and small businesses. His working-class background (and being raised by two union employees) informs his worldview. His top priorities include “kitchen table” issues like housing, healthcare, and childcare.

Tami Tran (R) is currently the Kaysville City mayor and CEO of a DOD contracting company. She lists typical Republican issues on her campaign website: 2nd amendment rights, faith, family, fiscal responsibility, and choice in education. Senator Mike Lee and House Speaker Mike Shultz are among those endorsing her. We believe she is a capable leader who would bring more of the same type of representation to the legislature that we have now.

This is an open seat with the retirement of longtime senator Jerry Stevenson. Since we feel Utah needs something other than the supermajority status quo, we recommend Mr. Neal or Mr. Smith.

Watch the LWV Meet-the-Candidate interview and read their Tribune responses.

Senate District 7: South Weber, Peterson, Milton, Fruit Heights, Littleon, Kaysville, Farmington, Centerville

We recommend either Stephanie Hollist (R) or Garrett Rushforth (D) in this race, depending on your policy preferences. After many years with the same incumbent, we are thrilled for voters in Senate District 7 to have two good options to represent them.

Ms. Hollist is a lifelong Utahn and longtime public attorney. Her policies include building trust through transparency, accountability, and listening to constituents; helping working Utahns provide for their families; and supporting Utah’s youth.

Mr. Rushforth is a teacher in Davis School District focused on education, saving the Great Salt Lake, ensuring fair maps, and helping housing and affordability.

Constitution Party candidate Jeffrey Ostler is also running (we couldn’t find a website, but see the Constitution Party site or see his campaign page from 2024). In our experience, most Constitution Party candidates are not “moderate” in any sense of the word.

Watch the League of Women Voter’s event for SD7 and read their Tribune responses.

Senate District 11 | Spans 3 counties, including cities like Eagle Mountain, Tooele, Herriman, Magna, and Kearns

We recommend Emily Buss (Forward Party) in this race. Ms. Buss, a mom and nonprofit leader and one of the youngest legislators in Utah, was appointed in a 2025 special election that included all voters in her district. She’s focused on roads and traffic; water, energy and data centers; cost of living; and protecting children.

We’ve met with Ms. Buss and found her to be intelligent and deeply committed to good representation. She tries to look at issues or solutions on their own merits, then consult with her constituents rather than promoting a party position. As the state’s only third-party legislator, we think her voice is worth preserving. (Interestingly, a BYU political science professor calculated her “ideology” score as genuinely moderate.)

Brooks Benson (R) is a local business owner with a background in behavioral science and operations. We have found Mr. Benson to be charismatic and kind. As a brand-new candidate, he won on the first round of votes in convention—in part because of his ultraconservative view.

We note he received donations from data center developer DAI Managers and is supported by “Make Liberty Win,” a far-right group funded by “Young Americans for Liberty.” We expect him to toe the party line in the Senate—and we’re hoping for change.

Read their Tribune responses.

Senate District 19 | Southwest corner of Salt Lake County, including Sandy, Draper, and Alta

We recommend Shana Anderson (D). Ms. Anderson is a mom and Army vet who later studied economics and education. She is focused on accountability, protecting homeownership, restoring the great Salt Lake, no gondola in the canyons, public education, and more. Several members met Shana and were impressed by her background and advocacy for educators.

We have concerns about incumbent Kirk Cullimore’s legislative record. Mr. Cullimore is an attorney, music teacher, small business owner. and legislator since 2018. He is running on education—although we note he has voted to cut $1.4 billion from public education during his time in office—along with tax cuts, families, business and safe communities.

If he wins in November, Mr. Cullimore is in the running to be Utah’s next Senate president. Notably, a Network member actually ran into eviction notices from Cullimore’s law firm while knocking doors last year.

Read their Tribune responses.

Senate District 21 | Alpine, American Fork, Cedar Hills, Highland, Lehi, Lindon, Pleasant Grove

We recommend either Wayne Woodfield (Forward Party) or Kandee Myers (Democrat), depending on your policy preferences. Both Mr. Woodfield and Ms. Myers represent needed change from the incumbent. Strategically—looking at historical trends in the area—we believe Mr. Woodfield likely has the better shot in this race.

Mr. Woodfield is a Utah County native and software engineer who lives in Lehi. He is running against extremism and for integrity, civility, transparency, and good governance—which includes prioritizing affordable housing, water stewardship, education, economic opportunity, and government reform (among others).

Ms. Myers is a longtime resident of the area with a background in real estate who is prioritizing homeownership, education, and healthcare. She is endorsed by the National Education Association and Elevate Utah.

The incumbent, Brady Brammer, is an attorney and business owner first elected to the House during a special election in 2019. During the primary, he ran on protecting the caucus system, limited federal government, and family values. To repeat some of our concerns from the primary: we’re concerned about many of the decisions he has been involved in. That includes cutting $1.4 billion from Utah’s public schools, consistently bypassing local controls, elevating partisanship, and undermining judicial independence. He’s endorsed by ultraconservative groups including Utah Parents United and Americans for Prosperity. On a personal note, we’ve often heard Mr. Brammer talk down to constituents concerned about his bills (particularly teachers). See more about Mr. Brammer’s record.

Read the candidates’ Tribune responses.

Senate District 23 | Pleasant Grove, Vineyard, Orem, Provo

We recommend Tucker Smith (D) for this race. Mr. Smith is a public school teacher and advocate. He is running for fairness, access, and opportunity—including funding education, protecting healthcare, defending rights, and fixing housing. Network members have had good experiences talking with Mr. Smith, finding him responsive and well-informed on multiple issues.

Keith Grover is the incument in this race. Mr. Grover is running on fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, and accountability. Of note to many in the new Timpanogos School District, Senator Grover sponsored the bill that did not allow Lindon, Orem, Pleasant Grove, and Vineyard to vote on the Alpine School District split several years ago. Over the years, we’ve found him consistently condescending and unwilling to listen on issues we find important.

Read their Tribune guide and more about Mr. Grover.

Happy voting!

Quick refresher on each elected position:

• County Commissioner: Utah County has three full-time commissioners who make legislative and executive decisions for the county and work with local and state leaders. Commissioners control zoning and development for unincorporated land in the county, oversee the Sheriff’s Department, manage natural resources and infrastructure on county land, and create legislation for the county. Their budget comes from county property taxes. Learn more about the Utah County Commission and see Utah’s forms of county government.

• County Clerk: Most citizens don’t pay attention to county clerk races, but they should! The Utah County Clerk is a full-time position managing vital records (birth, death, marriages), passports, and more. Importantly, county clerks administer elections and are responsible for keeping voter rolls accurate and up-to-date as well as carrying out state law. More in this video and our state code about the duties of county clerks.

• County Auditor: The county auditor manages financial reporting, audirs, budgeting, and purchasing. The auditor’s office conducts internal audits of county departments, issues property valuation notices, and manages tax relief programs. We find it is important to have a competent and qualified county auditor—mistakes can cost residents significant sums.

• County Attorney: The county attorney’s office investigates and prosecutes crime, assists crime victims, and provides legal representation and guidance for the county government. The attorney works with law enforcement and directs the office, helping determine what sentences to pursue. Notably, the Utah County Attorney’s office has recently been in the limelight with the prosecution of the Charlie Kirk case.

• County Sheriff: Provides law enforcement services to the county, particularly unincorporated areas and contract cities. The county also works with other agencies at the local, state, and federal level to cooperate and investigate cases. Learn more about the sheriff’s office.

Utah County Clerk

The incumbent for this race, Aaron Davidson, did not make it past the primary election. We are relieved. For the general election, we recommend Russ Rampton (Forward Party).

Mr. Rampton brings real-world experience working in the clerk’s office and a clear commitment to impartiality. As a longtime Republican, Mr. Rampton took second at the Utah County Republican convention back in 2022, running on integrity. In our opinion, he would have been a much better pick for clerk.

We also view Corey Astill as an acceptable choice for clerk, based on his commitment to integrity and upholding vote by mail during a primary debate. (Unfortunately, these views were not always popular with delegates). In our opinion, Mr. Astill veers more partisan—he has previous run for both state House and Senate— and doesn’t bring the same depth of experience running election operations as Mr. Rampton would. (Read more about Mr. Astill our primary guide to this race.)

Find more about this race from Utah Election Info, the Daily Herald, and more

Utah County Commissioner A

We are disappointed by this year’s candidates for Utah County Commissioner A, a powerful position. Reasonable people will disagree on who the best candidate on the ballot is for this position.

However, given our stated preference for checks on power—and the fact that 100% of current Utah County elected officials are Republican—we prefer Jeanne Bowen (D) in this race. Ms. Bowen is a current Utah County employee who vows to prioritize infrastructure, communication, and the real issues citizens care about: water supply, air quality, crime, and more.

We recognize Michelle Kaufusi (R), has the more impressive resume: she brings two terms of mayoral experience and relationships around the county. While acknowledging this experience is helpful, we have also personally seen Ms. Kaufusi ignore constituents and heard her denigrate opponents (in particular, saying some pretty nasty and untrue things about a previous opponent after losing her bid for a third mayoral term last year). We had hoped to support her but don’t feel she has earned our vote. See our full write-up for the Republican primary election.

A third candidate, Jacob Oaks, is running for the ultraconservative Independent American Party. We question Mr. Oaks judgement in recently refusing to pay a $300 fine for driving with a suspended license and note he previously ran for Utah’s county clerk position in 2022, promising to break the law in favor of preferred social positions.

Utah County Commissioner B

For County Commission B, we strongly recommend David Hinckley (Forward Party) as the best candidate in this race. Mr. Hinckley is a longtime Utah County native who works in analytics and leadership and has been very involved in his community for years. We’ve enjoyed rigorous conversations with Mr. Hinckley on policy issues and found him to be fair-minded and hardworking. His priorities include planning growth and coordinating across communities; bringing residents into decisions earlier; and support transparency and election security.

His opponents include David Spencer (R), a former Orem City Council member. We note that he generated controversy during his time in office by yelling at residents in Orem public meetings, was not seen as a principled leader, and lost re-election last year. After hearing Mr. Spencer’s very partisan speeches throughout county convention process, we do not feel he meets the values we’re looking for.

Also running: J. Allen (D), a tech enterpreneur and executive and longtime Boy Scout leader. Mr. Allen is running on afforability, no raises for county commissioners (who in recent years got a sizable increase a few years ago), no AI data centers, and equal protections for everyone. We find that Mr. Allen is a decent candidate and wish he and Mr. Hinckley were not running in the same race.

Find more resources about this race from Utah Election Info, the Herald Extra, and KSL

Utah County Auditor

We highly recommend Gina Tanner (R) for county auditor. As a longtime auditor and current Budget Director, Ms. Tanner brings relevant experience working in the auditor’s office; we believe could do the job well on day 1. We also admired her ability to stay out of the partisan fray during delegate events and convention—difficult to do.

Her opponent, Hans Andersen of the ultraconservative Independent American party, brings no relevant experience along with a penchant for voting “no” and spinning the truth. Mr. Andersen is very partisan, and we’ve heard Independent American candidate Hans Andersen compared to the “Nick Shirley” of Utah County.

Honestly, we wish county auditor was a merit-based (hired) or nonpartisan role instead of its current partisan nature. We see no room for partisanship in the auditor’s office; we just want the proper tax notices to go out.

Utah County Sheriff

Current Sheriff Mike Smith is running unopposed this year in the general election. He was a longtime police officer before becoming Chief of Police in Pleasant Grove. Mr. SMith first ran (and won) for Utah County Sheriff in 2018. Of note, Mr. Smith faced two challengers who didn’t get much traction in the 2022 Republican primary; no one challenged him this year.

See his campaign website, social media, and more about the Utah County Sheriff’s Office.

Utah County Attorney

Jeff Gray was elected four years ago to Utah County Attorney, replacing a controversial attorney. During his 2022 campaign, Mr. Gray pledged to “charge what the evidence shows” rather than partisan whims.

We appreciate his experience and straightforward approach to the attorney’s office, and are glad to see him remain in office.

For each race we cover, you’ll see our recommendations along with quick background and rationale.1 We seek candidates who demonstrate leadership through:

• A commitment to the public good and remaining accountable to constituents, not just party leaders or delegates.

• Respect towards constituents, opponents, and others.

• Willingness to put in the work.

• Interest in basing decisions on good data, not merely ideology.

• A commitment to creating and upholding just laws and Constitutional checks and balances.

We recommend candidates of many parties, including the Republican, Democratic, Forward Party, and unaffiliated.

We also believe strongly in the necessity of greater checks and balances in our state house. Because of Utah’s current one-party domination (over 80% of Utah’s current state legislators are Republican, and in our view this is causing problems), as a network we often have a preference for non-incumbent Republicans this year—although it still depends on the candidates and race.

