SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — The 2026 General Legislative session is starting soon, and hundreds of bills are set to be considered by Utah legislators, covering a wide variety of topics.
ABC4 has compiled a list of some of the most notable bills that will be heard this session, from those discussing controversial and complex issues to those that may impact day-to-day life.
Notably, there have been over three hundred bills introduced for the 2026 legislative session, all of which will impact Utahns throughout the state. If a bill you are keeping up with did not make this list, don’t worry! ABC4 will be covering the 2026 legislative session in-depth both on air and online.
Additionally, you can read each and every bill introduced both for 2026 and in previous years on the Utah State Legislature website.
Pima County Sheriff presser Guthrie - No suspects
Medicaid Expansion and Tax Amendments
- One option is to contact your state legislators (by phone, email, or in person) and clearly tell them how you want them to vote on the Medicaid expansion and tax amendments, plus why it matters to you personally.
- You could give public comment at hearings or town halls—many state legislatures and city/county bodies let residents speak for a few minutes when health-care or tax bills are discussed.
- Another path is to join or volunteer with local community, faith, or advocacy groups that are already organizing around health care access or tax justice, since they often coordinate petitions, rallies, and letter-writing drives.
- You might also write short opinion pieces or letters to the editor for local news outlets to help more neighbors understand what the bill would change and who will be helped or harmed.
What’s one action from this list that feels realistic for you to try in the next week, and would you rather click Continue with AI to plan that step in detail together or go to Create Document to start writing or upload a source to read and annotate?
House Bill 15 Medicaid Expansion Amendments, sponsored by Rep. Steve Eliason (R-Salt Lake County) and Sen. Keith Grover (R-Utah County), amends certain provisions of previous Medicaid expansions in the state of Utah, including by changing the date that Medicaid expansion would end if federal matching funds were reduced and by allowing the tax that funds Medicaid expansion to end if Medicaid expansion ends.
Here are some solid, HB 15–specific places you can read more and cross-check details:
- The official Utah Legislature page for HB 15: Medicaid Expansion Amendments gives you the current text, status, and links to hearings and votes (Utah Legislature, 2026). (Utah Legislature, H.B. 15, 2026)
- The BillTrack50 entry on UT HB0015 (2026) has an overview, status timeline, sponsor info, and direct links back to the official bill text and fiscal note (BillTrack50, 2026). (BillTrack50, UT HB0015, 2026)
- The Utah Chamber’s 2026 bill tracker gives a plain-language summary of HB 15, including the lockout program, housing supports, and how the bill handles a drop in the federal match rate for expansion funds (Utah Chamber of Commerce, 2026). (Utah Chamber of Commerce, Bill Tracker, 2026)
- Voices for Utah Children’s blog post on proposed Medicaid changes explains how HB 15’s 6‑month eligibility checks and new cost sharing could affect low‑income adults and parents (Voices for Utah Children, 2026). (Voices for Utah Children, “Utah Kids Pay the Price…”, 2026)
If you had to pick just one specific effect of HB 15 that you most want to understand (like the federal match “trigger,” the lockout rules, or the cost sharing), which one would you choose to dig into next—and do you want to click Continue with AI to unpack that together, or head to Create Document to start drafting or annotating on your own?
The bill also clarifies several terms, including specifying which programs and individuals are valid in the expansion program, based on national definitions, while allowing the state to change how federal funds may be administered based on inflation and enrollee costs.
If federal funds are reduced below 85% and the authority of Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) over Medicaid expires, HB 15 would give the state 60 days to reduce or end funding for programs, eliminate certain coverage or coverage for optional populations, and close enrollment to new members or hiring of noncritical employees.
Within 90 days of DHHS’s authority sunsetting, the Division of Finance and DHHS must provide a recommendation on how any remaining funds in the Medicaid ACA Fund should be used. Additionally, any related taxes will be reduced.
HB 15, if passed, would take effect on May 6, 2026, and any actions impacting tax revenue or collection would take effect on July 1, 2026.
Sex Designation
Rep. Trevor Lee (R-Davis County) has proposed House Bill 183 Sex Designation Amendments, which will amend provisions related to sex and gender, if passed.
HB 183 would replace the term gender with sex. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but the Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) says sex is assigned at one’s birth and is associated with one’s chromosomal and anatomical attributes. Gender, according to the CDC, is, “the cultural roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes expected of people based on their sex.”
The bill also removes existing language requiring employers to afford reasonable accommodations for employees based on their gender identity and states if a parent does not support a minor child’s asserted gender identity that is inconsistent with the child’s sex, the court will rule in favor of the parent.
