Why the 2020 legislative session may go down as the strangest in modern history

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Veteran observers and insiders are concluding that the 2020 legislative session is perhaps the most unique — if not the strangest — in modern history. Since your columnists are rather strange themselves, we’re well-qualified to explain the peculiarities.

What are some of the unusual dynamics surrounding lawmakers, advocates and lobbyists at the Capitol?

Pignanelli & Webb: “Voters don’t decide issues, they decide who will decide issues.” — George Will

Well, here’s a partial list of abnormal items, starting with Utah issues: Looming above the session has been the specter of a face-slapping referendum that gathered 150,000 signatures and repealed tax reform approved a month earlier ... a wacky revenue forecast of a huge surplus for the school fund, but tight constraints in the general fund ... numerous lawmakers facing intraparty challenges by opponents grumpy about tax reform ... the issue that never dies: Medicaid expansion ... disposition of another citizen initiative, this one creating a commission to redraw legislative and congressional district boundaries ... more marijuana stuff ... constituent pressures to lower pharmaceutical costs ... the never-ending inland port battle ... and legislative action sponsored by Republicans targeting a Republican U.S. senator.

And overshadowing the session are a couple of national issues: A roller-coaster stock market and recession fears caused by threat of a global coronavirus pandemic ... and a screwy presidential election in which a proud socialist could be elected. Whew!

What are the chances of tax reform, or even a cut? Anything else?

Pignanelli: I hope the pressures described above do not delay passage of this session’s most crucial legislation, SB103 and HB157 (sponsored by Sen. Gene Davis and Rep. Mike McKell, respectively), which allow Utahns participation in a wine subscription program from out of state vineyards. Life in Utah is great and could not get better — but this is would a wonderful benefit.

A surplus in the Uniform School Fund, combined with political environment, is the recipe for some tax relief. Because income tax is the most volatile of revenue sources, the fears of a recession may reduce the amount of the cut or creating a temporary adjustment, permanency dependent upon future conditions. The demands of Medicaid and basic state services are huge pressures on a general fund expanding at a lower rate. Thus, there will be some actions to increase the coffers of the general fund through the reduction of exemptions or other actions. The common feature of any such tax activity will be avoiding controversy.

Pignanelli: Cautious policymakers are incorporating how the sickness will impact the economy, especially the stock market. This is driving discussions as to future tax revenues and general economic considerations.

But the truly interesting conversations are happening in Capitol corridors as to whether the legislative session will end before any drastic measures are taken to prevent infection. Will legislators, staff and lobbyists be required to conduct business at a minimum of 6 feet from each other? How soon will face masks and tubs of hand gel become a mandatory accessory to parliamentary interactions?

Webb: Coronavirus right now is a bigger economic threat than a health threat. We’ve already seen that with the stock market plunge. In an interdependent national and world economy, Utah’s tax revenue won’t be immune from a global downturn. That’s why lawmakers should postpone cutting taxes and boost rainy day funds until we better know the full impact.

Does Utah need a new state flag?

Politics often proves the old adage, “The more things change the more they stay the same.” Lawmakers are deliberating some issues that have been around for years, decades and even over a century. As really old columnists we remember these things, although we weren’t quite around in the days of polygamy. It wouldn’t have worked for us anyway, as consideration of a No. 2 or 3 would certainly prompt the threat of death at the hands of No. 1.

A resolution was filed by Rep. Karen Kwan to endorse the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA, to the U.S. Constitution. This was a major controversy 50 years ago. Will and should this pass?

RELATED

As Utahns mark women’s vote, what of ERA?

Pignanelli: “The Equal Rights Amendment would turn holy wedlock into holy deadlock.” —William Rehnquist, 1970

Ahhh, the 1970s. Discotheques, bell-bottom jeans, oil embargoes, “M.A.S.H.” … and intense emotional arguments over the ERA. The contention caused huge demonstrations in the streets and in millions of American households. Dinosaurs like LaVarr and I remember well the controversy in Utah. Because of long-lasting memories for older Utahns, combined with the element that many under 50 do not know what an “ERA” is, the resolution may not be heard this session.

Although similar resolutions were passed recently in other states, the congressionally imposed deadline of 1982 for a state to adopt has long since passed, suggesting the current Utah proposal could be moot. Even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg suggested the ERA process needs to start over.

Recent polling indicates over 60% of Utahns support an ERA provision in the U.S. Constitution. So, if Congress ever acts on the amendment Utahns will definitely participate in the conversation … and disco fever returns.