Utah House Races

House District 3 | Logan, River Heights, Richmond

We recommend Patrick Belmont (Unaffiliated) in this race, although both he and Jason Thompson (R) seem to be solid candidates who meet our values.

Mr. Belmont is a water scientist, educator, and community advocate focused on water, energy, clean air, wildfires, and other challenges facing Utah. We find his background and experience compelling, background Utah could use at a critical time for our natural resources. Mr. Belmont is running without a party. We find independents tend to be more responsive to residents and govern based on data rather than party ideology—a win for Utah residents.

Mr. Thompson (R), an entrepeneur, longtime Cache Valley resident, and former Mayor of River Heights, is the incumbent in this race. He brings experience to the role (we generally appreciate those who have served locally, then take it to the state level) and we appreciate his priorities—affordability, civil discourse, the economy, education, water, and tax. We note that his endorsements come from the more reasonable side of the current GOP (for example, Senator Curtis, not Senator Lee).

Read their Tribune responses. Note: we are not personally familiar with these candidates, and encourage you to reach out to both with further questions.

House District 8 | Parts of Pleasant View, North Ogden, Ogden, South Ogden, and Washington Terrace over to Huntsville and Eden

We recommend either Libby Shelton (Forward) or Kim James (Democrat) in this race.

Ms. Shelton is a 20-year Weber County resident, social worker, and small business owner focused on treating substance abuse and domestic violence. After being active in a local politics for over a decade, Ms. Shelton joined the Utah Forward Party in 2025. She is focused election reform, ethical governance, the economy, the environment, and securing justice for all. We appreciate her priorities and commitment and local experience.

Ms. James is a minister who served as the pastor of Ogden First United Methodist church, who brings a unique background working with organizations to help people in crisis. She believes in compassion and decency informing public policy, and is focused on the environment, data centers, public lands, healthcare, and affordable housing (among other priorities).

Incumbent Jason Kyle (R) is a chemical engineer who lives in Huntsville focused on lowering property and social security taxes and promoting responsible grwoth. We have watched Mr. Kyle the past few sessions and found him on the ultraconservative side of the Republican Party. We note that he sponsored legislation to erode the independence of Utah’s courts and further politicize school board elections (learn the difference between partisan and nonpartisan elections). He voted against childcare business tax credits and voted for anti-immigrant legislation. We note Mr. Kyle vocally supports both Amendment A and B and is funded largely by PAC money. See his Better Utah scorecard (left-leaning) and Freedom Index (right-leaning).

Read all candidates’ Tribune responses.

House District 10 | Parts of Ogden, South Ogden, and Washington Terrace down to Uintah

We recommend Rosemary Lesser (D) in this race. Ms. Lesser is a military veteran and former doctor and legislator. We’ve met Ms. Lesser several times and always come away impressed by her knowledge, experience, and genuine care for Utahns—her Republican colleagues also have good things to say about her as a legislator. We hope she reclaims her seat.

Jim Alvey (R), a longtime Ogden native and PR and media professional, is the other candidate in the race. Read their Tribune responses, a summary of the race by Utah Political Watch, and more about their filings.

House District 12 | Western Weber County, including Hooper and Roy

We recommend Anna Graff (D). Ms. Graff is a community activist who serves on her city planning commission, and also the parent to a special needs child. She’s focused on preservation, affordability, and accessibility.

Her opponent is incumbent Speaker Mike Schultz. We have serious concerns about Mr. Schultz’s developer ties (including near the Stratos Data Center) and his outsized influence over both legislative priorities and which bills advance.

Read the Salt Lake Tribune guide with their responses. Watch the League of Women Voters video (Mr. Schultz declined to attend)

House District 14 | Syracuse, Clearfield

We recommend Brandon Young (D) in this race. Mr. Young is a digital media professional focused on the economy, education, and the environment in his campaign. We appreciate his practical solutions to help affordability, including detailed tax plans, healthcare plans, and more.

We worry about his opponent, John Taylor (R). Mr. Taylor is a military veteran and longtime lobbyist whose priorities include parental choice, defending his faith, and arming school teachers (which do not match Utah citizens priorities). We note that Mr. Taylor may doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 election (in his written response in the Standard Examiner) and is endorsed by some of Utah’s furthest-right legislators, including House Speaker Mike Schultz.

Watch their LWV Meet the Candidate event and read their Salt Lake Tribune responses and the Ogden Standard-Examiner pieces on Brandon Young and John Taylor for more information.

House District 16 | South Weber and Layton

We recommend Abigail Treasure (D) in this race, although we also view Bob Stevenson (R) as an acceptable choice. We prefer Ms. Treasure due to her experience as an educator and engineer, along with her work ethic and positions on public education and the environment—particularly saving the Great Salt Lake.

Mr. Stevenson is a longtime resident who brings experience on the Davis County Commission. Mostly we’re grateful he ran against Trevor Lee, defeating the former legislator during the primary. We would view his election as politics as usual—and we’re hoping for better than that.

Read their responses and watch their Q&A from League of Women Voters.

House District 18 | Farmington, Centerville

We prefer Scott Troxel (D) in this race. Mr. Troxel brings a background in public service and policy. He is running on affordability, strengthening public education, and more transparency in government

Incumbent Paul Cutler (R), previous mayor and council member in Centerville, is running on small government, local control, collaborative decision-making, and more. We appreciate his experience and views on local control (the state often dictates policies to more local governing bodies) but are alarmed that Mr. Cutler takes credit for the $1.4 billion cut from public education during the past 6 years. We’ve received reports that he can be condescending to constituents and opposes independent redistricting.

Watch their League of Women Voters Q&A and read their Tribune responses.

House District 26 | Magna, West Valley City, Salt Lake City

We recommend Michael Finch (D) for this race. Mr. Finch has lived on the west side for almost 50 years, and is focused on addorability, supporting working families, community safety, protecting mail-in voting, the Constitution, and other environmental concerns. Network members have met Mr. Finch and appreciate his advocacy for educators and his reasonable, moderate approach to legislation.

We have concerns about incumbent Matt MacPherson‘s record on public education, including supporting HB 267 (punishing legislation against unions) and his $315,000 settlement of his lawsuit against Granite School District, taking funds from education for opposing masks on buses during COVID. Notably, Mr. MacPherson has received over $30,000 from the House Republican PAC and $20,000 from Speaker Mike Schultz’s PAC—the bulk of his fundraising. (His opponent received $5,000 from House Democrats).

Read their Tribune responses.

House District 27 | Magna, West Valley, Herriman

We recommend either Anthony Loubet (R) or Liz Oates (D) for this seat, depending on your policy preferences. Although we believe both would serve their constituents well, we overall prefer Ms. Oates to help shift the balance of power in Utah’s lopsided legislature—HD 27 is one of Utah’s few truly competitive districts between parties.

Ms. Oates is a political newcomer who brings experience as a nurse’s aide, working in juvenile detention, and as a case manager. She is focused on affordable living, healthcare that works, preserving the environment, improving mental health and disability, and listening to/protecting constituents. (She also has one of the best websites we’ve seen).

Mr. Loubet, the incumbent in this race, is one of the few Republicans who has consistently demonstrated support for public education and been willing to vote against party leadership. He is running on strong schools, affordability, infrastructure for the growing west side, accountable government, and the Great Salt Lake. We note he received the Equality Utah endorsement, which tends to select for fair-minded leaders. (We’ve learned that Mr. Loubet is in favor of this year’s Amendment B, which we strongly oppose.)

Read their Tribune responses.

House District 29 | Western central Utah, including parts of Tooele, Millard, and Juab Counties

We recommend Tynley Bean (Forward Party) in this race. Ms. Bean lives, raises her family, and owns a business in Erda. She is running on ensuring that public dollars are spent wisely and accounted for; protecting the Great Salt Lake; and prioritizing community benefits for development, as well as topics like family court reform, housing affordability, and fully funding public education. We appreciate both Ms. Bean’s policy ideas and her commitment to the community she hopes to serve as well as how actively she has shown up during her campaign.

The incumbent stepped down, and three other candidates are competing with Ms. Bean for this seat. We recognize these candidates all have strengths and voters may find elements they like in many candidates’ answers.

• Sheldon Birch (Republican) a pharmacist and small business owner. Belief in fiscal restraint, conservative governance, and defending local control; also focused on healthcare affordability and access as well as creating local jobs.

• Jonathan Garrard (Constitution)—no official website found, but found personal info; it looks like Mr. Garrard has run for state legislature several times before.

• Sara Snow (Democrat). A transportation and infrastructure professional with over a decade working with state agencies and local governments. Focused on accountability (making growth pay its own way, transparency and cost accountability, and responsible resource management), along with healthcare, education, and transit access, and affordability/

Read candidates’ Tribune responses.

House District 30 | West Valley City

Both Jake Fitisemanu and Dave Parke (Republican) both seem to be solid, principled candidates who meet our values. We prefer Mr. Fitisemanu in this race due to sheer experience, including in local elected office, as well as check on the balance of power in our state house. We believe he represents a needed voice for his community, the second largest in Utah.

Mr. Fitisemanu is a dedicated public health professional, former presidential advisor for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and two -term city councilor in West Valley City. He brings a depth of experience and perspective we don’t often see, His priorities include affordable housing and accessible healthcare as well as local issues like safe roads and neighborhoods.

Mr. Parke is a longtime West Valley resident and business leader with decades of experience. He is campaigning on affordable housing, lowering taxes, promoting healthcare, and education. While we haven’t met Mr. Parke personally, we are encouraged by his priorities: real issues, not social issues. We note that he calls himself a “practical conservative” and is endorsed by the Utah Reagan Caucus.

House District 38 | West Jordan, Taylorsville

We like both candidates in this race—what a win for House District 38! We believe both Chris McConnehey (R) and Sergio Sotelo bring unique strengths and would serve their constituents well.

Chris McConnehey (R): We have been impressed by Mr. McConnehey’s commitment to funding public education as well as his governing experience on the West Jordan City Council. We believe our legislature would benefit from more experienced city leaders taking it up to the state level. Mr. McConnehey is running on taxes, safeguarding local control, promoting quality of life, safe neighborhoods, and accountable government. See our primary voter’s guide on Mr. McConnehey and his Doers Network profile.

Sergio Sotelo (Unaffilliated) is also vying for this open seat. Mr. Sotelo is an electrician and community advocate who is focused on education, labor, and housing affordability. As a hardworking immigrant with deep roots in the Salt Lake area, he would bring a unique perspective. We appreciate Mr. Sotelo’s commitment to independence and his community.

Read their Tribune responses

House District 39 | West Jordan

We prefer Drew Howells (D) in this race. Mr. Howells is a retired military veteran with experience in public policy and advocacy. He brings real-world experience navigating healthcare as a disabled veteran. In our view, he has shown a genuine willingness to listen and learn, including conversations with Network members about public safety.

Ken Ivory (R) is the incumbent in this race. Mr. Ivory is a lawyer by progression who spent 9 years in the legislature, retired, then returned. While we note some legislative accomplishments, we also have concerns about his record on education, book restrictions, and work with the American Legisldsative Exchange Council (which in our view is a far-right astroturfing organization).

We believe residents would be served by a new face at the Capitol. Read their Tribune responses.

House District 41 | Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, Cottonwood Heights, Holladay, Midvale, Murray

We recommend John Arthur (D) in this race, new-ish incumbent after winning a special election for the seat in December 2025. By profession, Mr. Arthur is an award-winning school teacher—rare in a legislature often dominated by developers and lawyers. He is running on affordability, livability, Utahn’s rights, and revitalizing public education. We’ve found him to be a thoughtful listener who brings strong policy ideas and collaboration skills to the legislature.

Darren Croft (R) is a longtime resident of southeast Salt Lake County focused on fairness, saving the Great Salt Lake, childhood literacy, canyon transportation, wildfire mitigation, and housing affordability—among others. We are impressed by his decision not to take PAC money and appreciate his focus on education.

Read their Tribune responses.

House District 44 | South Jordan

We recommend Jess Birtcher (D). in this race. Mr. Birtcher is a longtime resident of the area focused on affordability, healthcare, and education along with worker’s rights and environmental stewardship. We note his commitment to civility and listening to residents (which we prioritize in these recommendations).

Jordan Teuscher (R), the incumbent in this race, is a lawyer and longtime resident of South Jordan. We have serious concerns about his record on education, including sponsoring the controversial HB 267, which passed without concessions instead of negotiating with local police, fire, and teachers unions. Although over 300,000 Utahns signed the referendum on this bill—it was highly unpopular—he has vowed to bring it back.