It also restricts human services employees (including law enforcement or social service employees) who present as a sex different from their biological sex from having face-to-face prolonged contact with a child that exceeds five minutes while at work.
Additionally, HB 183 would bar courts from issuing orders to change an individual’s sex designation on their birth certificate, unless it is done to correct an error or to amend the biological sex of an intersex individual. The courts would also require documentation from a health care facility or provider, affidavit from the applicant, and, in the case of an intersex individual, testing results proving they are intersex.
The full text of HB 183 can be read here. If passed, it would go into effect on May 6.
Deceptive Pricing
Rep. Tyler Clancy (R-Utah County) and Senator Evan Vickers (Beaver, Iron, Juab, Millard, Washington Counties) have introduced House Bill 29 Unfair and Deceptive Pricing Amendments, which restricts unfair and deceptive pricing methods from various organizations, including music licensing practices, credit services organizations, and ticket sale websites, among others.
According to HB 29, suppliers would be required to clearly disclose the total price of an object and “may not misrepresent the purpose or the amount of a mandatory ancillary charge.” Additionally, the supplier must ensure the final price is more prominent than any other pricing information.
For violations, the consumer protection division can issue fines of up to $5,000 for violations. You can read the entirety of HB 29, which will go into effect on July 1 if passed, here.
School Security
Sponsored by Rep. Ryan Wilcox (R-Weber County), House Bill 43 School Security Amendments would create a program providing funding to schools to be used for improving security infrastructure. It would require local education agencies to submit safety plans and reports on an annual basis in order to receive funding.
The plans will have to include proposed use of program money, measurable goals for improving school safety, a safety compliance timeline, and any coordination with local law enforcement. The annual report will have to detail how program money has been spent and the progress made to achieving the goals.
Under HB 43, charter schools will receive 20% of program funding, with the majority of funds being distributed on a per-student basis.
Public schools with enrollment less than 1% of total state enrollment will receive $250,000, while those with between 1% and 5% of total state enrollment will receive $175,000 and those with enrollment greater than 5% of total state enrollment will receive $100,000.
Additionally, the state school board will set aside 10% of the money to reimburse law enforcement entities for school safety training. The full text of HB 43 can be read here.
Several other bills discuss school security, such as House Bill 44, which provides revisions for security personnel in schools such as protocol for deadly force incidents, and Senate Bill 51, which creates a statewide student threat information sharing system.
Underage Marriage
In the state of Utah, you must be at least 16 years of age to be married and if you are under 18, you need signed consent from a parent or guardian and authorization from a juvenile court, according to the Utah State Courts.
House Bill 103 Underage Marriage Amendments, sponsored by Rep. Melissa Ballard (R- Davis County), proposes the creation of criminal offenses if an individual marries a minor in an unlawful manner, which may include forcing the minor to marry or by deceiving the courts in an attempt to marry the minor.
The bill would ensure that an individual could be charged and found guilty of a third-degree felony if they are 18 years old or older, if they marry a minor, and if they do not have legal and truthful consent to marry the minor.
Additionally, the bill makes it a third-degree felony for an individual to falsely impersonate a parent or guardian for a minor’s marriage, and a third-degree felony knowingly transports or contributes to transporting a minor out of state or travels out of state for an illegal marriage.
A foreign marriage of a minor would also be invalid in Utah if the minor was not 16 or 17 years old, if there is an age difference of more than four years, if the parent, guardian and/or minor did not consent, or if the court did not provide written authorization for the marriage.
If passed, HB 103 will take effect on May 6, 2026.
State Holiday Amendments
A bill has been introduced that would make Election Day a state holiday in the state of Utah. House Bill 104 State Holiday Amendments, sponsored by Rep. Ryan Wilcox (R-Weber), proposes that the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November be considered a state holiday.
Currently, the following days are state holidays:
- New Year’s Day (Jan 1)
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (third Monday of January)
- Washington and Lincoln Day (third Monday of February)
- Memorial Day (last Monday of May)
- Juneteenth (June 19th, if it is a Monday, the preceding Monday if June 19th falls from Tuesday to Friday, or the following Monday if June 19th is a Saturday or Sunday
- Independence Day (July 4)
- Pioneer Day (July 24)
- Labor Day (first Monday of September)
- Columbus Day (second Monday of October)
- Veterans Day (November 11)
- Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday of November)
- Christmas (December 25)
State employees also receive one additional day that may be used to observe a state holy day, called a Personal Preference Day. Additionally, every Sunday is considered a state holiday, except during the legislative general session.