Webb: While mandating “equal rights” for all sounds like a no-brainer, youngsters won’t remember the monumental battles of the ’70s and the questions raised about the ERA. Like concerns about forcing males and females to be treated precisely the same despite physical differences. Or the reversal of progress in women’s sports if sports teams can’t be differentiated by sex. Or separate bathroom facilities. Or elimination of women preferences in hiring. Or women subject to military draft and combat. Or ramifications for alimony, child custody and abortion.

Perhaps common sense would prevail. But it would take a mountain of litigation to determine what the new constitutional provision actually means in everyday life.

Sen. Dan McCay is sponsoring legislation to repeal SB54 and give political parties the choice to disallow the signature gathering process for candidates. Why does this keep reappearing?

Pignanelli: The 2014 compromise legislation (the famous SB54) was based on an agreement legislators would not later repeal it, and signature gathering proponents would not attempt another initiative. McCay was instrumental in its passage.

Because an initiative was attempted for 2018, McCay is understandably bothered by the breach of faith. But, this may not be the year lawmakers want a return to this fight.

Webb: Many lawmakers who voted for the unpopular tax reform law are very glad they can collect signatures to get on the primary election ballot and not have to face the wrath of delegates in the caucus/convention system. Thus, McCay’s bill won’t go anywhere.

The redistricting process is soon upon us. Will lawmakers revise the redistricting commission law created via initiative process in 2018?

Pignanelli: Lefty national special interest groups infused their bizarre agenda into the initiative language. Apparently, there are deliberations between lawmakers and commission proponents to amend this mess.

Webb: Legislators have already been burned by messing with voter-initiated laws. But the Proposition 4 redistricting law does have a number of flaws and needs some work. Hopefully, negotiations can result in mutual agreement for needed amendments. Proposition 4 initiative supporters are getting a clear win with creation of a redistricting commission.

Sen. Deidre Henderson is sponsoring legislation to decriminalize polygamy, while maintaining stiff penalties for any criminal conduct associated with this lifestyle. Normally a taboo topic, the bill is flying through.

Pignanelli: Henderson deserves commendation for undertaking what many shied from. Her bill allows victims of polygamy to seek help without worries of criminal action.

Webb: In an era where most anything goes, it’s tough to prohibit consensual unorthodox marriage relationships. If a woman wants to marry a couple of guys, who’s to say it should be illegal? But any manner of domestic abuse, including child abuse, ought to be strictly prosecuted.

Reps. Stephen Handy and Keven Stratton have legislation to change our state flag. Is this needed?

Pignanelli: Our current flag is boring. Utahns deserve a flag commemorating our proud pioneer and religious heritage, while boasting of the natural beauty surrounding us. Some are demanding diversity, so I suggest including emblems of Diet Coke and wine. The discussions promise to be entertaining.

Webb: Some people have said that with tax reform dead, this legislative session is really boring. This legislation proves it.

Sausage-making, referendum ghosts and other things the Utah Legislature has been tackling this week

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

While national politicos are engaged in bare-knuckle cage fighting, our local lawmakers are busy with solemn public policy deliberations — otherwise known as sausage-making. We review the malodorous ingredients and whether you should watch or avert your eyes.

In the first week of the legislative session, lawmakers scuttled the tax reform they passed in December. Although referendum ghosts still haunt the Capitol, will tax measures be revived to increase the general fund and reduce revenue flowing into the education fund?

Pignanelli: “Modest proposals are better than grand designs: they serve the political function of registering concerns, but are too small to provoke opposition.” — The Economist

On rare occasions, professional and amateur chefs will unintentionally create an inedible meal. But always immediately after, additional attempts to feed patrons or the family are undertaken. Lawmakers are developing another meal of tax reform — with less controversial ingredients. These will include the taxation of some services and activities unlikely to generate public opposition. Another approach will be reallocating revenue sources currently depositing into the education fund into the General Fund.

A classic example is the tax on liquor, in which a substantial portion of proceeds are dedicated to the school lunch program. For many decades my drinking companions and I congratulated ourselves on contributing to the nutritional benefit of Utah children. I unselfishly recommend re-directing these fees to the General Fund toward the worthy cause of tax reform. (Of course, consumption will not alter.)

Also, because the Uniform School Fund is where the money is, lawmakers are torturously redefining programs as an education activity.

So, the best flavors for this next round of tax reform are those less offensive to the public palate.

Webb: Tax reform died an ignominious death at the hands of a rare left-wing/right-wing coalition. But the tax imbalance remains, and it’s a serious problem. Lawmakers must be careful doing piecemeal tax reform. Cutting income taxes (which fund education) does nothing to bolster looming shortages in the general fund.