We don’t find Mr. Teuscher to be a good listener, and his unwillingness to disavow personal attacks made during the primary fail our values test. We note Mr. Teuscher’s website features endorsements by far-right leaders and that we know has previously claimed fake endorsements—leaders who didn’t really endorse him, which he refused to remove from his website before the primary.

Note: We were hopeful that Mr. Stephenson—one of the most impressive and principled candidates we’ve seen run in years—would be the Republican nominee (see our primary voter guide). In our opinion, it took a last-minute smear campaign for Mr. Teuscher prevailed in the primary. These kind of tactics turn us off, and we note Mr. Stephenson is supporting Mr. Birtcher in the general election.

Read their Tribune responses.

House District 45 | South Jordan, Sandy

We recommend Tracy Miller (R) or Rod Moser (D) for HD 45, depending on your policy preferences. Because of our worry about the lack of checks and balances in our state house, we do prefer Mr. Moser in this race.

Ms. Miller, the incumbent, has been consistent in advocating for public education during her time in the legislature. She is running strong families, air and water quality, economic development, leading with integrity, and local control. We note her occasional willingness to break with her caucus, although she often follows party lines.

Mr. Moser, a longtime resident and business owner. From his social media and more, we find Mr. Moser has extensive knowledge of housing, taxes, education, and so many other community issues, along with his thoughtful approach and willingness to consider different perspectives.

Read their Tribune responses.

House District 48 | Herriman, Riverton, South Jordan

We recommend either Jake Hunsaker (R) or Benyde Walker (D) in this race, depending on your policy preferences.

Mr. Hunsaker is a Reagan-style Republican campaigning on lower property taxes, infrastructure, and limited state government. We have found him to be willing to stand up for principles. Of note, in 2022 he ran against Burgess Owens for US House —you can find lots of media with his positions.

Ms. Walker is a longtime South Jordan resident focused on education, affordable housing, and clean air (among other priorities). We have found her to be genuinely kind, honest, and thoughtful, and have seen her make a real effort to understand education policy.

See both candidates’ Salt Lake Tribune responses.

House District 49 | Herriman, Riverton

We recommend Lillian Bowles (D). Ms. Bowles has worked in financial services and with refugee services in Utah. She is a longtime advocate for teacher and public safety, and is focused on educational opportunity, affordability, building strong communities and supporting working class families.

Incumbent Candice Pierucci is focused on some more controversial policies like school choice in education, anti-Chinese Communist Party, and preserving women’s sports along with elections, low taxes, and increased transportation and infrastructure for southwest Salt Lake County. While we appreciate some of her policies, like maternity leave for teachers, we note that Ms. Piuerucci was the sponsor of the Utah Fits All Scholarship, which in our opinion has been rife with mismanaged money and taking funds from public education.

Read their Salt Lake Tribune responses.

House District 51 | Lehi, Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain

We recommend either Leah Hansen (R) or Brett Nielsen (D) for this seat, depending on your policy preferences. We believe both Ms. Hansen and Mr. Nielsen are principled leaders who will show up for their district.

Ms. Hansen is a Libertarian-leaning Republican with deep community experience who was elected in a special election last summer. She now holds the record for the most “No” votes in 20 years. We admire her willingness to talk to constituents, put in the work, and stand up for principles and against party leadership when necessary.

Mr. Nielsen is a moderate Democrat, project manager, and longtime Republican Idaho farm boy focused on public education, growth infrastructure, and protecting Utah’s resources. We have found him thoughtful and policy-focused and have seen him reach out to both his opponent and local leaders to understand their concerns and priorities.

This race is a bit of a bright spot in Utah politics: we have been impressed by the civility both candidates demonstrate and their willingness to work together. Read their Tribune responses.

House District 52 | Lehi, American Fork, Saratoga Springs

We recommend Nicole Melling (D) in this race. Ms. Melling is a nurse practitioner, adoptive mom of 5, and longtime Lehi resident. She’s also a longtime conservative who feels her party has left her (many Network of Utah Moderates members will find this familiar). Her priorities include affordable housing, accessible healthcare, education, fair election maps, and legislative accountability.

Incumbent Corey Maloy (R), sometimes known as the “gun guy” for his positions on gun rights, seems to be campaigning primarily on low taxes, gun rights, parental choice, and other social issues. We have been disappointed in his lack of responsiveness to community members and derisiveness towards people on the other side of the aisle. Notably, we actually heard him tell a constituent: ”Oh, I know you (from her emails) and I don’t agree with you” at a campaign event earlier this year.

Read both candidates’ responses in the Lehi Free Press and Salt Lake Tribune.

House District 53 | Lehi

We strongly recommend John Boyd (Forward Party) in this race. Mr. Boyd is an entrepeneur and former Marine campaigning on fair maps, mail-in ballots, funding education, air and water, disciplined fiscal management, and more. We appreciate his positions, work ethic—he has knocked all 10,000 doors in his district, something we have not heard of a single other candidate doing—and the competition he’s bringing to the race. We particularly appreciate his views on checks and balances.

Kay Christofferson (R) is the longtime incumbent in this seat, having served since 2013. He is a civil engineer by trade and is focused on strong families, Utah values, and practical leadership. we genuinely believe Mr. Christofferson has done some good work during his 7 terms in the state legislature, but we also worry about his policy “wins” like lowering income tax, which some have found to shift the burden to local property taxes (disproportionately affecting low-income Utahns).

Kevin Slater (D), an environmental scientist, is also running in this race on affordability, loosening zoning restrictions and increasing transit funding. Honestly, we wish Mr. Slater had dropped out and endorsed Mr. Boyd, who we believe has a real shot at becoming the first Forward party official elected during a general election.

Read their Salt Lake Tribune responses.

House District 54 | Highland, Alpine, Lehi, and American Fork

We recommend Kristina Robinson (D) in this race. Ms. Robinson is a longtime resident of the area, mom, former CEO, and founder of a nonprofit for ill children. She is running because she wants state legislators to focus on real Utahns needs instead of partisan bills and backdoor deals, and prioritizes affordability, healthcare, and community values.

Incumbent Kristin Chevrier (R) was appointed after a delegate special election in 2024. She is a proponent of school choice and opposes the Utah Compact. Ms. Chevrier has consistently voted with her party. We note that she has also sponsored significant “MAHA” legislation, including a bill allowing the sale of raw milk, banning SNAP users from purchasing soda, and a food additive in schools bill that banned schools from providing foods with certain ingredients. Many in public education felt this bill was legislative overreach that added unnecessary regulation and cost for large school districts, while exempting parents, charter schools, and concessions from following the same rules.

Read their Tribune responses (Ms. Chevrier did not answer).

Utah House 58 | Orem, Lindon, Pleasant Grove, Provo

We recommend either David Shallenberger (R) or Karli Black (D) in this race, depending on your policy preferences.

Mr. Shallenberger is a local business owner in e-commerce and energy with a background in engineering and law. His campaign is focused on water conservation, public education, limited government (and taxes), economic development, and local control. Network members have had good experiences working with Mr. Shallenberger.

Ms. Black, a mother of 8 and owner of real estate brokerage, also brings strong community roots—including time as PTA president, after school programs, and director of the Sunshine Heroes Foundation. Her priorities include funding for public schools, protecting the environment, expanding affordable housing and healthcare, and strengthening economic security.

Read their Tribune responses.

House District 64 | Spanish Fork, Salem, Woodland Hills, Leland, Lake Shore, Palmyra and Benjamin

We recommend Alan Wessman (unaffiliated) in this race. Mr/ Wessman is a software engineer at a cybersecurity firm and former Boy Scout troop leader who has lived for 20+ years in Spanish Fork. He’s committed to saving the Great Salt Lake, ethics, public education, electoral reform, expanding public transit options, affordable housing, and renewable energy sources. He is principled and specifically calls himself a moderate.

Jackie Larson (R) works at Revere Healthcare and co-owns 7 Bar Farming with her husband. Among her priorities are private property rights, responsible growth, strong families, local control, education choice, and protecting water and agriculture. Ms. Larson was selected by delegates to replace Rep. Jeff Burton when he moved out of the district. Since she’s only been in office since May of this year, she doesn’t have a legislative record to consider. (Ms. Larson didn’t participate in the written Salt Lake Tribune or Ballotpedia candidate forums; Mr. Wessman did both).

We recommend voting for Mr. Wessman, a capable leader who will represent his constituents well. We know Mr. Wessman personally and can attest to his character, demeanor, good sense, and thoughtful policy proposals. Ms. Larson also appears to be a capable leader grounded in her community and a reasonable choice—but we note how she would contribute to a Republican supermajority that has brought us MIDA, PIDs, efforts to overturn Prop 4 and fair redistricing process, etc. We need more independent voices like his in the legislature.

For all races

Our guide doesn’t have to be the end! Find more information about this year’s races:

Nonpartisan sources

• Utah’s Official Voter Information Pamphlet

  • See the official candidate list for all state candidates

• Vote411.org, a nonpartisan site with ballot information

• Ballotpedia, nonpartisan source with helpful information about candidates and races

• League of Women Voters recorded Meet-the-Candidates events (mostly Davis County)

Independent journalists

• Utah Political Watch—specifically the Competitive Ratings for each each Utah House race are very interesting

• Utah Election Info (mostly Utah County)

Partisan sources

• Better Utah voter guide

• Equality Utah endorsements, which look for leaders across the spectrum who are dedicated to uplifting and representing everyone in their communities.

Federal legislators will determine whether executive power continues unchecked. Here in Utah, whether or not incumbents win establish whether state and county power remains concentrated in one party’s leaders.

As a result, even though many of us at the Network of Utah Moderates have historically voted Republican, we are largely recommending against longtime incumbents and majority party candidates. However, we still recommend candidates of any party who meet the standards and values we hope to see in our representatives—and this year that includes a number of Republicans, Democrats, Forward Party members, and unaffiliated candidates.

U.S. House Races

House members vote on issues like healthcare, taxes, public lands, infrastructure, immigration, and education. Because of this, these federal races can have a significant impact on both Utah and national policy. Federal congressional members also provide a myriad of services for their constituents. Find your district.

We continue to have concerns about Utah’s current congressional delegation, particularly their records concerning issues like public lands, immigration enforcement, military action, and general accountability.

You may notice we are not recommending any of our current federal legislators in these races based on their actions (and inactions) in office the past several years. Instead, we recommend:

Congressional District 1 (CD1)

We recommend either Ben McAdams (D) or Riley Owen (R)—depending on your policy preferences.

We bring mixed views about both candidates. People who’ve worked with Mr. McAdams have expressed both how good Mr. McAdams was to work for and bad their experience was. Although he wasn’t our choice in the primary, we understand that Mr. McAdams may be the best choice for those looking to see a non-Republican in Utah’s delegation.

After personal conversation and reviewing his record, we also genuinely believe Mr. Owen is one of the most principled Republicans on the ballot in Utah this year.

Read our full voter guide for CD1.

Congressional District 2 (CD2)

We recommend Peter Crosby (D): Longstanding independent running on affordability, accountability, and stewardship as a principled check on power.

Running against incumbent Blake Moore (R), who while pragmatic in many respects, has often declined to stand up to meaningful executive overreach.

See our voter guide for CD2.

Congressional District 3 (CD3)

We recommend Kent Udell (D). Retired professor and engineer with ties to both rural Utah and the Wasatch Front. Priorities include the rule of law, water, public lands, and anti-corruption. We find Mr. Udell brings deep experience and a willingness to work with constituents and stand up to power, which are our priorities this year.

He’s running against incumbent Celeste Maloy, a lawyer who won a special election to replace Representative Chris Stewart in 2023. While we find Ms. Maloy to be very kind, we have been disappointed in her loyalty to her party leadership even when it undermines Utah interests and her unwillingness to check executive power when it goes against the Constitution.

Read our full voter guide for CD3.

Congressional District 4 (CD4)

We recommend either Steven Burt (Unaffiliated) or Jonny Larsen (Democratic).

Mr. Burt is an unaffiliated, independent candidate running on principles. Mr. Larsen is a veteran who we’ve seen consistently show up, listen, and make a genuine effort to connect with voters. We’ve had good experiences with both and feel both candidates meet the values we’re looking for in representatives.

They’re running against current US House Representative Mike Kennedy along with Libertarian Taylor Wright. Mr. Kennedy is the heavy favorite. Unfortunately, during the past several years we have watched Mr. Kennedy repeatedly spout hyper-partisan (and often untrue) “red meat” at local events and conventions and routinely denigrate people on the other political side. Neither his words nor his record meets the standards we’re looking for in candidates.

See our in-depth voter guide for CD4.