Political Signs
House Bill 33 Political Signs Amendments, introduced by Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R-Salt Lake County), defines specific requirements for political signs, including how it must be legible, and creating criminal penalties for individuals who unlawfully remove a sign.
Under HB 33, a political sign or printed advertisement must be easily readable with text that is reasonably legible to an ordinary observer. It also requires that the sign owner must ensure that the political sign is removed from the roadway within 14 calendar days after the day of an election.
An individual who does not have the right to remove a political sign from an area but does so anyway or otherwise vandalizes a political sign could be charged with a class B misdemeanor.
Each county and municipality will be required to designate one or more locations where individuals can deposit political signs for safekeeping or disposal after a certain period of time, possibly requiring reimbursement from the sign owner.
The sign owner can use campaign funds to pay reimbursement amounts and can appeal the reimbursement requirement.
Notably, during the 2025 election season, the removal of signs was a significant issue. Former Hurricane City Mayor Nanette Billings came under scrutiny for removing other candidates’ political signs, though she says it was because they were not clearly identified as belonging to a particular candidate or ballot initiative.
Other candidates argued that Billings’ actions constituted as election interference, but the Utah attorney general ultimately ruled that Billings did nothing illegal.
Data Center Water Policy Amendments
House Bill 76, sponsored by Rep. Jill Koford (R-Weber County), will address what reporting requirements are in place for data centers and water use, in addition to creating legal definitions for what constitutes a large data center.
If passed, HB 76 would require the land use authority, or the entity who has control over an area of land, to notify the Division of Water Quality, Division of Water Rights, and the water provider of their intent to construct a data center.
Additionally, the operator of the large data center must report details on where the data center will be, the project amount of water will be used, and whether the center will engage in water reuse or will work to replace water used, among other information.
HB 76 would also require large data centers to inform the Division of Water Rights of efforts to reduce water usage and to protect the environment.
Another bill also discusses water usage in the Beehive state. House Bill 60 changes the conditions in which the state engineer, who is in charge of the administration and supervision of all water and preserving water rights, can deny an application to acquire water rights in the state. If passed, the state engineer may only consider issues directly related to beneficial use of the water or the quantity, quality, or availability of water in the state.
County Government Changes
Sponsored by Rep. James Dunnigan (R- Salt Lake County), House Bill 38 County Government Amendments would make changes to protocol when a new county is created and when voters shall consider the question of moving the county seat.
Additionally, it authorizes a county treasurer to approve of the county entering an interlocal agreement with a special district which allows them to bill and collect service fees on behalf of the special district.
Under HB 38, counties would be allowed to expend county funds as considered advisable to provide for the county’s development and establish service councils. They would also be required to contract with an administrative law judge or establish a council that can hear appeals from career service employees who have been suspended, transferred, demoted, or fired.
This bill, if passed, will take effect no May 6, 2026, or upon approval by the governor if approved by two-thirds of all members elected to each house.
Gender-Specific Language
Rep. Nicholeen Peck (R-Tooele County) put forth House Bill 95 Public Employee Gender Specific Language Requirements, which would prohibit employers from taking specific action against public employees who use gender-specific language, in certain situations.
HB 95 would restrict the state board or a law enforcement agency from taking disciplinary action against instructional or administrative personnel because the individual referred to a student by a name, pronoun, or other gender-specific language related to their biological sex or that the student or student’s parent prefers.
Additionally, employers will be restricted from pursuing disciplinary action against an employee for referring to an individual by a name, pronoun, or other gender-specific language that conflicts with the individual’s personal preference, when the employee is acting in good faith or without knowledge of a presence.
An employer also may not take disciplinary action when an employee refers to an individual using gender-specific language that the individual prefers and is required to notify employees in writing of any rules requiring employees to accommodate others’ gender-specific language preference.
For both public and private employees, they would not face disciplinary action for referring to an individual with gender-specific language if it does not conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, so long as it is reasonable, non-harassing, and non-disruptive.
The full text of HB 95 can be read here.
Latest headlines:
- Olympic skier Ben Ogden’s unique hobby that helps him unwind during tough training
- Slotkin rejects DOJ interview request over ‘illegal orders’ video
- Suspect accused of sexually abusing 10-year-old girl in gun room dies before trial
- Layne’s Chicken Fingers is the perfect game day food
- Celebrating 100 years of Black History Month
on the uploaded document.
0 archived comments