What would politicians dress up as for Halloween? -Pignanelli and Webb

This is the week for zombies, apparitions and banshees... of course we’re talking about the U.S. Congress. Also, it’s Halloween. Although many of our politicians need no costume to be scary, we did a little research to help you recognize them when they show up on your doorstep for tricks or treats. You will want to hide the children.

Sen. Mitt Romney will be looking for tricks as “Pierre Delecto,” a French gigolo, the alias fronting his secret Twitter account used to defend himself against detractors. Everyone is excited to see this dude on their front porch. (You knew we couldn’t resist this.)

Inland Port protesters’ usual slapdash garb is more than satisfactory for the season’s terror. Their tricks include trespassing on private property, screaming nonsensical chants, shouting down speakers and haunting public hearings. They hope their antics are rewarded with candy — and not arrest warrants.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert will be donning the costume of Dracula. This will help him “drain” all those donors at the governor’s fundraising gala on Friday evening.

Former Speaker Greg Hughes will be Hamlet, carrying a skull and chanting “to be or not to be... governor.”

Jon Huntsman Jr. will be Captain America, having vanquished foes in China and Russia and ready to challenge pesky obstacles in the governor’s mansion… and beyond.

Congressman Rob Bishop will be returning as Casper the Friendly Ghost, highlighting the fact that most Utahns love the representative, even though he’s mostly invisible.

Gayle Ruzicka will not need to wear a costume again this year, as most lawmakers are already scared to death of this nice grandmother.

House Speaker Brad Wilson will sport Batman attire, the Caped Crusader of Tax Reform, crushing the evil enemy of maladjusted revenues.

Senate President Stuart Adams will seek treats as Gandalf the Grey, effortlessly and effectively leading his fellowship of senators through the scary forest filled with protestors, lobbyists and House members.

Hillary Clinton will don a Tulsi Gabbard costume and trick-or-treat as a Russian asset.

House Minority Leader Brian King is Harry Potter, hoping the wand can be waved to bring more Democrats to Capitol Hill.

Senate Minority Leader Karen Mayne will be dressed as Maleficent, because she intimidates most men on Capitol Hill.

Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox will don the attire of St. Francis, because he loves all creatures, especially that blue bird named Twitter.

Donald Trump needs no costume. His flaming red hair terrifies Democrats and the news media hoping to drive an impeachment stake through his heart.

Atty. Gen. Sean Reyes will be the new rap sensation “SRaze!”, rhyming and bouncing his songs against traffickers, white-collar criminals and grumpy legislators.

Congressman Ben McAdams will be stretchy superhero “Plastic Man,” demonstrating an uncanny ability to adapt and twist in response to pressures from the left and right.

Salt Lake City mayoral candidates Erin Mendenhall and Luz Escamilla will be Tweedledee and Tweedledum; the only difference is who can shout the loudest hate toward the Inland Port.

Congressman Chris Stewart will dress up like the fighter pilot he is, only with a twist: He’ll be Trump’s wing man, machine guns blazing, in the impeachment debates.

Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson will be Captain Marvel, reflecting her visits to the border, fighting for liberal ideals and defending the county (which needs much defending).

State Sen. Curt Bramble will be his usual human tornado.

This column once described him as “The Force,” so it’s only natural that state Auditor John Dougall, costumed as Darth Vader, continues to terrorize small government agencies.

Former Sen. Pat Jones, CEO of the Women’s Leadership Institute, will be Wonder Woman as she courageously elevates the stature of female leadership in Utah.

Sen. Mike Lee will seek treats as Thor, using his hammer to smash any incidents of unconstitutional behavior.

Former congressman and Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz will be sporting a ninja warrior outfit demonstrating his combat readiness to challenge (and write books about) the ever-present threat of the Deep State.

Mayor Jackie Biskupski will be dressed as Joan of Arc — leading a charge whether her troops are with her or not.

Third District Congressman John Curtis will be wearing his motorcycle leathers — roaring away from all the nonsense in Washington.

Pignanelli and Webb will seek treats while dressed as potted plants, reflecting both their intelligence and personalities. By the way, Webb prefers Kit Kats... Pignanelli likes tater tots.

