Utah State Laws
✅ Law #1: Income Tax Rate Cut & Child Tax / Employer Childcare Credits (HB 106)
Statute / Bill: HB 106 — Income Tax Revisions (governor.utah.gov)
Effective: After enactment (2025) — tax year impacts beginning during or after the law’s signing; cuts become permanent. (governor.utah.gov)
📝 What it does
Lowers Utah’s income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.50%. (governor.utah.gov)
Expands the child tax credit, adding relief for “young families.” (governor.utah.gov)
Creates a new employer-provided child care tax credit to help businesses support working parents. (governor.utah.gov)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
The state projects $97 million/year in revenue “lost” (i.e. taxpayers keep more) just from the rate cut. (governor.utah.gov)
Combined with other measures, total tax cuts are ~$148 million for Utahns in this session. (governor.utah.gov)
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Middle and lower-income Utah taxpayers (especially with children); businesses offering childcare benefit from credit.
Affects: State budget funding for other programs may be reduced or rebalanced; some taxpayers benefit more than others depending on income/child dependency.
🧑⚖️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Signed by Governor Spencer Cox as part of his tax relief agenda. (governor.utah.gov)
Sponsored by legislative majority; opposition would likely come from those concerned about state spending cuts or under-funded services. (No major public opposition noted in summaries.)
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Tax relief for many; helps with childcare costs; supports working families.
Makes Utah more competitive in attracting/retaining residents/businesses.
❌ Cons:
Reduced revenue can stress state budget / funding for public services.
Potential for gaps if revenue forecasts drop or economic conditions change.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Utah’s HB 106 (2025) cuts income tax slightly, boosts child tax credits, and adds a childcare credit for employers — delivering ~$97M in annual tax relief, especially helping families, but with trade-offs in state revenue and budget priorities.
✅ Law #2: “Utah Fits All” Scholarship Changes & School Device Policy (HB 455 + SB 178)
Statute / Bills: HB 455 & SB 178 — education-related changes (Deseret News)
Effective: SB 178 (device policy) takes effect Summer 2025 / for the 2025-2026 school year. HB 455’s scholarship changes apply in upcoming allocations. (Deseret News)
📝 What it does
Utah Fits All (HB 455): Homeschooled students aged 5-11 get $4,000/year; ages 12-18 get $6,000/year. Private school students still eligible for $8,000/year. (Deseret News)
Introduces limits: extracurricular expenses capped at 20% of scholarship amount; physical education expenses additionally limited to 20%. Also prohibits using scholarship funds to buy furniture. (Deseret News)
SB 178: By default, no cellphones, smartwatches, or similar devices are allowed in school classrooms. Schools/districts can craft different policies, but SB 178 sets the default for 2025-2026. (Deseret News)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Scholarship funding budget needs to cover expanded or modified eligibility/expenditures. May require administrative costs for oversight. (Utah State Board of Education)
Device policy has low direct cost; mostly administrative/training for school districts.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Homeschooled families get financial support; private school families continue eligibility; parents who prefer restrictions on devices in classrooms.
Affects: School districts (need to adopt/implement device policies); students accustomed to device use; families who may want to use scholarship for more flexible spending (furniture etc.).
🧑⚖️ Who sponsored / who opposed
HB 455 sponsored by Rep. Candice Pierucci. (Deseret News)
SB 178 sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Fillmore. (Deseret News)
Support from education/school-focused advocates; opposition likely from those concerned about restricting student autonomy / families wanting broader uses of scholarship money.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Scholarship support helps homeschooling/private education options; device restrictions may reduce distractions in class.
Clear limits help prevent misuse of scholarship funds; improve academic focus.
❌ Cons:
Some families lose flexibility (e.g. buying furniture).
Device policy may feel restrictive; enforcement inconsistent or contentious.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Utah’s HB 455 & SB 178 (2025) modify the “Utah Fits All” scholarship (scholarships by school type, grade, with new limits) and ban student devices by default in classrooms for 2025-26 — boosting educational funding, tightening oversight, and tightening classroom norms.
✅ Law #3: Adaptive Driving Equipment Exemption (HB 79)
Statute / Bill: HB 79 — Adaptive Driving Equipment tax exemption (Disability Research Institute)
Effective: 2025 session via state tax law (effective date per bill text). (Disability Research Institute)
📝 What it does
Provides tax exemptions for vehicle owners who have adaptive driving equipment installed, such as for people with disabilities (wheelchair lifts, swivel seats, hand or foot controls, etc.). (Disability Research Institute)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Some reduced revenue from state/local taxes on those adaptive vehicles/parts.
Probably small overall cost, but meaningful for individuals benefitting.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Drivers with disabilities; vehicle owners needing adaptive equipment.
Affects: State tax/tax collection; possibly auto parts suppliers; some impact on tax revenue.
🧑⚖️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Part of bills tracked in IDRPP summary. (Disability Research Institute)
Support from disability advocacy; likely minimal opposition (cost vs fairness).
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Promotes accessibility; reduces financial burden for disabled individuals.
Recognizes costs of adapting vehicles.
❌ Cons:
Revenue loss for state; could be small but cumulative.
Need clarity in what qualifies; possible inconsistent application or bureaucracy.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Utah’s HB 79 (2025) offers tax relief for drivers with adaptive vehicle equipment — making mobility more accessible, with a modest hit to tax revenue balanced by fairness benefits.
✅ Law #4: “Ashley’s Law” — Sexual Crimes Against Incapacitated Adults (HB 127 S1)
Statute / Bill: HB 127 S1 — Sexual Crime Amendments, aka “Ashley’s Law” (Disability Research Institute)
Effective: Enacted in 2025 session (date per statute) (Disability Research Institute)
📝 What it does
Makes sexual crimes committed against “incapacitated adults” a first-degree felony, under circumstances that previously might have had lower classification. (Disability Research Institute)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Increased costs for law enforcement, prosecutors, courts when handling more serious felony cases.
Possibly higher incarceration costs where convictions occur.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Victims who are incapacitated adults; advocates for vulnerable populations; improves deterrence / legal protections.
Affects: Defendants in such cases; law enforcement & legal system workload; prisons/jails.
🧑⚖️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Part of IDRPP tracked bills summary. (Disability Research Institute)
Likely broad support for strengthening protections. Possible concerns about legal definitions / proof standards from defense interest groups.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Stronger legal protection for incapacitated adults.
Sends societal message that abuse of vulnerable people is taken seriously.
❌ Cons:
More burden on legal system; potential due process concerns depending on how “incapacitated” is defined or proven.
Higher costs for prosecution and incarceration.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Utah’s HB 127 S1 (2025) upgrades sexual crimes against incapacitated adults to first-degree felony status — more protection for vulnerable adults, with legal workload and cost consequences to follow.