Congressional District 4 (“CD4”) is one of Utah’s four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Utah has four House representatives who work full-time in Washington, D.C. House members vote on issues like healthcare, taxes, public lands, infrastructure, immigration, and education. Because of this, these federal races can have a significant impact on both Utah and national policy. Federal congressional members also provide a myriad of services for their constituents. Find your district.

With the recent redistricting of federal house districts to match the terms in Utah’s Proposition 4, Utah’s Congressional District 4 now covers most of the western swath of Utah, beginning on the west side of the Great Salt Lake, over to the Nevada border, and down to through Fillmore Richfield. CD4 includes parts of Salt Lake County (including Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and Herriman) as well as northern and western Utah County (cities like Lehi, Alpine, American Fork, and Eagle Mountain).

Some research indicates that CD 4 is one of the most Republican-leaning federal districts in the Mountain West this election cycle (R +27).

Candidates

We strive to give quality information on every candidate on the ballot. Find what qualities the Network of Utah Moderates is looking for in candidates.

Note: Top priorities come from candidates’ official websites. Use these guides as a starting point; we especially encourage you to reach out to the candidates or meet them to learn more about their issues and experience.

Steven Burt, unaffiliated candidate for CD4

About: Born, raised, and lives in South Jordan. Lawyer with a decade experience advocating for common-sense energy policy; worked pro-bono on immigration issues. Considers himself a “passionate centrist”

Top Priorities:

• Principles: limited government, federalism, individual, and the rule of law

• Priorities: tackle high cost of living, political polarization, compassionate immigration enforcement, and making sure the American Dream is still alive.

• Politics: raise minimum wage, Congress to reassert authority re: tariffs and fiscal policy, prioritize tax relief for ordinary Americans. Break the two-party stranglehold. Immigration reform that respects dignity and rights.

Our take: We have not personally met Mr. Burt, but he comes across as a common-sense candidate who aligns with many of our principles. You can watch a debate with Mr. Burt and the Libertarian candidate (and former Republican candidate Seth Stewart, who did not make it through the primary). We wish him luck in this race.

Mike Kennedy, Republican nominee for CD4

About: Mr. Kennedy is a longtime family medicine doctor and lawyer. He lives in Alpine with his family. Before moving to Washington, D.C. when elected in 2024, he formerly served 10 years in Utah’s state legislature as well as practicing medicine. Mr. Kennedy’s campaign has raised nearly a million dollars this election cycle, roughly half from PACs and half from individuals).

Top priorities from official website:

• Making Washington smaller and Utah stronger: expand energy production, strengthen wildfire prevention, expand healthcare access, oppose wasteful spending and federal overreach (like the Chevron doctrine)

• Cutting taxes and lowering the cost of living: eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, support strengthened Child Tax Credit and car loan interest deduction, sponsored the Let’s Get to Work Act

• Protecting taxpayer and reining in government: Against bloated spending bills and policies that expand government without accountability, reduce fraud and abuse, stronger oversight of taxpayer dollars

• American energy independence and dominance: expand domestic energy production, oppose federal power to limit access to Utah resources, cut red tape

• Secure the border and enforce the law: Support the Laken Riley Act, stop the flow of fentanyl, strengthen border security, go after drug cartels.

• Improving healthcare access and affordability: Support policies that make it easier to open and sustain rural hospitals, expand telehealth, support Health Savings Accounts

• Defending the Constitution and Standing with Families: defend right to life, Second Amendment, parental rights; push back on federal overreach

Insights: Several Network members have listened and spoken frequently to Mr. Kennedy for many years, including multiple times this election cycle. While we’ve found Mr. Kennedy usually reasonable in private, we’ve noticed he quickly becomes a “red meat” Republican even in small groups—spending his time attacking perceived political opponents and disparaging Democrats instead of addressing the issues his constituents want. On one recent occasion, we heard him claim there were communist China sleeper cells all over the country “because Mamdami was elected” mayor in New York City.

His record falls largely along party lines, including voting for the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” against supporting Ukraine, against ending US hostilities in Iran, and against restoring Temporary Protected Status to Haitians. While we appreciate Mr. Kennedy’s work to expand some forms of healthcare, we cannot in good conscience recommend Mr. Kennedy, who we see as a party-line politician who has neglected to stand up against Constitutional violations during his term in Congress.

Jonny Larsen, Democratic nominee for CD 4

About: Former marine veteran (deployed twice to Iraq) and IT professional. 5th generation Utahn raised in a trailer park in Salt Lake City, with a stint in foster care. Later studied at the University of Utah. Note: Mr. Larsen’s campaign has raised about $17k thus far, of which 97% comes from individual donors.

Top priorities from official website:

Affordability:

• A home you can actually buy: Stop corporations and institutional investors from buying homes, protect first-time homebuyers, bring housing costs down

• Healthcare that works for families: Hold insurance companies accountable, expand rural access, bring prescription drug costs down, push for VA clinics

• Cost of living: Rein in Washington tariffs, trade policies, and wars to lower costs for everyday Utahns. Make sure tax dollars go to individuals, not corporations.

Support the working class:

• Living wages

• Right to organize and labor rights

• Defend public lands, fully fund PILT, protect grazing access, and protect rural communities

Accountability:

• Fix immigration laws to be fair and enforceable—secure the border while creating workable pathways and stop corporations from exploiting workers

• Overturn Citizens United, ban congressional stock trading

• Defend the Constitution, Social Security and Medicare; hold the administration accountable

Utah values:

• Equal rights for every Utahn, men and women, straight and LGBTQ, etc.

• Protect the Great Salt Lake by incentivizing farmers to cut irrigation usage and protect farmland from forced sales

• Protect public school funding, support teachers, and make sure tax dollars reach the classroom

• Stand with Utah Veterans: restore VA staffing, build dedicated housing for homeless veterans, and expand mental health access

Insights:

Mr. Larsen would bring a highly unusual and, in our opinion, helpful background to Congress. Few federal or even state representatives truly have a lower-working-class background or experiences, even though a significant portion of this district and the country fall into those demographics. As a veteran of both foster care and the Armed Services, Mr. Larsen holds a uniquely personal perspective on the challenges many Utahns face. He is also one of the only candidates we’ve seen talking about helping both farmers and veterans.

We’re impressed that, to our knowledge, Mr. Larsen has refrained from criticizing voters across the aisle during his campaign (a welcome change from his Republican opponent). We note that he was late for a financial disclosure deadline, although the miss didn’t seem to be intentional (and several of us know from experience how confusing it can be when running on one’s own).

Taylor Wright, Libertarian candidate for CD 4

About: PE teacher who works with adults with special needs in Herriman, Utah. Proud Libertarian candidate. It was hard to find more personal information online, but Mr. Wright has a podcast called “Saving Humanity.”

Top priorities from official website:

• Individual liberty: Make our own choices about life, work, and future without government interference.

• State’s rights & federalism: follow the Constitution and reclaim its responsibility to check executive power—especially for war and federal authority

• Decentralizing power: return decision-making to states, communities, and individuals

• Free markets: no market distortion from policies like tariffs.

• Foreign policy should be guided by peace, trade, and respect for other nations’ sovereignty

Insights: One of our members met and talked with Mr. Wright at length. We appreciated his focus on individual freedom and the Constitution, and his desire to stand up against the abuses of the current administration, especially against tariffs and war powers. However, we were a little sad to see him denigrate his Democratic opponent just for being a Democrat during this same event. See this debate with Mr. Burt and a Republican who didn’t make it out of convention

Recommendations:

CD4 has multiple interesting candidates. After close scrutiny of Mr. Kennedy’s record and recent speeches, we cannot in good conscience recommend voting for him. We find he has failed to check the executive power of his own party, even when it violates the Constitution; frequently treats political opponents with disdain; and occasionally peddles conspiracy theories.

Realistically, CD 4 is a very GOP-leaning district—so we wish it were a two-way race. Both Mr. Burt (unaffiliated) and Mr. Larsen (Democratic candidate) bring much to recommend them. The nonpartisan Utah Debate Commission recently hosted a debate for CD 4.

We feel that Mr. Burt and Mr. Larsen seem to live up to our values. Your choice will come down to your preferred policies and strategy. If we are to put fingers on the scale, we believe Mr. Larsen has more momenum right now—and thus a better chance of making a dent.

As always, we encourage voters to check candidates’ websites and social media, watch their debate, and reach out directly to decide which is their preferred candidate in this race.

Congressional District 2 (“CD2”) is one of Utah’s four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. CD2 covers most of northern Utah from east to west, including Ogden, Logan, Brigham City, and surrounding areas.

Utah has four House representatives who work full-time in Washington, D.C., as well as in local offices. Because House members vote on issues like healthcare, taxes, public lands, infrastructure, immigration, and education, these races can have a significant impact on both Utah and national policy.

About the Candidates

We strive to give quality information on every candidate on the ballot, although due to bandwidth focus on most viable candidates for this race. Find what qualities the Network of Utah Moderates is looking for in candidates.

Candidates’ top priorities come from their official websites. This guide is just a starting point to research more. We always encourage reaching out directly to candidates via phone, email, or in-person events to learn more about their priorities and experience.

Blake Moore, Republican (incumbent)

About: Native of Ogden, Utah. has lived in Salt Lake City (outside CD2 boundaries) for 10+ years. Mr. Moore has a Master’s in Public Policy degree. Before Congress, he worked in business consulting, public policy, and foreign service-related work.

Mr. Moore has represented northern Utah in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2021 and currently serves in House Republican leadership as Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference. He also serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, House Budget Committee, and has served on other committees during his time in Congress. He is also co-chair of the DOGE caucus.

Top priorities: Lowering costs and fiscal discipline, border security and immigration reform, strengthening Hill Air Force base and national security, tax relief and economic growth, pro family

Insights: Mr. Moore is generally viewed as part of the more pragmatic wing of Utah Republican politics (likely why he lost at the state convention to a further-right challenger). He has worked on bipartisan legislation, constituent services, and environmental work related to the Great Salt Lake and was formerly a sponsor of Better Boundaries in 2018. He holds leadership positions, which allow him (and Utah) to have an outsized say in Congress. We appreciate these things about him.

However, we are concerned that Mr. Moore has not consistently stood up for constitutional principles as we believe the current moment requires. We have repeatedly hoped he would stand up to his party to check executive power and stand up for both responsible government and the interests of Utahns. We believe he is capable of that leadership—and have been repeatedly disappointed that he has not exercised it.

In a pivotal moment for our country, we need leaders who will stand up. We question the consistency between his stated emphasis on fiscal responsibility while supporting legislation that has substantially increased federal debt. Moore has also been very limited in his engagement with constituents. In 2025, he only held one in-person town hall, along with a handful of telephone town halls. This year (while campaigning) he’s only held nine in-person town halls and several by phone.

In our experience attending his events, Mr. Moore initially spends time telling us about what he’s been doing in Congress, then answers a handful of questions at such length that he runs out of time to address even a fraction of the questions attendees want to ask. We were less than impressed by his recent answers in his debate against Mr. Crosby (watch for yourself!)

Peter Crosby

About: Peter Crosby is a first-generation college graduate with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science from Utah State University. His career spans business management, corporate analytics, and higher education, including eight years in institutional research and seven years teaching American Institutions at USU. He currently works as a director, project manager, and consultant while teaching a graduate course on emerging technology.

Top priorities: affordability, healthcare, housing, government accountability, protecting the Great Salt Lake and public lands, congressional ethics

Insights: Crosby has never held elected office, so voters have no legislative record to evaluate. However, several Network members have met and spoken directly with him. Those conversations have given us confidence in his ability to do the job.

Mr. Crosby emphasizes accountability, constituent engagement, and a willingness to challenge political leadership when necessary. We believe his approach to governing is pragmatic; he would find bipartisan wins while remaining willing to stand up to the excesses and overreach of the current administration (and even his own party). We found Mr. Crosby articulate and intelligent during his recent debate and appreciated his Substack post on faith and politics relevant to many LDS Utah voters.

In contrast to his leading opponent, Mr. Crosby has held over forty town halls during his campaign. That doesn’t include his appearances at dozens of additional meet and greet and community events. In our opinion, Mr. Crosby has made a remarkable effort to be available and talk to voters. Of note: Mr. Crosby has over 1,000 unique donors, which attests to this being a truly grassroots campaign.

Other Candidates

Daniel Cottam — Libertarian: Advocates limited government, individual liberty, and fiscal restraint. (No website, see his Facebook or YouTube nomination speech)

Robert Moesinger — Unaffiliated/independent: Ogden native and engineer running without a political-party affiliation. We couldn’t find a website but did find this independent piece with some of his answers; seems like his top priority is election reform. He prefers ranked-choice voting in multi-member districts (we don’t disagree).