Election is referendum on Trump, but also on leftist Democratic positions - Pignanelli and Webb

The 2020 election focus has mostly been on President. Donald Trump — especially impeachment, the economy, foreign relations and his combative and unpredictable personality. But the Democratic presidential race is picking up steam and the positions of Democratic candidates are also attracting attention. All of this will affect politics in Utah.

What is the impact of the Democratic presidential debates and town halls, both nationally and in Utah?

Pignanelli: “It’s autumn. The days are getting shorter, and so is the life expectancy of all but the strongest presidential campaigns.” — Anthony Zurcher, BBC

Viewers of last week’s debate were witness to a modern medical miracle. Several of the candidates apparently underwent a successful spinal implant operation. This is the most plausible explanation for the moderates’ newfound strength to openly challenge the liberal lions — especially Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Until Tuesday night, the hurtling trajectory of the Democratic Party to the extreme left seemed unstoppable. But Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Mayor Pete Buttigieg served notice that wild fantasies of expanding government programs must be accompanied by credible funding mechanisms. This open split with the frontrunner provides a safe harbor for rational Democrats in red states. Although progressives will grumble, candidates representing Utah’s minority party now have permission to craft a persona that appeals to the mainstream voter.

Whether through a spine stiffener, eating spinach or consuming strength hormones, Utah Democrats can replicate efforts of the recent debate’s practical contenders in pushing back against pressures from the left.

Webb: The 2020 election will mostly be a referendum on Trump. But smart voters will also consider the big picture being illustrated by the far-left Democrats and what they promise — lots of free stuff at the cost of skyrocketing taxes, an exploding deficit, socialized health care, wide open borders, abortion at any point in a pregnancy, draconian regulation on businesses, harsh gun restrictions, destruction of the energy industry, and arch-liberal judges.

Sure, I could spend all day listing the things I don’t like about Trump (although I do like some of the things he’s done). But anyone obsessed with Trump’s many faults also needs to consider the alternatives. And, in my opinion, they are worse.

I think the country can handle another four years of Trump. The economy is doing great. Never-ending wars are actually winding down. But I’m not sure the country can survive four or eight years of Elizabeth Warren, whose policies would spell economic ruin.

Americans who like their jobs, higher wages, lower taxes and economic freedom are smart enough to know that all that free stuff, the big-government solutions, the nationalizing of entire industries, will reverse the great economic times we’re enjoying.

Navigating these political shoals is tricky for Utah’s congressional delegation, particularly Rep. Ben McAdams. Will he embrace his party’s presidential frontrunner? Will he vote to impeach Trump? He’s tiptoeing on a political knife edge.

On the Senate side, Sen. Mitt Romney obviously dislikes Trump. But will his dislike help enable an Elizabeth Warren presidency?

Utah Sen. Mike Lee garnered headlines by demanding that presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke “take back” his statement that religious organizations which do not recognize same-sex marriage should lose nonprofit status. Will such statements by Democratic candidates on that and other topics like guns, health care and immigration hurt them in Utah?

Pignanelli: Lee performed an immense service to the country … and Democrats. Somebody has to stop the world’s oldest political party from self-immolation. Most presidential candidates are groveling before leftist special interest groups, declaring outrageous claims to secure their support. This is resulting in expressions of support for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, student loan amnesty, increased taxes, mandatory gun buyback programs, punishing traditional organized religion, etc. Americans, including mainstream Democrats and independents are very uncomfortable with such obsequiousness. They are more interested in hearing ideas to promote jobs and security.

Lee is signaling that caution and rational behavior must be exercised, because the opposition is watching … and remembering.

Webb: A thoughtful, centrist, highly-qualified Democratic candidate could probably defeat Trump. But the Democratic nomination process (and the impeachment process) has been co-opted by the far left. That is the Democrats’ biggest problem and it’s why Trump has a reasonable chance to win.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is fairly well-liked in Utah. Will he survive the nomination process?

Pignanelli: During the debate, Biden offered a flimsy response to the Ukraine controversy involving his son that failed to alleviate anxiety. The impeachment process will continue for many months, every day of which will remind voters of Biden’s connection to this debacle, thereby strangling his campaign.

Webb: Biden is the most reasonable Democratic candidate, although he has been forced to pander to the far left to try to win the nomination. Unfortunately, Biden is too old, not sharp enough, and not purist enough to satisfy the liberal Democratic base and win the nomination.