It’s a lot easier to do substantive tax reform with a nice surplus to work with. Even with a tax cut sweetener, tax reform was defeated. It would be even more difficult to try to solve the structural imbalance without having money to move around.

It still makes great sense to pay more of transportation spending with user fees. It still makes great sense to broaden the sales tax base as service purchases replace product purchases. It still makes sense to reduce earmarks and provide flexibility.

What are some of the unexpected issues that are percolating as a result of private citizens and well-organized special interest groups pressuring lawmakers?

Pignanelli: Those who question the strength of modern democracy in the 21st century need only spend an hour at the Utah Legislature for a change of mind. Every day, hundreds of private citizens descend on the Capitol personally or through email to communicate with their representatives. It is effective.

The cost of pharmaceuticals — especially insulin — has evolved into a hot topic this season as constituents bombard state officials with frustrations. (The public hearing reviewing insulin costs filled the largest committee room). Thus, legislation to address these concerns is a certainty.

Clean air legislation was expected, but not to the degree reflected by the number of proposals before lawmakers. Additional action to promote less pollution is expected.

Webb: Speaking of sausage-making, I (along with a lot of other people) am carefully watching SB91, sponsored by Sen. Dan McCay, which would repeal SB54 and allow political parties to revert exclusively to the caucus/convention system to select party nominees.

McCay’s bill, if passed, will create a civil war within the Republican Party, dry up contributions to the party from business leaders, probably spark referendum or initiative efforts, and generally take the state back to the political dark ages. The right for all party voters to select party nominees, rather than a relatively few delegates, needs to be protected.

This newspaper published poll data showing that most Utahns are OK with Sen. Mitt Romney’s vote to convict Pres. Donald Trump and remove him from office. However, 60% of Republicans disapproved. Will fallout continue, or have disgruntled Republicans moved on?

Pignanelli: Immediately after the vote, Romney shrewdly flew home to soothe feelings and explain his thoughts to legislators. This accelerated the healing process and any legislation to publicize frustration was shelved.

Webb: While I disagreed with Romney, I accept that he voted his conscience after much deliberation. But no one should be surprised at the negative reaction. After all, Romney is usually among the “can’t we all just get along” crowd. But in this case, he voted to utterly destroy Trump politically. Nothing is more divisive than attempting to force someone out of office. Those who want to recall Romney are suggesting the same outcome that he sought for Trump. It’s hard to achieve any sort of political unity when each side is attempting to annihilate the other.

It was a remarkable week in U.S. politics — how will it impact the future?

Pignanelli & Webb

Wow! What an extraordinary week in national and local politics. We watched the fiasco in the Iowa caucuses last Monday (which further muddied the Democratic presidential nomination contest), the president’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday (with Nancy Pelosi ripping it up) and, finally, the end of the impeachment process with a Senate vote to acquit on Wednesday (highlighted by a surprising vote by Mitt Romney to convict). We look at ramifications nationally and locally.

Utah’s two senators split on impeachment, with Romney being the only Republican to vote to toss the president out of office. What are the ramifications for Romney and the rest of the Utah delegation? Has impeachment hurt or helped Trump’s reelection prospects?

Pignanelli: “We have known for the last three years this is an important election. But on Day One the Democrats in Des Moines shanked it. They can’t even count farmers holding their hands up in a high school gym.” — Stephen Colbert

The constitutional process of impeachment observed and endured by Americans mirrors a root canal procedure — painful, but soon forgotten. Because of recent events the nation was reminded of the not too distant fact President William Clinton was impeached … then acquitted. The late ’90s vibrant economy and his strong personality overshadowed such recollections.

Therefore, history suggests the impeachment proceedings alone will not impede Trump’s reelection. By autumn, dynamics including the economy, results of other investigations and the Democratic nominee will determine the election results. This also means in the short term Romney will receive intense criticism from local and national politicos, but different controversies will soon dominate conversations. The recent proceedings will evolve into an historical footnote.

A long-term beneficiary from the Senate trial could be Congressman Ben McAdams. He can use Romney’s vote to deflect the anticipated attacks for his support of the impeachment articles.

Impeachment proceedings generated moderate interest among Americans who will unlikely willingly reflect about it in the future — just like a root canal.

Webb: The big outcome is that Trump survived impeachment stronger than ever and will stay in office and face voters in November. Personally, I think that’s a good thing for the country. Trump’s actions were not “perfect,” but didn’t rise to the level of requiring his removal from office. I disagree with Romney on this and agree with Sen. Mike Lee and Reps. Rob Bishop, Chris Stewart and John Curtis.