Carlton E. Bowen — Independent American: Running on the Independent American Party platform, emphasizing constitutional government and limited federal power. He also opposes data centers. Mr. Bowen has run for office many times; we watched Mr. Bowen in a debate for US Senate candidates against John Curtis and Caroline Gleich two years ago; worth watching if you are considering voting for Mr. Bowen.

Our Recommendation

We strongly recommend voting for Peter Crosby.

We say this as a group of majority historical Republicans who believe Blake Moore is a genuinely good person who strikes us as a more principled and moderate Republican. However, we have repeatedly hoped that Moore would stand up on major issues currently facing the country. He has consistently stayed silent, failing to act to check executive power. We believe Utah and the country need congressional leaders willing to provide meaningful checks. We continue to believe he is capable of doing so, but we have been disappointed by his reluctance to use his voice. As a sitting Congressman, we were also astounded by his poor answers at the recent CD2 debate.

After watching his campaign, meeting, and discussing his priorities, we believe Mr. Crosby has the judgment and ability to serve effectively and provide the independent voice we hope to see in Congress.

s

Congressional District 3 (“CD3”) is one of Utah’s four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Utah has four House representatives who work full-time in Washington, D.C. House members vote on issues like healthcare, taxes, public lands, infrastructure, immigration, and education. Because of this, these federal races can have a significant impact on both Utah and national policy. Federal congressional members also provide a myriad of services for their constituents.

With the recent redistricting of federal house districts to match the terms in Utah’s Proposition 4, starting in 2027, Utah’s CD3 will cover eastern and southern Utah, and also include a central portion of the state, including Provo, Spanish Fork, and much more.

About the Candidates

We strive to give quality information on every candidate on the ballot. Find what qualities the Network of Utah Moderates is looking for in candidates.

Top priorities come from candidates’ official websites. This guide is merely a starting point to help you understand and research candidates yourself. We always encourage reaching out to the candidates directly (email, call, in-person events) to learn more about their issues and experience.

Celeste Maloy, Republican Party

About: Southern Utah native born in Cedar City and lived most of life in Washington County. Current U.S. House Representative for Congressional District 2. Before her election, Ms. Maloy was a public lands and water law attorney, deputy county attorney, and chief legal counsel to Congressman Chris Stewart. In late 2023, Ms. Maloy was elected in a special election to replace her boss.

Top priorities (from campaign messaging and public statements): Border security and immigration enforcement, public lands and local control, protecting religious liberty and the right to bear arms, energy production and rural economic development.

Insights: Ms. Maloy is a traditional conservative, closely aligned with the Republican caucus. She has strong ties to Utah’s legal and public lands communities. Supporters describe her as pragmatic, policy-focused, and institutionally minded—things we appreciate.

However, we are deeply concerned about her strong support for the current administration. She enthusiastically voted for legislation like the One Big Beautiful Bill that significantly increased our budget deficit through tax cuts on the wealthy. To our knowledge, Ms. Maloy has not spoken out against the War in Iran, attacks on freedom of the press, the president impounding money appropriated by Congress, violations of due process in ICE detentions, or any other Constitutional violations. She seems to favor developer interests over the public interest, including supporting the recent decision by the current administration to shrink the Bear’s Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by roughly 90% each, opening that land to mining, industrial development, and mineral extraction (a clear majority of Utahns oppose this decision).

Kent Udell, Democratic Party

About: Born in Lehi and current Moab resident. Worked as both a professor and mechanical engineer, teaching at both Berkeley and the University of Utah. Worked with energy industries including solar, geothermal, mining, and petroleum, and also on water issues and environmental remediation. Served with federal agencies such as the EPA, Navy and Dept. of Defense, and the National Science Foundation.

Top priorities (from campaign messaging and public statements): defending the Constitution and rule of law; stewardship of public lands, responsible water use, humane immigration reform, commonsense gun policies, a moratorium on new data centers, AI regulation, affordable housing and healthcare, ethics and accountability, energy policy rooted in economics, innovation, and science

Insights: We believe Mr. Udell should have considerable appeal for voters on both sides of the aisle and across his district. He’s lived in both urban and rural areas of the state (currently on a ten acre property near Moab). He owns a gun and is in favor of reasonable gun safety measures.

We seldom see anyone with as deep technical experience in Congress. As an educator and engineer, Mr. Udell brings broad experience dealing with water and energy issues that are critical right now in Utah and around our nation. He created and taught a course on engineering ethics. He hasn’t accepted any corporate political donations, (which can’t be said of Ms. Maloy). In fact, 75% of his campaign donations are from voters giving $200 or less. He supports investigating and charging those whose names are in the Epstein files. We particularly appreciate his community involvement: his campaign joined a number of service projects for communities within the CD3, such a Navajo back-to-school supply drive, a community weeding and trash removal project in Roosevelt, and cleaning up after flooding in Beaver.

Other Candidates:

Cassie Easley, Constitution Party: Wants to limit government overreach and get back to the government only exercising powers enumerated in the Constitution. Describes herself as a Christian who has lived in rural Utah for over 20 years. Currently a student at SUU. Strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. We

Adonis Hooslyn, unaffiliated: Born and raised in Ogden, After school in Florida and work in California, he moved back to Utah in 2021. 28 years-old; emphasizes working-class roots. Supports Medicare for all, affordability, ending censorship and corruption, protecting jobs while regulating AI.

Ayden Scott, unaffiliated: Grew up in Northern Utah; studied at UVU while working as a firefighter paramedic. Priorities include home ownership, cost of living, rural area support, and small business growth, well–funded military, pro-life policies, balanced budget, free market healthcare solutions.

Michael Stoddard, Libertarian Party: Born in Montana, has lived in Utah since coming to study at BYU. CPA who is committed to accountable and transparent government spending. Wants to restore the militia, end health insurance tied to employment, and federal monopoly on money. Has been involved in audits of entities in Wasatch and Utah Counties.

Our Recommendation:

We recommend Kent Udell as the best candidate to represent Utah in the CD3 race. Like Ms. Maloy, Mr. Udell brings deep roots and experience in rural Utah, much of the area he would be representing. He also seems more responsive to constituent concerns about ethics reform and accountability, protecting public lands, pursuing an all-of-the-above energy policy, data centers, and more.

Moreover, we believe Mr. Udell brings the determination to protect Congressional prerogatives relative to the executive branch of government, which we have found Ms. Maloy reluctant to do. Watch their debate for yourself to see if you agree.

Congressional District 1 (“CD1”) is one of Utah’s four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Utah has four House representatives who work full-time in Washington, D.C.

House members vote on issues like healthcare, taxes, public lands, infrastructure, immigration, and education. Because of this, these federal races can have a significant impact on both Utah and national policy. Federal congressional members also provide a myriad of services for their constituents.

With the recent redistricting of federal house districts to match the terms in Utah’s Proposition 4, Congressional District 1 now covers much of Salt Lake City, down to mid-Salt Lake and Summit Counties

Candidates

Find what qualities the Network of Utah Moderates is looking for in candidates.

Use these guides as a starting point to do additional research. We recommend you reach out to candidates via phone, email, or meet them in person when possible to learn more about their issues and experience. Top priorities come from candidates’ official websites.

Ben McAdams

About: Originally from Bountiful, Utah. Mr. McAdams formerly served in the Salt Lake County mayor’s office as well as in Utah State Senate, as the mayor of South Salt Lake, and one term in the U.S. House from 2018–2020.

Top priorities: Lowering housing costs and building economic security for working families; defending democracy and the rule of law; protecting the environment; and defending human rights.

Our take: We’ve heard mixed reviews around Mr. McAdams. Some of our friends have had great working relationships with him, while others have shared negative experiences with Mr. McAdams. From the public record, we note that Mr. McAdams’ homeless proposals while Salt Lake County Mayor reduced the number of homeless shelter beds, along with endorsements he allegedly published without permission.

Most voters will recognize that, as the Democratic nominee for CD1, Mr. McAdams may be best positioned to stand up to the excesses of the current administration. If you’re on the fence, we recommend doing a deeper dive: see his voting record and social media.

Riley Owen, Republican nominee for CD1.

About: Mr. Owen, 27, started his career at the White House, focused on manufacturing and trade policy—and involved in federal response efforts for the COVID-19 pandemic. Later earned a Master of Public Policy at Oxford and was commissioned as an Intelligence Officer in the Navy Reserve. Started a wildlife conservative foundation using drone technology. Now at a defense technology startup helping Ukraine.

Top priorities from official website:

• Strengthening Utah Community: expanded tax credits, 6 weeks paid material leave, zoning reform, social media age verification

• Common Sense Solutions: banning stock trading, term and age limits, overturning Citizens United, fixing immigration

• Economic Security Social: modernizing the military and technology, apprenticeships with manufacturers; helping the Great Salt Lake

Insights: We’ve had positive experiences, including a direct chat with Mr. Owen, who is running in a newly-created Democratic-leaning district. In particular, we were impressed by his experience, especially for such a young person—one of the first Gen Z Republican candidates for Congress. Mr. Owen seems truly committed to his principles and is campaigning on more classical conservation and bipartisan issues rather than culture war issues, which we appreciate.

Jesse West, Libertarian nominee for CD1.

About: 30 years old, attorney by trade and avid skier. Came to Utah to ski around 2018 and settled here.

Top priorities from official website:

• Peace—no more forever wars, take care of veterans

• Truth—no more wrongful convictions or death penalty

• Freedom—Clear, accessible legal pathways to citizenship; free movement, legalize cannabis

Also working to protect the Great Salt Lake.

Insights: We find Mr. West’s tagline—”a vote for me is a vote to Ski not War”—a bit fun but perhaps not the seriousness we’re hoping for in a candidate. Candidly: we believe CD1, Utah’s only Democratic-leaning congressional district, will come down between the two major parties. That said, if you prefer non-traditional candidates and Mr. West’s policies intrigue you, reach out to him directly at libertywhale@pm.me.

Elias Henry Montgomery, Unaffiliated candidate for CD1.

About: Independent candidate offering a choice outside the traditional party system. Specifically says he is not a moderate or centrist; uses a “compass” filter to look at policies, trying to be consistent, objective, and principled. (Note: Could not find biographical information on his website)

Top priorities from official website:

• Lower everyday costs. Promote owner-occupancy in housing; prioritize the “missing middle” housing; prioritize infrastructure like energy efficiency, water security, and transit.

• Real systemic accountability. Break single-party monopolies and partisan gridlock.

• A Government that Serves the People. Move decisions closer to local communities.

Insights: We appreciate Mr. Montgomery’s desire to be principled and consistent in policymaking, and some of us agree with many of his priorities and goal of balanced government. If you prefer non-traditional candidates, he may be your person.

Again, we believe that CD1, Utah’s only Democratic-leaning congressional district, will come down between the two major parties. If you prefer non-traditional candidates

Our Recommendation:

Rather than making an outright recommendation, we leave this race to the voters in CD1. Many voters have policy preferences that align them with one candidate in this race. For voters whose biggest hope is to see executive power checked, Mr. McAdams—as the Democratic nominee—is likely best positioned to do that.

At the same time, we recognize that Mr. Owen is one of the current Republicans most aligned with our values. He brings strong character and policy experience to the role; we anticipate that Mr. Owen would stand against executive overreach within his own party.

Frankly, both Mr. West (Libertarian) and Mr. Montgomery (unaffiliated) have interesting policy perspectives, should you prefer an option outside the two-party system. Strategically, we’ll note that a four-way race is especially hard for third-party and no-party candidates.

This fall, the Network of Utah Moderates is encouraging Utah voters to look beyond incumbents and beyond their traditional party favorites. Frankly, we are worried about the corrosive effects of concentrated power both nationally and here at home. Power needs checks and balances, and good representation requires real competition.

Republicans currently control the whole federal government. Republicans hold the presidency, a majority in the U.S. Senate, and a narrow majority in the House of Representatives.1 In Utah, Republicans hold an even larger share of legislative seats. Members of the Republican Party currently hold 61 of 75 seats in the Utah House and 22 of 29 seats in the Senate. Republicans also hold the governor, attorney general, and every other statewide office. For many Utahns, every representative at every level of government—from city council and local school board up to county officials, state legislators, federal representatives, and the president are all registered Republicans.

Voters are allowed to choose who they prefer, and we recognize how a unified government makes it easier to accomplish certain policy objectives. Yet as Americans who love the Constitution, we must also value checks and balances. As we recently wrote, supermajorities often forget their responsibility to exercise restraint.

The danger of one-party control

When one party controls nearly every lever of government, the need for independent voices becomes more important. The greater the concentration of power, the more important meaningful oversight becomes. For us, the issue isn’t Republicans or Democrats. It’s accountability and unchecked power.