What can really be done about gun control? Pignanelli and Webb

Gun control legislation remains a hot topic at both the national and state levels, despite being overshadowed by impeachment proceedings and tax reform.

Gun control legislation remains a hot topic at both the national and state levels, despite being overshadowed by impeachment proceedings and tax reform. Polls show increasing support among Utahns and citizens nationwide for action. Keep your hand away from your holster as we explain and explore.

A representative sample consisting of more than 1,000 Utah registered voters were surveyed in UtahPolicy.com/Y2 Analytics poll showing that some 88% of respondents support requiring background checks on all gun sales; 87% wish to prevent sales to those deemed dangerous by a mental health professional. Other gun control provisions like three-day waiting periods and age restrictions were supported by a majority of respondents. Why is there now a shift in public opinion in favor of gun control?

Pignanelli: “I have a love interest in every one of my films: a gun.” — Arnold Schwarzenegger

Books and television programs with the dystopian theme of Soviet or Axis Power domination of North America (i.e. “Amerika,” “Man in High Castle,” etc.) are very different but do share one common theme — the Rocky Mountain region is labeled “neutral” or “autonomous” or “unoccupied” zones. Even in these fantasies, the authors clearly understand that westerners — with guns they love — can repel any foreign invaders.

Utahns are a peaceful, well-armed people steeped with deep basic common sense. They are troubled and alarmed by the dangerous mentally deranged with high-powered weapons. So recent mass shootings compel expressions of their concerns to pollsters with recognition of background checks and other measures to enhance safety.

But such statements to a series of questions are not a departure from customary views. The use and care of guns for traditional activities (i.e. hunting, sports shooting, etc.) are a legacy for many Utah families, including mine. Thus, a substantial majority of respondents concurred in the poll, “It is the responsibility of families and communities to solve the problem of mass shooting in the United States”. While some measures are acceptable, overreaching attempts to regulate gun ownership that interfere with our local heritage will be resisted.

Whether in tales of fact or fiction, Utahns’ relationship with guns demands understanding by advocates on all sides of the issue.

Webb: We have all seen too many mass shootings not to be concerned about gun violence, even though, overall, gun-related crimes are declining in our country. Citizens obviously want action — even, apparently, symbolic action that won’t really have much impact. Pervasive and unrelenting news coverage of innocent people being killed have understandably created a furor to “do something.”

I own guns, but I favor reasonable gun legislation. I’m fine with background checks, “red flag” laws and I certainly support better mental health assistance and better identification of potentially dangerous people. I oppose bans or confiscation of semi-automatic rifles.

But I question whether many of these measures will really do much to reduce gun violence. Law-abiding people, me included, will obey reasonable gun laws. Trouble is, criminals, by definition, won’t. It’s criminals who murder people. With 300 million firearms out there in America (and 55% of Utah households have guns), with more sold every day, not many practical ways exist to control guns.

One area where some gun control measures could be effective is with suicides. Easy access to a gun can be deadly for someone contemplating suicide. Even regarding suicide, however, the answers are complex and difficult.

Because a strong majority of Utahns want some action, will gun control legislation be passed in the upcoming Utah legislative session?

Pignanelli: Because 2020 is an election year, enactment of legislation is unlikely. Outrageous comments by national politicians (“Yes, we are coming to get your guns!”) are spooking voters and creating obstacles for productive discussions. However, there is potential of a task force or some committee study to review and develop modifications, along with proper messaging, for legislative deliberations in the future.

Webb: A variety of gun laws will be introduced. I’d like to see a reasonable “red flag” law passed. But it’s doubtful that much of substance will be enacted. Human nature being what it is, action might depend on how fresh the horror of a mass shooting is.

Will Congress do anything on gun control, especially in the midst of impeachment?

Pignanelli: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell publicly declared he would not consider gun legislation until President Donald Trump requested such. Trump, and much of Congress, will distracted on other matters for many months. Anything soon is unlikely.

Webb: Politicians will try to convince us they’re working hard in Washington, solving the problems of America. Don’t believe it. Anything they do will be small potatoes.

When something bad happens they will, as usual, express outrage, demand investigations and find someone to blame. Otherwise, it will be all charges and counter charges over impeachment, and little else will be accomplished. Dysfunction and gridlock prevail.

Foxley & Pignanelli Fall Newsletter

Will Trump be impeached and tossed from office? Pignanelli and Webb

The Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has begun a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump — providing plenty of political intrigue for pundits to untangle.

