In early April, hundreds of social media posts flooded users’ feeds, mentioning a new Utah registration law that will prevent Utah residents voter records from remaining completely anonymous.
The previously mentioned posts were posted in response to Utah voters receiving a letter in the mail stating: “You are receiving this notice because currently your voter registration record is classified as a private record. During the 2026 general legislative session, the Utah legislature passed Senate Bill 153 that removes most voter record privacy protections.”
The letter states that going into effect May 25, voter registration records will be made available to the public, including:
- The voter’s full legal name
- The voter’s identification number
- The voter’s residential and mailing address
- Voting precinct and districts
- The voter’s party affiliation
- The voter’s status as an inactive or active voter
- The last date that the voter’s registration record was updated
- A list of elections in which they have voted
“This information will be available to any political organization who pays the $1,050 fee to access the statewide bulk file,” said Geoff Allen, Utah Tech University assistant professor of political science. “Only those organizations may purchase the file and doxxing the file is a misdemeanor that will result in a substantial penalty.”
SB 153 was introduced January 2026, with the chief sponsor being Senator John D. Johnson. The bill was officially signed by Gov. Spencer Cox March 18.
Voters are still able to apply to be labeled under an “at-risk” voter status, but must submit completed forms to their county clerk by May 6.
To be considered at-risk, voters must fall under certain criteria, including:
- A person who is or could be a victim of domestic violence
- Law enforcement officers
- Individuals protected by a protection order
- Members of the armed forces
- Public figures
- A person who resides with an individual who falls under any of the previously mentioned criteria
A Utah Tech student expressed concern over the fact that the opportunity to achieve “at-risk” status isn’t reasonable.
“Only being able to opt out until May 6 is not reasonable,” said Natalia Nixon, a senior pre-med major from St. George. “There is also no appeal process for those who are rejected from opting out of this, even though they are an at-risk group.”
Outside of concerns surrounding at-risk individuals, Nixon also finds it to be an invasion of privacy.
“I have found that plenty of politicians have been able to reach out just fine through political organizations rather than through voter lists,” Nixon said. “I think the privacy of Utahns should be prioritized… Now with that being removed, hundreds of thousands of Utahns who previously opted to withhold their information are losing that simple level of privacy.”
Other Utah residents feel positively about the new bill.
“At its core, the law promotes transparency in our electoral system,” said T. Chace Smith, president of The College Republicans at Weber State University. “Other states like Florida, Ohio and North Carolina have similar provisions, often allowing access to voter information through regulated processes.”
Smith expressed understanding of the concerns individuals have.
“Those concerns are valid,” he said. “However, in today’s modern age much of this information is already shared through social media, public records or online activity, intentionally or not.”
Allen explained what the goal was with the passing of the bill.
“A substantial amount of voter mobilization in this country for formal electoral contests, like caucuses and primaries, is actually carried out by political parties, not the states themselves,” he said. “Conventions and caucuses determine who will be on the general election ballot come November… While the state is more involved in primaries, caucuses and conventions are entirely organized by the parties themselves.”
The current system leaves pressure on political organizations and parties to contact voters regarding conventions and caucuses. “By making these files available to parties and campaigns, the general hope may be to improve participation rates in party conventions and caucuses,” Allen said.
Yet, some individuals feel concern over what this could mean for Utah voters.
“Utah is already a state where it can be hard to be different, and much of the public voter information can make those in this group more vulnerable,” Nixon said. “Most people won’t do anything nefarious with the information, but some will. Hence, the importance of keeping this information private, within the hands of the voters themselves.”
Others feel optimistic about what the new law could help achieve.
“There are already strong legal frameworks in place, such as the Freedom of Information Act, that help define boundaries between public access and individual privacy,” Smith said. “This law operates within that broader precedent of open and transparent government, not government overreach.”