There are Republicans we respect, Democrats we respect, and independents and candidates from other parties who we respect. All bring valuable perspectives to public office. Our biggest concern is what happens when elected officials become more accountable to party leadership than to the people they represent.

We see this happening not just nationally, but here in Utah as well.

The responsibilities of Utah’s federal delegation

Reasonable people can disagree about individual policies and whether particular actions represent appropriate uses of executive authority. But two principles should not be controversial: Congress is supposed to exercise oversight of the executive branch and Congresspeople are supposed to represent their constituents. This responsibility doesn’t disappear when the president belongs to the same party

Members of Congress should support their president when appropriate—and also willing to challenge him when constitutional limits, institutional norms, or the interests of their constituents require it. We don’t want a legislative branch whose members defend the president simply because he belongs to their party.

We have watched and hoped for our congressional delegation to meet this crucial period with a courageous defense of constitutional principles and the rule of law. In our opinion, Utah’s federal representatives have failed to do so at nearly every crucial juncture—from voting to approve unqualified appointees to high cabinet positions, to voting to continue the Iran War unchecked, to recently blocking a bipartisan bill to save the Kennedy Center.

What about Utah?

The same principles apply at home. Utah has an unusually strong legislative majority. When the same party controls every branch of government, fewer institutional checks lie between an idea and its implementation.

With a large enough majority, majority-party members can—and do—pass legislation without needing to compromise, listen to constituent voices, or fix known issues with their bills. Decisions are made in closed door caucus meetings, not during open floor debates. We watch controversial legislation sail through the legislative session, often without citizens having a chance to give meaningful input. With one party holding more than 80% of the seats in both chambers, minority legislators have limited (if any) ability to stop legislation.

This makes internal accountability within the majority especially important. A healthy system needs people who are willing to ask difficult questions, negotiate, amend legislation, and occasionally tell their own leadership, “No, this isn’t right.”

Quite frankly, we don’t see that happening in Utah right now. We’ve watched state leaders take decision-making power from cities, counties, schools, the judiciary, and regular citizens alike. Amendment B is yet another example. Utahns are waking up, seeing the fruits of backroom deals without transparency, including PIDs (Public Infrastructure Districts), MIDA developments, data centers, and more.

Our leaders do this in part because their power goes relatively unchecked. Like the rest of us, legislators respond to incentives. Change requires enough political competition that elected officials know they must continue earning voters’ support.

Looking beyond incumbents

Incumbents start with strong advantages, including name recognition, party support (usually) and fundraising. But incumbency shouldn’t be an automatic reason to vote for someone. Party affiliation shouldn’t be either. An “R” or a “D” mostly tells you how the candidate made it onto the ballot. Labels do not tell you how they govern.

And Utah voters should know that in our closed convention-primary system, making it to the general election often means appealing to the most extreme members of their party.

Instead of voting by party, we’re interested in questions like:

• Does this person represent the needs of their constituents, even when that means disagreeing with party leadership?

• Do they support meaningful checks and balances? Will they protect the ability of citizens to hold government accountable?

• Will they exercise independent judgment and acknowledge when their own party has gotten something wrong?

• Will they defend appropriate local decision-making?

• Do they listen to people who disagree with them?

• Do they take the long view—statesmanship—rather than simply following the political winds of partisanship?

Some of our current legislators have an excellent track record. Many times, challengers are better positioned to fulfill those principles. We believe in letting candidates’ records and positions speak for themselves.

Why this matters—especially in Utah

Utah is not a politically homogeneous state. Utahns identify as conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, independent, and libertarians. Many voters (around 30%!) don’t identify with a political party at all. Shouldn’t that be reflected in our political institutions?

Voters should have meaningful choices, and elected officials should have meaningful incentives to listen to people beyond their own political base. Competition is healthy for good governance. A healthy democratic republic like the United States needs people in office who know they can be challenged.

We encourage you to look beyond incumbents and party labels, because no elected official or party should have a permanent claim on our vote. Our ask:

• Consider each candidate, regardless of party.

• Examine their background, records, policy positions, endorsements, and willingness to operate independently on behalf of their voters.

• Prioritize candidates who will represent their constituents, respect democratic institutions, exercise independent judgment, and provide meaningful checks on concentrated power.

Because of what we know about current Utah politics and our desire to see meaningful checks and balances, we tend to prefer challengers from outside the typical Republican establishment. And we write this as a majority-Republican coalition who have most often supported Republicans in the past.

Working together, we can make change

The general election is now upon us. We’re working on publishing in-depth profiles on each of the four federal congressional districts, along with as many other candidate guides we can manage.

With limited time and bandwidth from our group of volunteers, we also plan to publish a voter guide with shorter “quick takes” on races we know about that deserve attention to jumpstart your research. Hoping that’s out before this weekend!2

Utah has a strong tradition of independent thinking. Let’s bring that tradition back into our politics. We’re not starting with a party and working backward; we’re starting with the candidate and asking whether they are the kind of public servant Utah needs.

Learn who is running. Look at their record. Ask real questions. Then decide who you believe will best represent you, open your ballot, and fill in that oval. Most importantly, make sure to turn in your ballot before November 3.

2026 is a really important election for Utah. Please vote and help your family, friends, and neighbors participate too.

Two ballot amendments

We recently published our view on Amendment B. In short: Amendment B will raise the threshold for citizen-led initiatives that impact revenue to 60%. In our view, this amendment uses vague language to make many ballot initiatives almost impossible to pass—undermining Utah citizens’ power to check our legislature.

Following on the heels of Amendment D (an attempt to override citizen ballot initiatives) two years ago, we see Amendment B as another attempt to consolidate power in the legislative branch. We’re opposed.

Amendment A is also about ballot initiatives, also features vague language, and we also recommend voting “no.”

Amendment A

Amendment A proposes a new way to advertise for ballot initiatives. Currently, any ballot initiative’s sponsors are required to advertise in newspapers throughout the state for 60 days prior to an election.

This rule seems primarily to make sure that information about the ballot measure remains accessible. Frankly, a requirement to publish it in newspapers for 60 days may indeed be outdated (and costly). So why are we opposed?

Amendment A changes the requirement for amendments, stipulating only that be advertised “in a manner provided by statute, for 60 calendar days.”

The idea of Amendment A is decent; the actual language is opaque. Unlike a constitutional requirement, a statute can easily be written. And who writes the statutes? The state legislature.

Two types of initiatives

There are two types of initiatives that may appear on ballots in Utah:

• Initiatives referred by the state legislature itself—the vast majority of the amendments that appear on your ballot, including both this year, are referred by the legislature. (Historically, over 87% of ballot amendments were referred by legislature)

• Initiatives created by ordinary citizens. That’s only 28 total over 125 years, and only a quarter have passed.

Amendment A is unclear on whether these two types of initiatives will be treated the same. Current state law requires the Lieutenant Governor to publish the full text of all proposed constitutional amendments and other ballot questions on the Utah Public Notice Website and on the Lieutenant Governor’s website for 60 days immediately before the general election.

While this change from newspaper to online seems acceptable right now, we’re nervous that if the way to advertise for amendments can be changed after the amendment passes, Utah’s legislative branch could theoretically impose relatively easy rules for itself and more difficult ones for citizen-led initiatives. We’ve seen double standards happen before (again, see Amendment B).

It’s worth noting that in 2024, the legislature failed to correctly advertise several amendments, leading to votes for Amendments A and D not being counted after a judge ruled they failed to meet the statutory requirements. Plus misleading language.

What we would support

If Amendment A laid out a clear, consistent, Constitutionally-mandated process for both types of ballot initiatives, we would likely support this update.

Without that guarantee, it feels suspiciously like yet another chance for Utah leaders to write rules that favor themselves while blocking citizen initiatives.

As written, we’ll be voting “no.”

This year is a bit unique, electorally. Once every twelve years Utah has no statewide races—meaning no president, governor, or US Senators on the ballot. 2026 is such a year. However, all Utah voters statewide will see two amendments on the ballot, Amendments A and B. Both have to do with ballot initiatives.

We suggest voting “no” on both. Because Amendment B has more power to change Utah’s future, we’ll focus on it first—more to come on Amendment A in a future post. Buckle up, B is bad.

Amendment B

Amendment B proposes to change the Utah Constitution by raising the threshold to pass citizen-led ballot initiatives that impact taxes from a simple majority to 60%. This is a Constitutional Amendment, and thus a permanent change.

The major question is whether this initiative is more about keeping taxes low or more about curtailing the ballot initiative.

We strongly believe it’s the latter. Our lawmakers have shown a pattern of consolidating power at the expense of the executive branch, courts, and citizens themselves. Ballot initiatives seem to be a particular target. Take Amendment D proposed in 2024, which used misleading language so voters would let the Legislature substantially change voter-approved ballot initiatives. In other words: Utah’s leaders sought to undermine the right of Utah citizens to check their representatives (the initiative was ultimately disqualified from the ballot).

Back to Amendment B. We worry that including language around “taxes” leverages Utah citizens’ understandable partiality to low taxes to advance an agenda that concentrates more power in the legislative branch. In our opinion, that would be shortsighted. We don’t expect Amendment B to lower taxes, but its vague language and 60% threshold may well erode the power of ordinary Utah citizens to effect change in their government.

Let’s start with how legislation is made.

How to pass legislation

At present, there are two ways of passing legislation in Utah:

1. A simple majority of state lawmakers vote for a bill. That looks like at least 38 of 75 state representatives and at least 15 of 29 state senators voting for a measure. Legislation can pass with just 53 total votes. With a supermajority in both chambers, the dominant party’s caucus can easily find more than enough votes to pass what it wants to without needing to compromise.1

2. Citizens gather signatures. To qualify, an initiative needs signatures from at least 8% of active registered voters in the state in at least 26 of 29 counties, along with meeting other statutory requirements and receiving a majority of votes. In other words, to get on your ballot, initiatives currently require ~141,000 verified signatures across the state—a feat that requires a huge volunteer effort and fundraising. Utah has nearly 1,780,000 active registered voters, and during the 2024 general election 1.4 million Utahns voted. So passing an initiative requires gaining over 700,000 voters’ support.

Compare the processes: citizen initiatives are not simple, easy, or cheap. The broad outreach requisite to pass with many hundreds of thousands of votes makes it hard for special interests to play an outsized part (as it should be!). Frankly, it’s much easier for lobbyists to donate to 53 legislators’ campaigns. Successfully getting 8% of voters to sign and over 50% to vote for any initiative is akin to a modern miracle.

A history of ballot initiatives

Citizens’ power to legislate has been enshrined in Utah’s Constitution since a 1900 amendment for citizen-led initiatives passed with 71% of the vote. Not all states allow for direct democracy, but Utahns claim it as their constitutional right and heritage.

Some 220 initiatives have made it to voters’ ballots since 1901. The vast majority of these initiatives (192) were referred by the legislature. Regular Utah citizens have gathered enough signatures and met the other requirements to put just 28 initiatives on the ballot in over a century.

Getting to “yes” is hard

Only a quarter of citizen-led initiatives have passed at the current simple majority threshold, not least because people tend to vote “no” easier than “yes.” About 20% of voters choose “no” regardless of the measure itself. Take, for example, Utah’s recent constitutional amendment to abolish all forms of slavery, a noncontroversial question with no organized opposition. Only 80.5% of Utah voters voted “yes” to abolish slavery in 2020.

More to the point, only 7 citizen-led measures have passed in Utah during the past 70 years. Of the 28 citizen ballot initiatives that have made it to the ballot in Utah’s 130 year history, just two such measures garnered at least 60% of the vote, both in 2000. The current bar is clearly not easy to clear.

And citizens’ right to reform their government is crucial.

Checks and balances

Our ballot initiative currently serves as one of the most powerful checks on state power. Given Utah’s current one-party trifecta—one party holding power in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches—plus the GOP legislative supermajority, the people’s check is essential to the balance of power.2

Frankly, we believe Amendment B will hinder the constitutional power of Utah citizens to enact legislation that legislators have shown themselves unwilling to pass.

Vague language

Amendment B asks this question: “Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to require that citizen-proposed laws that increase taxes compared to existing law be approved by at least 60% of voters, instead of a simple majority?”

We wonder who gets to define “citizen-proposed laws that increase taxes compared to existing law”? Is that the legislature themselves? Why restrict only citizen-led petitions when the vast majority of amendments are referred by lawmakers?

As Utah leaders have frequently attempted to avoid citizen-sponsored laws, we worry that Amendment B could be misconstrued to block most citizen amendments going forward. It certainly would have in the past.