What are the impacts of impeachment proceedings on Utah’s members of Congress, especially Rep. Ben McAdams?

Pignanelli: “Nobody knows where this impeachment is going … something wild and unpredictable has been let loose … the entire outcome will depend on public opinion.” — Peggy Noonan

Massive political intrigue is the astronomical equivalent of a black hole, bending space and time from normal trajectories. The current impeachment controversy caused history to fold back upon itself.

In July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee adopted articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Among members voting “aye” was a freshman lawyer from Utah — Democrat Wayne Owens. Although the Watergate storm generated an electoral blue wave, Owens lost his Senate race that year. Some pundits attribute the defeat to this vote.

Ben McAdams — another centrist freshman lawyer Democrat from Utah — will soon face a similar decision. His comments have been judicious, requesting additional information before committing to impeachment-style investigations. McAdams accurately reflects the common sense judgment of Utahns. To prevent a repeat of history, he will need to distance himself from potential overreach — and displays of unfairness — by Congressional leadership.

For example, Joseph Maguire, acting director of national intelligence, testified before the House Intelligence Committee regarding the whistleblower complaint. The chairman and ranking member pushed the hearing into a farcical circus that Americans despise. Maguire, a 36-year Navy veteran, did not deserve hours of televised critique for his good faith attempts to deal with this unique issue, while protecting the whistleblower. Utah Congressman Chris Stewart appropriately and commendably defended this decent patriot.

The impeachment activities will morph into an even larger black hole, sucking time, energy and matter on Capitol Hill.

Webb: I got a haircut last Wednesday and asked my barber (Dillon Guymon at Trolley Square Barbers) if Trump should be impeached. He said no. Dillon talks to people all day and knows everything, so if the Democrats have lost the country’s barbers, they have a problem.

This whole affair is only beginning, of course, and no one knows how it will end. But I find even a lot of people who don’t like Trump don’t think the Ukrainian phone call rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” — worthy of overturning the 2016 presidential election and tossing Trump out of office. Where’s the damage? Where’s the victim?

Some elements of the July phone call were inappropriate and stupid, and Trump should be criticized and censured. But national security was not threatened and no constitutional crisis occurred, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to claim.

All of this becomes very awkward for McAdams. His party is charging toward an impeachment vote and he will be under fire no matter what he does. The Republican campaign committees are already using the impeachment furor to target him.

Most congressional Republicans have been silent or protective of Trump. Why has Utah Sen. Mitt Romney been more vocal, saying an investigation is warranted?

Pignanelli: Romney’s statements elicit many adjectives (i.e. thoughtful, needed and shrewd). He is reflecting angst by many within the GOP, but not expressed publicly. Romney is using his immense political capital to comfort Americans there is some parental supervision in this partisan dispute. Also, should impeachment actions topple the Trump Administration and cripple the Republican Party, Romney will be the unblemished statesman for conservatives. There is no limit what this could mean for Utah’s favorite son.

Webb: Romney has a visceral aversion to Trump and is emerging as the president’s chief critic among Senate Republicans. It will get him a lot of publicity and the approval of liberals and Trump-haters, but it won’t help him get legislation passed.

Trump is everything Romney is not — impulsive, crude, flamboyant, arrogant and bull-headed. He also won the presidency, and Romney did not. Romney is certainly an important voice of reason in the Senate, but at some point he has to look at the big picture and decide if he wants Elizabeth Warren as president and eight years of ultra-leftist federal judicial appointments. What’s the bigger danger to the country?

When all is said and done, will Trump be impeached by the House? Will he be convicted by the Senate and booted from office?

Pignanelli: There will be an impeachment vote. A Senate trial only occurs if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the votes to defeat the effort. If not, Trump will be forced to resign.

Webb: After all the apocalyptic rhetoric, if House Democrats don’t impeach Trump it will be terribly embarrassing for them. So I expect Pelosi will rally her troops, twist arms and do it. The Senate will not convict, and the whole impeachment mess will hurt Democrats in 2020. Voters will reject Warren’s socialist takeover of the country and in the next four years Trump will appoint another conservative Supreme Court justice, assuring a conservative court for decades to come.

