Committee holds measure that would raise signature threshold for indirect initiatives

Representative Stoddard presented HB 160 to align the signature threshold for indirect (legislative referral) initiatives with the threshold for direct initiatives placed on the ballot. The sponsor said the indirect route — which historically required half the signatures of a direct initiative — has rarely been used and the bill seeks to put both routes on the same level.

Why it matters: Critics said raising the indirect threshold would make citizen access to legislative consideration harder and could erode a tool for voters to prompt legislative action. Richard W. Bengals, a Clearfield resident and active-duty service member, warned that HB 160 would "effectively push the signature threshold... to 140,000 from 70,000" based on current active voter counts and urged the committee to reject increases that limit popular sovereignty.

Committee discussion and history: Members questioned the statutory history (sponsor said the indirect mechanism dates to 1953) and whether any meaningful use of the indirect route exists; several members suggested the committee could eliminate or substantially revise the indirect path while preserving direct ballot access.

Action: Representative Fifia moved to table; Representative Hayes offered a substitute motion to hold the bill (keep it alive for revision). The committee conducted a roll-call vote on the motion to hold; the motion passed with a majority and one recorded dissent from the chair (Chair Burton voted 'no').

Next steps: The bill is held for further work and possible revision; sponsors said they would continue discussions and may return with a substitute or amendment.