Broad effects

Although Amendment B is not retroactive, such legislation would have impacted the past three citizen-led initiatives Utah voters passed in 2018 if it had been in place. As a reminder, that year Utahns voted for an historic number of citizen-led measures, including:

• Prop 2, which allowed for and taxed medical cannabis

• Prop 3, which raised sales tax on non-food items for Medicaid expansion3

• Prop 4, which created an independent redistricting committee

All three propositions passed with between 50.3%–53.3% of the vote, a simple majority. Prop 3 on Medicaid expansion explicitly raised sales tax on certain items to fund the program and thus would have failed a 60% vote requirement—which would have caused over 85,000 Utahns to lose health insurance the majority of voters wanted them to have. Prop 2 also arguably had tax implications. While Prop 4 likely would not have been directly affected, the vague language in Amendment B could have led to further challenges in court.

Frankly, any ballot initiative can have major budget implications, impact how the legislature chooses to allocate money, and lead to changes in tax and funding decisions. Interpreting Amendment B broadly, it’s possible many future initiatives would fall under this new threshold.

How hard is 60%?

Chances are, almost all citizen-led legislation would fail this threshold. Many experts believe that in today’s polarized world, 60% is practically insurmountable. Take the Sunshine State. In 2006, Florida voters approved a measure that increase its ballot threshold to require 60% to pass. No measure has passed since.

All 13 of Florida’s most recent ballot measures garnered between 50–60% of the vote and thus failed. Ironically, the amendment to require a 60% threshold only got 57% of Floridians’ votes—and now it bars others from doing the same.

It’s worth noting that Utah’s legislators aren’t holding themselves to the same standard. Even if Amendment B passes, state lawmakers can increase or lower taxes with just a simple majority.

The future of Utah’s ballot initiatives

We see Amendment B as taking Constitutional authority from the people. It’s just the latest in a string of Utah leaders’ attacks on the citizen ballot initiative following the failure of Amendment D two years ago.

We don’t believe ordinary Utahns’ best interests are served by handing over their Constitutional rights. Having worked towards initiatives and referendums, we have no desire to make a system that is already difficult and expensive even more so. Undermining ballot initiatives further concentrates power in politicians, lobbyists, and other special interests.4

Most importantly, we want to protect the power of Utah citizens. As a concerned group of engaged Utahns, we remain strongly for preserving the rights of people to alter their government. When government fails to respond to citizens’ needs, we believe that voters need a viable path enact policies and hold our leaders accountable.

Let’s keep citizens’ path to enacting legislation open—vote no on Amendment B.

A candidate’s path to the general election ballot depends on several factors, including whether they are running in an even or odd year.

Even years like 2026 feature big-ticket races, where candidates for federal, state, and county positions vie for office. Think of federal positions like US House and Senate; state races like Utah State Governor, House, and Senate and state school board; and county-level races for commissioners or council, clerks, auditors, and more. Odd year elections are more local. That’s when Utahns select mayors, city and town councils, and (sometimes) local school board members.

The type of race determines timelines and rules for qualifying, which voters can participate, incentives for running, and even which kinds of candidates are most likely to succeed. What matters for getting on the ballot is whether the race is considered “partisan” or “nonpartisan.”

Nonpartisan elections

Odd years feature Utah’s nonpartisan elections for local office. The precise process for getting on the ballot varies slightly by area, but is generally straightforward. Starting in June of the election year, candidates must:

• Meet residency and other requirements: 12+ months continuous residency, being of a sound mind, etc.

• Potentially pay a small fee set by their city, often around $50 to cover paperwork

• Fill out the required forms and financial disclosures.

Voilà! Meet the above and your name will appear on the ballot. That’s it.

Top-two candidate primaries

When more than two people file per seat, a primary election is held in August. That happens when more than 2 people run for the same school board seat or more than 6 people run for 3 council seats, for example. Every candidate who has properly completed paperwork automatically appears on the ballot—no signature-gathering needed.

The primary election whittles it down to the top two candidates per office. The remaining candidates appear on voters’ ballots in November.

All voters can participate

Perhaps most importantly: during nonpartisan elections all eligible voters within their district can vote, regardless of party affiliation. It’s an open election. Every voter within the district boundaries has a say in which candidates they want to represent them.

Since local races are officially nonpartisan, no party appears beside their name on the ballot itself (though some parties choose to endorse in these races). Winning comes down to campaigning to all voters: understanding the issues, showing up, meeting voters, and building relationships. Candidates typically take from June to November, a 5-month election cycle, to connect with voters and make their case. Campaigns tend to center on local issues, like streets and traffic, planning and zoning, rec centers, potholes, and taxes.

Candidly, we appreciate this kind of politics. We often see reasonable, pragmatic, moderate people elected at the local level (although party endorsements can change that). In the past few years, we’ve spoken with many committed, service-minded citizens who have won local races around the state and are happy that the outcomes usually reflect the majority of Utahns we know.

Contrast these nonpartisan races to Utah’s election process in years like this one.

Partisan elections

During even years every race is “partisan”.1 Utah holds partisan elections for every position from US Congress to county assessor. Most candidates must meet filing requirements and file to run in January, starting an 11-month election cycle.2

It can be very difficult to qualify for the general election ballot in partisan races, especially as the nominee for a major political party. Look at just how many candidates from earlier this year are either “out in convention” or “out in primary,” never making it to the general election. We note with sadness some really stellar candidates on that list.

Two paths

Since 2014’s SB54, partisan candidates have two paths to qualifying for the ballot:

• Winning their party’s convention process

• Gathering signatures to appear on their party’s primary ballot3

Or candidates can do both. Once they qualify, many candidates go through a primary, which in many cases functions as the “real” election, to make it onto the November ballot. Both paths are difficult and typically expensive. See Utah law about candidates, qualified political parties, write-in candidates, and more.

Signatures

Utah has the highest threshold for signatures of any state. This year, candidates needed 7,000 verified signatures to qualify for US House, 2,000 for state senate, and 1,000 for state house.

Signatures must come from voters registered with your party, who live within your district and haven’t already signed for another candidate for the same race. Which means up to 50% of signatures are rejected. While strong candidates often gather many signatures from volunteers (we’ve freely gathered for many candidates we believe in!) even with a robust volunteer base, paid signature-gathering firms are often needed. And prohibitively expensive for many candidates.

As a result, even strong candidates can fail to gather enough verified signatures to qualify. Setting the bar so high often means only candidates with a real war chest can compete—most often incumbents and big names.

Convention

The convention “path” to getting on the ballot varies by party. Smaller parties like the Libertarian, Independent American, and Forward Party may only have one candidate vying for the seat, making getting on the ballot as that party’s nominee relatively easy. (See Utah’s recognized political parties).4

Both Republican and Democratic parties typically have a competitive convention process. At their party conventions, candidates compete for delegate votes.5 Those who receive at least 60% of the delegate vote proceed as their party nominee, skipping a primary unless any opponents have successfully gathered signatures. When two candidates both receive between 40–60%, they proceed to a primary. No more than two candidates per office remain after the convention, unless more have qualified via signatures. See results for Utah’s 2026 Republican and Democratic conventions.

Running a serious convention campaign requires booths, signs, and lots of events, plus calls, emails, and flyers. Some candidates personally knock on every delegate’s door. Pursuing convention often means “wine-and-dining” delegates. As delegates, we’ve received fresh bread dropped off at our doorstep along with invitations to ice cream socials, private movie showings, food trucks, hot air balloon rides, and more.

Partisan candidates campaign amongst delegates who tend to hold more extreme partisan views than average voters. This leads to real differences in which candidates make it. In fact, when convention nominees face signature-gathering challengers, voters choose the signature candidate more often than not, as recently happened to Governor Cox.

Design affects outcomes

Election requirements and processes change the outcomes.

In nonpartisan elections, every eligible voter in the district can vote. Most of Utah’s partisan elections reduce the number of constituents casting votes through both convention and the primary, limiting decisions about which candidates move forward to a tiny percentage of voters.

The signature path currently requires thousands of signatures and winning a primary election. Contrast that to convention, which requires only 5–10% as many votes to win the same race. Typically, a total of about 60–100 delegates vote on a state House race, with around 100–200 delegates voting on a Senate race—depending on how many delegates show up that day. Candidates for county and state races often win at convention by only a few dozen votes, even for high offices, becoming their party’s nominee.

Yet arguably the most powerful way parties influence elections is by allowing only certain voters in the district to participate in the primary. This is called a closed primary, where voters must register with the party to have a say. In a state known for its extensive gerrymandering and few competitive districts, the leading party’s nominee often wins the general election.6

Utah’s Republican party requires voters to be registered party members to participate in a primary funded by all taxpayers. And with only around 50% of active Utah voters officially registered Republican, a significant portion of the electorate is currently prohibited from voting on which candidate(s) they’d like on the general ballot.

Another winnowing happens when the party enacts strict requirements for who can be their candidate. This year Major General David Harris, a candidate for Congressional District 3, was kicked off the Republican ballot because—although a longtime conservative—Mr. Harris had chosen to unaffiliate while in uniform to appear less partisan. Party officials later determined the 1-year affiliation rule didn’t apply to other candidates.

Form determines function

Change the incentives, change the outcome. You can see how the path candidates take onto the general election ballot varies significantly between Utah’s nonpartisan and partisan elections. Consequently, these elections produce very different results.

Unfortunately, some of Utah’s leaders are working to make more elections partisan. We hope the opposite happens—that Utah has the political will to fix the mismatch in getting on the ballot.

In our experience, Utah’s current system selects for extreme partisanship. Elected officials who feel more accountable to party leaders and delegates than the other 98% of their constituents. That’s one reason the Network of Utah Moderates typically prefers candidates who aren’t tightly controlled by party, including candidates who gathered signatures or ran for non-majority parties.

As Utahns who believe deeply in principled representation, we hope someday our county and state representatives are re-incentivized to represent all their voters. And may Utah voters prefer candidates who are striving to do so.

Local officials were not keen to approve such a large project. Like many of their residents, they felt current city infrastructure was insufficient. Their rationale was clear: current residents don’t want this, and our roads can’t support it.

Enter state leadership. In private meetings with state officials, local leaders were told that while they could negotiate terms, they must rezone and approve this development.

That “must” came with threats: if city leaders tried to block the developer, the state legislature would run a bill approving this rezone and vesting it at an even higher density—without any concessions from the developer. State leaders even insinuated that the state may start withholding needed state funds from the area unless this development was approved, and quickly.

As you may expect, the development passed.1

Unchecked power

This type of deal is happening all over. We anonymized this incident on purpose, because top-down pressure from state leaders has become commonplace. You hear about it in private when talking to local officials at the school board, municipal, and county levels from all over the state.

Just a few weeks ago, one state official made a similar public threat to Heber County—a threat to pull all state funding from the county unless it approved a very large development. So much for local control.

State pressure is happening in Salt Lake and Summit counties, Democratic-leaning areas accustomed to the ire of Republican state officials. But it’s not limited to urban or liberal areas. State pressure is also rampant in GOP strongholds across Utah, from Davis to Utah to Weber to Tooele and Washington counties.

Utahns are starting to catch on these backroom machinations. Take the recent data center controversy in Box Elder County. Citizens of all political stripes witnessed for themselves what state pressure looks like, noticing fast-tracked timelines and intense pressure from state leaders to pass a massive proposal with little public input.2 Across the political spectrum, residents weren’t happy with it.

Regrettably, this is now the way Utah operates.

Utah hasn’t always been like this

We realize that politics is rarely “polite.” Compromise is inherently messy. But Utah’s current top-down mandates from state leaders seem unusually coercive. Relatively unchecked state pressure comes, at least in part, because of concentrated power—a supermajority of elected officials from one party who no longer have to slow down or compromise to pass their bills.

Folks who’ve worked with Utah’s legislature across decades reliably note that never before has Utah’s legislative leadership wielded so much power. Lobbyists and local leaders alike see consolidated political power used by state leaders in new ways, including bypassing local control.

Such pressure is not limited to your city and county officials. State-level representatives in Utah’s House and Senate are under tremendous pressure to bow to leadership’s priorities. If not, they face very real threats of having their bills held in committee and having funding withheld from future campaigns3.

The result? Legislators who might have proposed amendments to a bill a decade ago now simply vote “yes.” Bills pass at record-breaking rates, often without compromise.

In our opinion, this is not good governance.

What changed?

Over the past decade or so, Utah’s legislative leadership has started amassing more power—for example, impinging on the executive branch by giving the legislature the power to call itself into special session. State laws have also curtailed what local leaders can decide for their towns, cities, and counties, including taking away powers formerly granted those elected officials.

Utah’s judiciary has in recent years served as one of the more effective checks on state power. It has since become the focal point of legislative reform. In just the past year:

• Utah’s state Supreme Court was expanded.

• Multiple Utah judges were personally attacked by prominent political leaders.

