Utah House approves resolution to terminate local face‑covering orders, 45‑29

The Utah House of Representatives on Jan. 20, 2022, voted 45 to 29 to approve first substitute SJR 3, a joint resolution to terminate public-health orders pertaining to face coverings and to express the Legislature’s preference that such mandates be removed.

Sponsor Representative Perucci framed the resolution as restoring individual choice and easing divisiveness, saying data from other jurisdictions and changes in the omicron wave warrant removing mandates. "Voting to remove this mandate does not remove an individual's ability to wear a mask," Perucci told members, adding that counties and cities, and individuals, remain free to require or wear masks.

Opponents during floor debate warned the resolution would tie the hands of local health officials amid a surge. Representative Carol Moss recounted recent family losses tied to COVID and urged colleagues to preserve short-term measures that reduce spread. "My husband and my mother both died within the last 6 months. Effects of COVID," Moss said, and cited teacher absences and Granite School District experience where mask use coincided with fewer illnesses.

Lawmakers debated both practical and philosophical concerns. Supporters argued mandates were often unenforceable and worsened social polarization; Representative Burton said enforcement falls unfairly to frontline workers. Representative Lisonbee said only two of Utah’s 29 counties had enacted mask mandates and cited reporting suggesting mandates are not the right long-term tool. Representative Briscoe questioned whether local health directors issued orders out of necessity or pressure; the sponsor said local officials acted in good faith but the Legislature must weigh broader policy tradeoffs.

A procedural question about legal effect prompted a brief point of clarification: a member cited House Rule 4‑7‑102 and Utah Constitution Article 27 to ask whether the body needed a supermajority for an immediate effective action; the Speaker and Legislative Research and General Counsel clarified that the 60‑day effective‑date rule applies to acts (statutes) and not to this type of resolution.

After debate, the House voted to pass substitute SJR 3, 45 yes to 29 no. The resolution will be signed by the Speaker and returned to the Senate for the President's signature.