Is religious bigotry alive and well in Salt Lake City? Pignanelli and Webb

Salt Lake City is one of the most liberal metropolitan areas of the country. So it is ironic and unfortunate that a mayoral candidate’s religion has become an issue. We explore what is happening. Salt Lake City is one of the most liberal metropolitan areas of the country. So it is ironic and unfortunate that a mayoral candidate’s religion has become an issue. We explore what is happening.

For weeks, a whisper campaign has swirled around the fact that Sen. Luz Escamilla is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This criticism did not come from the Erin Mendenhall campaign, but from others. The matter erupted publicly in social media and in the news media when a high-profile Utah liberal posted on Facebook, “Now we are threatened with the prospect of a Mormon mayor (Escamilla) who seems to be willing to do the bidding of the church …” Is it appropriate to make the faith of a candidate an election issue with the implication she will do the bidding of her church and not of constituents?

Pignanelli: “Religion doesn’t make people bigots. People are bigots and they use religion to justify their ideology.” — Reza Aslan

Religious tolerance is universally defined as “willing to recognize and respect others’ beliefs, practices, etc., while not sharing them.” A bigot practices the opposite, and is characterized as an intolerant person. Statements that Escamilla will not act thoughtfully as mayor but instead “do the bidding of the church” are condemnations based on her religion. Replace “Mormon” with “Jew” or “Catholic” or “Gay” or “Black”, etc. and the appalling nature of the statements are further clarified. Those who espouse or condone such condemnations against Escamilla are bigots.

The Mendenhall campaign commendably refuses to engage in such sleazy antics. So, these “enlightened” bigots are employing fifth column tactics in social media to enrage other narrow-minded haters. Sponsors of this sludge are no better than the white supremacists and anti-Semitics plaguing our society.

Fortunately, this fraudulent intelligentsia are a minority in our open-minded, tolerant and wonderful state.

Webb: Escamilla checks off every box any liberal Salt Lake City voter could wish for. To oppose her simply because she belongs to the predominant faith is the definition of religious bigotry.

As a Republican living in downtown Salt Lake City, both Escamilla and Mendenhall are too liberal for me. However, I believe both of them are fine people with integrity and passion for the city and its residents. To effectively lead the city, either of them will need to work with the church, the Republicans and the Legislature. I believe either can do so cooperatively and effectively.

Anyone who has worked with Escamilla knows she is a liberal Democrat who fights for liberal causes. Born in Mexico, she has a compelling personal story. She fought long odds to make her life a success and has spent much of her career serving minority communities. To her credit, she also places family and faith as guiding influences in her life.

Mendenhall is also a solid, hard-working candidate with broad city council experience, a proven track record, and good relationships with all stakeholders.

In 2018, Rep. Patrice Arent’s election opponent injected religion into the campaign by quoting a well-known battle cry from the Book of Mormon. Arent is Jewish. Numerous LDS adherents (including Gov. Gary Herbert and this newspaper) publicly defended Arent and criticized such tactics. No such outpouring from nonmembers or liberals have condemned the attacks on Escamilla. Is there a double standard in Utah on religious discrimination?

Pignanelli: It was a proud day in Utah when, without hesitation, many church members across the political spectrum denounced this intolerance against Arent. The attack against Escamilla was more direct and personal. Yet, other than an articulate statement from Mendenhall, an op-ed piece in the Tribune and the occasional tweet, there was silence — especially from the left.

Double standard is a kind phrase for hypocrisy running in the undercurrent of Utah politics. Most church members observe this but are too kind in responding. We nonmembers, who possess affection for church members’ incredible legacy of generosity and courage, must openly confront this vile hate in order to destroy it.

Webb: The progressive community ought to take a hard look at itself and do some soul-searching. Even with significant policy and doctrinal disagreements on certain issues, I know the church seeks common ground, productive dialogue and real compassion. Is the progressive community willing to reciprocate?

Some believed that “anti-Mormon” sentiment was dissipating in the capital city. Is this true?

Pignanelli: Because hostilities were not open, many observers fantasized a peace among the tribes. But these recent actions demonstrate the ridiculous animosity percolating in the sewers.

Webb: One only has to pay a bit of attention to social media to see the bigotry and hostility aimed at the predominant church. But I don’t think it exists in large measure among intelligent people who are actively involved in the community. Millions of church members and people of other faiths or no faith at all work side by side in employment and many other causes with mutual respect and admiration.