• Several judges whose rulings GOP leaders didn’t like were pressured to retire or resign.

• The appointment of the court’s chief justice has become more political.

The remaining check on the power of state leaders is the people. Ordinary citizens provide such a “check” via Utah’s ballot initiative process. As such, Utah’s ballot initiative has become a target.

In 2024, Utah’s House and Senate leaders pushed Amendment D, which would have given the legislature the ability to substantially change voter-approved ballot initiatives—diminishing the power of ordinary citizens. Amendment D was found to have violated proper procedures (as well as use misleading language), and was struck from the ballot in 2024. Earlier this year, a legislative-backed referendum to repeal Utah’s Prop 4 redistricting laws failed to garner adequate signatures.

But Utah’s leaders aren’t backing down. A different, but related legislative initiative will appear on ballots this fall. Amendment B (formerly SJR2) would raise the threshold to pass citizen-led ballot initiatives. If passed, ballot initiatives with tax implications—arguably all of them—must get at least 60% of votes rather than a simple majority to pass. We worry that Amendment B is just one more way to concentrate power.

An unchecked legislature

When checks and balances are weakened, the balance of laws can tip to favor those making them. In our case, Utah laws often benefit developers. A significant portion of legislators in our House, Senate, and governor’s office (including senior leaders) work in real estate as their day job. Consequently, many legislators feel pressure to favor development no matter the tradeoffs, even when their communities have little to gain. Like when new development overwhelms existing schools, water, public safety, and other infrastructure. (Hello giant data centers).

Prioritizing development comes at a cost. Some state lawmakers have personally benefitted from state projects to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars. Some projects divert water from the Great Salt Lake, which is desperately low already. Sometimes it’s not so obvious.

Take the 2019 legislation that created Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs). “Public infrastructure” sounds good. However, PIDs are essentially area-limited bonds that transfers development costs from developers to future residents.

Utah’s state auditor is concerned. So are many new homeowners. PIDs are now burdening homeowners all over the state with unexpected—and significant—increased taxes. One example we saw showed that PID financing added thousands of dollars a year of property tax. Over time, PIDs essentially add 30–50% to residents’ total property tax bill, an amount that can increase over time.

PIDs and self-dealing just two small examples of developer-friendly regulation. They’re also a microcosm of what happens with one-party rule. You can find the effects in nearly every sector, from unfunded mandates that hurt public schools and local government to bills that undermine voting systems and public health measures.

We truly believe Utah deserves better.

What you can do

Good news! We as ordinary citizens and moderates voters can do something right now about changing the state. It’s election season. Your vote still matters.

• Show up in numbers. Check your voter registration. Watch for your ballot in early October. Fill it out and return it early, in a dropbox if necessary (mail ballots must be in before 8pm on Election Day to be counted).

• Help others do the same. Host a voting party or help your neighbors check their registration and vote. Text 5 friends to remind them to turn in their ballot. (You’re welcome to share this post and our upcoming candidate guides).

• Prioritize people who represent their constituents. Voting straight-ticket can mean voting for the status quo. We know from experience that supermajorities result in concentrated power with few real checks. To counteract this, look for people who aim to represent their constituents over ideology or party interests. Please consider new candidates, including independent candidates and those from parties you may not have voted for in the past, to find these types of leaders.

• Get involved with a local campaign. When you find good candidates running for office, know that they likely need your help. Many campaigns are running on fumes; winning campaigns (unfortunately) can cost a pretty penny. Please contribute what you can: time, skills, money, or lawn space for a sign.

More good news: Utah still has many principled leaders and candidates who want to do the right thing. Watch for our candidate guides (to be posted in coming weeks) to help you find the best candidates for your area—stay tuned.

Together, we can help make Utah politics more responsive to the values and needs of ordinary citizens. Let’s make it happen!

In recent years, Americans have repeatedly heard claims that our elections are plagued by widespread fraud, that results cannot be trusted. Those are serious allegations. If true, they would demand immediate action.

Yet, after years, these allegations still lack evidence. Investigations including governmental audits and cybersecurity experts have not substantiated claims of widespread election fraud.

We believe in following where the facts lead, and we worry that undermining trust in elections has real consequences for the nation we love.

The prevalence of voter fraud

We at the Network of Utah Moderates believe strongly in free and fair elections. To ensure they remain so, elections must be safeguarded and reports of voter fraud should be thoroughly investigated. Every violation of election law should be taken seriously.

But isolated cases of fraud are very different from widespread fraud.

We recognize that errors and one-off violations—including votes that shouldn’t be counted—do occasionally slip through. Organizations across the political spectrum, including the conservative Heritage Foundation, maintain databases that document those cases.

These cases have been thoroughly examined by state election officials, law enforcement agencies, third parties, and the courts. Research on the topic suggests that fraud remains rare—the rate of voter fraud has remained consistent at about .0000845%.

Recent claims of widespread fraud have been thoroughly investigated, too. In every case, the evidence has simply not supported the conclusion that widespread fraud occurred. To reiterate: no evidence supports the claim that fraud altered the outcome of recent American elections. Moreover, organizations like True the Vote that claimed to have evidence of widespread fraud later admitted in court they had no evidence to back their claims of ballot stuffing. (See footnotes for more citations)

When political leaders repeatedly make claims that aren’t supported by the evidence, they don’t just undermine confidence in a single election—they undermine confidence in elections themselves. That has real consequences.

Civic trust is valuable

Confidence in our elections is one of the United States’ most valuable assets. When this trust is weakened, citizens become less confident that their vote matters, less likely to vote, and more likely to question election outcomes before the evidence has been examined.

Real-world implications include election workers face increasing threats and harassment while carrying out an essential public service. Even trust between neighbors can erode as more people assume political opponents won through cheating rather than persuasion or merit.

Declining confidence also shapes public policy. People who believe widespread fraud is occurring become more willing to support changes to election laws in the name of security. Some proposals may strengthen security (we’re all for these!), but other reforms create unnecessary barriers for eligible voters without meaningfully improving election integrity. Such reforms can lower turnout and—in the worst instances—deprive some U.S. citizens of their Constitutional right to vote.

Whatever reforms we choose should be driven by evidence, not by fear.

What Utah has done to secure elections

That’s one reason we’ve appreciated Utah’s approach. Rather than assuming the best (or worst) about our elections, Utah’s top election officials got to work investigating concerns. State leaders reviewed more than two million voter registrations, strengthened voter-roll maintenance, conducted audits, publicly shared their findings, and made improvements where needed.

That’s what responsible stewardship looks like.

Strong election security and public confidence aren’t competing values. They depend on one another. Let’s keep conducting thorough audits, upgrading security, and investigating fraud whenever it’s found.

We also need to accept the results of those audits instead of undermining them for political purposes. When investigations are complete, audits have been conducted, and the facts are available, we should let that evidence shape our conclusions.

What we expect from our leaders

Public trust is difficult to build and remarkably easy to lose. That’s why Utah—and the country at large—needs leaders who speak honestly about our election system and its results. When leaders repeat claims that aren’t supported by the evidence, they shape public opinion and weaken confidence in one of the institutions that makes self-government possible.

We should expect more from those who seek to lead us. Let’s elect leaders who value truth over fear, evidence over rhetoric, and who strengthen public confidence rather than diminish it.

As citizens, we’re responsible to hold ourselves to that same standard. To ask good questions, seek reliable information, follow the evidence wherever it leads. That means being willing to change our minds when the facts call for it (which is difficult!)

Here at the Network of Utah Moderates, we may not all agree on every policy or every politician. We do, however, agree that truth matters, evidence matters, and trust is worth protecting. By demanding honesty and choosing evidence over fear, we can help strengthen not just our elections, but our representative democracy itself.

We have hope that together, we can rebuild trust. Hope that we can choose leaders who elevate our public discourse rather than divide it. Hope that we can become citizens who seek for understanding, follow the evidence, and uphold truth. Thanks for joining us in this quest.

We’ll be posting more in coming weeks about how Utah specifically protects election security—including details you may not have heard before, along with more information about how Utah works as we gear up for the November 2026 election.

Sources for further reading

• U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. “Statement by Attorney General William P. Barr on Election Fraud Investigations,” December 1, 2020, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-election-fraud-investigations.

• Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council Executive Committees. “Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees.” November 12, 2020. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election-infrastructure.

• Christopher Wray, testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, September 24, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/24/fbi-has-not-seen-evidence-of-widespread-voter-fraud-director-wray-tells-senators.html.

• The Heritage Foundation, “Election Fraud Database”. Accessed July 15, 2026.

• Brennan Center for Justice, “The Myth of Voter Fraud,” accessed July 15, 2026, https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud.

• Brennan Center for Justice, “Heritage Fraud Database: An Assessment,” September 8, 2017. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/heritage-fraud-database-assessment.

• Associated Press, “Trump’s Drumbeat of Lies About the 2020 Election Keeps Getting Louder. Here Are the Facts,” updated July 2023. Associated Press fact check.

• Brennan Center for Justice, “It’s Official: The Election Was Secure,” December 11, 2020. It’s Official: The Election Was Secure.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”1

On our 250th anniversary, may we as Americans come ever closer to living out these truths.

You may have noticed that the Network of Utah Moderates took a bit of hiatus after the primary election. Whew.

The deadline for the election “canvass”—when results become official—is coming up this Tuesday. Candidates who won their primary will progress to the November general election, where some will face challengers from other parties on the ballot.

How did the election go?

After a few months of deliberation and discussion, a small group of Utahns launched this network at the beginning of June, the same week ballots went out. Throughout June, we published twenty-two voter guides before the end of the primary election. A giant thanks to all who contributed!

The results: Exactly two-thirds of the candidates we recommended won or are likely to win their races, a total of 14 candidates. The other seven we recommended did not progress past the primary.2

Quite honestly, this is a win. Many of us have been involved with and following local Utah politics for many years. Two-thirds is by far the highest percentage of decent, principled candidates we’ve seen win their primaries in recent years. Though we’re disappointed in the outcomes of some races, this is overall the most optimistic we’ve felt about Utah politics in years.

Notably: longtime Senate President Stuart Adams, arguably the most powerful politician in Utah, lost his bid to challenger Stephanie Hollist. Mr. Adams’ exit signals a major shake-up in Utah’s legislature. We’re hopeful that as a result, legislative priorities and practices change, prioritizing the needs of citizens and lessening the influence of major developers on state decision making.

As one friend messaged us after election night: “Is this… hope?”

We believe so. Our hope remains that by building a network of Utahns committed to finding principled, experienced, thoughtful leaders, we can influence races all over the state and our national politics as well.

Share Network of Utah Moderates

What comes next?

The general election that ends November 3. And unlike the primary election, every eligible Utah voter (regardless of party affiliation) can vote this fall.

Our suggestion: take a breather before November. Like many voters, you may have gotten a deluge of texts, emails, and mailers right before June 23rd. It can be a lot!

When you’ve regrouped, here’s a few ideas::

• It’s always a good time to check your voter registration and help a friend or new voter register to participate in November.

• Learn about all the candidates for the general election (see candidate filings). In June we were focused on a select group of partisan primaries, but we know of great candidates who will appear in November, too! By starting early, you have the chance to make a difference in someone’s campaign. Read candidate websites, follow them on social media, and attend—or even host—a candidate event or cottage meeting.

• Reach out to your candidates directly. Many candidates share their contact information widely, but voters seldom reach out. Consider being one of those few engaged citizens. Over the next few months, send candidates in your area an email, schedule a call, or meet them in person. Ask questions about their priorities, stances, experience, and governing philosophies. Most candidates appreciate thoughtful interactions with the people they hope to represent—and if not, you’ve learned valuable information.

• Help out with a local campaign. If you find candidates you can really support, get involved. can be as small as sharing a social media post, hosting a yard sign, or making a donation (it can be small!) to help someone you want to win office represent you.

Meanwhile, we at the Network are gearing up to write candidate guides for the general election for as many races as we can. If you’re familiar with a race and inclined to help us, we’d love to have you help draft a guide (reach out at networkofutahmoderates@gmail.com).

We hope these voter guides have been—and continue to be—a useful resource in making informed decisions about Utah’s leadership.

Back to the 4th of July

Independence Day reminds us that America’s greatest strength has never been perfect agreement. It has been our willingness to come together, generation after generation, to preserve liberty and expand opportunity. The United States is at its best when ordinary people—neighbors, friends, and communities—choose to work together in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for all.

250 years is something to celebrate. The story of our country is still being written, and each of us has a role to play.

This Independence Day, may we recommit ourselves to hope, to engaged citizenship, and to the enduring belief that by working together, we can leave our communities , our state, and our country better than we found them.

Happy Fourth of July—and happy 250th birthday, USA!