Pignanelli & Webb: Is the ballot initiative process working well for Utah?

Last week, the Legislature once again revised legislation prompted by the medical marijuana initiative passed by voters in 2018.

Last week, the Legislature once again revised legislation prompted by the medical marijuana initiative passed by voters in 2018. While these recent changes were uniformly applauded, issues related to the initiative process itself remain unresolved. We jump head-first into the fray.

Legislators are seriously considering a proposal submitted by county clerks and the lieutenant governors office to allow initiative petition sponsors to gather signatures online. Cost savings to the government agencies would result, but there are obvious concerns with such a proposal. Is there merit to this?

Pignanelli: “Technology should be used for people’s overall welfare … instead of misusing it to win elections.” — Chandrababu Naidu

SB54 — the legislation to allow candidates placement on a primary ballot through signatures — is the white elephant gift of Utah politics. It keeps reappearing. This 2014 bill fostered homegrown signature gathering companies, thereby encouraging statewide and local initiatives. This “direct democracy” activity is now burdening county clerks who verify signatures, prompting considerations of technology allowing voters to sign a digital copy of a petition.

Justin Lee (director of elections and a very cool guy) testified online signatures could diminish initiatives as personal outreach is more persuasive than an email blast. However, others (especially legislators) contend the approach would greatly incentivize initiatives — statewide and in cities — as significant signature costs would drop. Further, many are concerned with the potential for mischief.

Initiatives and referenda are an important element of our democracy. Online voting for them more than eliminates administrative burdens, it dramatically realigns the relationship between campaigners and voters. This explains why the process is not suggested in elections. Much more study is needed.

This white elephant gift should remain under tree until next season.

Webb: Allowing online signature gathering might make sense. But I would caution against making the process too easy or we’ll end up like California with dozens of nutty proposals on the ballot.

Most laws ought to be made by the Legislature, not by direct democracy. Thus, getting an initiative proposal on the ballot ought to be difficult, but not impossible. The current initiative process is arduous and costs a lot of money, but it does strike the balance pretty well.

One good improvement would be to make the processes of getting a proposal on the ballot, and getting an initiative rescinded, more equivalent in difficulty. Right now, it’s grueling to get a proposal on the ballot, but relatively easy to rescind enough signatures to take it off.

The narrowly passed Proposition 4 established a bipartisan redistricting commission to redraw boundaries for federal and state offices in 2021. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirmed state legislative supremacy in redistricting. Thus, serious discussions are occurring at the Capitol to revise the language of Proposition 4. Should and will this happen?

Pignanelli: The two “Supremes” — U.S. and Utah — delivered to lawmakers the permission and justification to amend passed initiatives to their collective hearts content. Politically, to do otherwise is a surrender of power.

Furthermore, this initiative begs alterations. The out-of-state big-money funders concocted a scheme that is discriminatory in construction and problematic in implementation. Every supporter I queried could not adequately respond to the multiple problems plaguing this hash. If legislators explain their actions, the resulting furor will diminish rapidly.

Webb: Essentially all propositions passed by voters do need some refining. That’s because they don’t go through the arduous legislative process where proposed bills get changed and improved in committee hearings and floor debate. No one is smart enough to write the perfect bill that never needs refinement.

That is certainly true with the Proposition 4 redistricting commission proposal. It has a number of flaws that should be fixed by the Legislature. But that’s not a reason to totally rescind the Proposition 4 law. An advisory commission to recommend redistricting to the Legislature is certainly appropriate. Ultimately, however, redistricting is a political activity. It’s impossible to take all politics out of the process. Final decisions should be made by the people elected by voters.

In August, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature could replace the successful medical marijuana initiative with the legislation passed in the December 2018 special session. Litigants believed the voter-supported proposition trumped any legislative action. Was the court correct and what does this mean for future initiatives?

Pignanelli: Our state constitution “vests” legislative authority with the Legislature and the “People.” Both possess power to enact and amend each other’s legislation. Sponsors now have greater responsibility to ensure the intent and language of the Initiative are defensible during elections, and in the court of public opinion afterwards.

Webb: Sorry, folks, but a law created by voters has the same status as a law created by the Legislature. Thus, the Legislature can change an initiative law at will. However, lawmakers usually respect initiative laws because those laws reflect the will of voters. Legislators who vote to rescind or dramatically change a voter-created law could face consequences at the next election.

Pignanelli and Webb: Should lawmakers boost the gas tax or impose tolls? We explore the ramifications.

As Utah lawmakers attempt to better balance Utah’s tax structure, they have considered making transportation funding more “user based” by raising the state fuel tax, or even tolling some highways. That would allow them to reduce general fund sales tax money spent on transportation, freeing up that money for other state purposes. We explore the ramifications.

Despite legislators’ promise that overall taxes will remain level, or even be cut, if the gas tax or other taxes are boosted, citizens remain skeptical. A recent UtahPolicy.com survey showed opposition to a gas tax increase. Is a gas tax boost a viable option for legislators who want to reform Utah’s tax system?

Pignanelli: “If you don’t drink, smoke, or drive a car, you’re a tax evader.” — Thomas S. Foley

One can explain to children how broccoli will make them strong and beautiful, but the inquiry whether they will eat the vegetable always compels emotional negative responses (i.e. “Yuck!”). Similarly, when pollsters explain the need for a gas tax increase to readjust unbalanced revenues and improve roads, most Utahns respond with a snarl.

Every week, almost 2 million Utah drivers are staring at gas pumps, feeling the impact of a gas tax. Legislators know this well. Furthermore, few lawmakers want to spend spring 2020 campaigning for reelection and explaining why they voted to increase the gas tax. A reduction in other taxes will not diminish any outrage.

Policy wonks advocate a gas tax as fair because it is a true user fee. However, long-term aspects are problematic. Cars are becoming increasingly more fuel-efficient, or electrical, and therefore surcharges on fuel will diminish over time. These concerns, combined with the expected political blowback, diminishes any advantages to this revenue source. I enjoy broccoli, especially when accompanied by olive oil and marinara sauce. Too bad such condiments are unavailable to soothe a tax increase.

Webb: Here’s some excellent advice (if I do say so myself): Just do it. The political fallout will be minimal and brief, and no one will suffer retribution in the next election. The result will be a better-balanced tax system, and users will be paying more for roads. It’s good tax policy.

Sure, citizens will tell a pollster they don’t want higher gas taxes. But with prices fluctuating day to day, they will hardly notice it. If lawmakers reduce other taxes to provide an overall tax cut, no one will have a legitimate complaint.

The fuel tax has not been increased very often, but the history is this: No one loses the next election over a gas tax boost. Thanks to better fuel efficiency, hybrid vehicles and the electrification of the transportation industry, actual highway users are paying a smaller and smaller portion of the costs of road construction and maintenance. Users need to pay more.

Eventually, as gas-powered vehicles go away, we’ll need to move to a system that charges by vehicle miles traveled. But, for now, the gas tax remains the best way to pay for good highways.

Poll respondents were even more strongly opposed to toll roads. Why is there such visceral dislike of tolling in Utah?

Pignanelli: Toll roads are like roundabouts — they don’t belong in this country and should go back to Europe where they belong. Utahns have the common sense to understand their taxes paid for roads and it is ridiculous to impose another surcharge just to travel on them. Furthermore, residents along the west side of the Wasatch Front funded roads on the east side. It is unfair to now extract double taxation from these residents to resolve their transportation needs.

Webb: Utah isn’t likely to toll an entire highway (except perhaps a canyon road) for many years, if ever. Public opposition would be too strong. However, we can expect highway officials to use “congestion pricing,” which would essentially extend HOV lane tolling to additional lanes. As Utah’s population booms, that’s really the only way to prevent gridlock on the freeways and to push more commuters to use public transit.

In general, tax reform is proving very difficult. Will the Legislature accomplish meaningful reform before the 2020 political wars begin?

Pignanelli: The Legislature must be commended for dealing with an issue head-on (unlike Congress). But if potential long-term solutions are rolled out late this year, or in 2020, the usual forces of election campaigns will increase politicization of public deliberations — thereby warping the results of well-intended policies. Therefore, lawmakers should apply a Band-Aid to address short-term needs and enact larger overhauls in 2021. Broccoli always tastes better in odd-numbered years.

Webb: Our policymakers can get it done — eventually — but it’s going to be a lengthy process. And it might take more of a general fund crisis to force action. Tax policy is complicated and citizens don’t like tax changes even, apparently, if it means an overall tax cut.