I want to give Romney the benefit of the doubt and not ascribe his vote to sour grapes over Trump rejecting him as secretary of state, or his general loathing of Trump (remember Romney’s blistering criticism of Trump on moral grounds in 2016).

In explaining his vote, Romney repeatedly referred to his strong religious convictions, saying his “oath before God demanded” his vote to convict. Some Utahns I’ve talked to felt Romney wrapped himself in their religion to justify his vote — and they didn’t appreciate it.

I don’t think Romney intended that. I assume he acknowledges that members of his same church, and other religions, just as devout as he is, having taken the same oath before God, reached an entirely different conclusion. There is no religious martyr here.

Some also questioned Romney’s moralizing, given his inconsistencies (some called it flip-flopping) on a variety of positions when he was seeking the GOP presidential nomination, in contrast to his positions when he served and sought office in liberal Massachusetts.

Going forward, I don’t think Romney has totally burned all bridges with his colleagues or the administration. But I think he will have to work harder than ever to effectively represent Utah.

Trump’s lengthy SOTU speech was crafted for social media viral moments as he welcomed numerous guests in tender anecdotes and boasted about the economy. Was this speech, delivered under an impeachment cloud, effective for the president?

Pignanelli: I watched every minute. This incredibly choreographed entertainment event alternated between frustrating, moving, shocking and stirring. The hyperpartisanship of the speech (which should not have surprised anyone) was matched by similar extreme emotions in the audience — especially the indefensible antics of the house speaker.

Trump served notice that he is running hard for reelection by not only appealing to his base, but also targeting minority communities. The hope is to raise support among them, while assuring suburban voters that he does care about diverse Americans. Thus the 80-minute presentation was classic Trump — which was his intention and strategy.

The surprises and predictions from Herbert’s last State of the State

Pignanelli & Webb

Gov. Gary Herbert delivered his 11th — and final — State of the State address last week. Because he is not seeking reelection, is Utah’s chief executive a “lame duck” or will he continue strong leadership and have a successful legislative session? We ruminate. Were there any hits, misses or surprises in the governor’s address? What role can he play in the next year? Pignanelli: “I hope to spend the remainder of my days in peaceful retirement, making political pursuits yield to the more rational amusement of cultivating the earth.” — George Washington The 1941 movie ”Citizen Kane” is heralded a classic, especially for infusing into the American lexicon the classic phrase ”He knows where the bodies are buried.” Herbert’s deep experience in local and state government provides him clear insight on details of issues that will be smoldering into this decade (aka buried bodies). Also, Herbert will enjoy hefty political capital and strong approval ratings until his successor is sworn in in 2021. Herbert’s final State of the State: Prepare Utah for those to follow With these assets, Herbert can be invaluable distributing guide maps to the graves of festering problems such as overdue reforms in the higher education system, water infrastructure requirements, creative responses to growth demands, etc. Through various means including strong public statements and short-term priorities for his agencies, Herbert can set the agenda for next year. In his speech Wednesday night, Herbert artfully thanked Utahns for their incredible commitment to a healthy and productive lifestyle. He appropriately listed accomplishments achieved by his administration, but also referred to the well-known ongoing concerns. Now unshackled by normal political pressures, Herbert can enhance his legacy with the exhuming process. Webb: It was a good, solid speech, reflective of Herbert’s time as governor. By the way, Herbert will be Utah’s second-longest serving governor, a tenure about a year less than Gov. Calvin Rampton’s 12 years from 1965 to 1977. While there weren’t any real “moonshot” proposals in Herbert’s speech, it was still visionary and forward-looking. Herbert’s focus on clean air — and putting $100 million behind it — demonstrates real commitment. His proposal to put $34 million of state money into public transit, particularly into the at-capacity FrontRunner system is, I believe, the first time a governor has proposed spending significant state dollars on transit. His assertion that it ought to be as easy to use mass transit as it is to drive a car is a breakthrough in Utah gubernatorial priorities. Herbert’s embrace of quality growth principles and the need to reconsider land use and zoning regulations, in addition to “reimagining” what housing will look like in the future, is progressive and farsighted. His appeal to make Utah’s education system the best in the country is a clarion call, but it wasn’t backed up with sufficient funding. These themes will need to be carried forward by Utah’s next governor to cope with rapid population growth and continued urbanization. Oodles (a scientific term) of candidates want to replace Herbert. How will they embrace or distance themselves from his administration? Pignanelli: Gubernatorial contenders face a difficult challenge of political dexterity. Prior elections convincingly demonstrated the tactic of disparaging of Herbert always fails and just antagonizes voters. But Utahns are not expecting a carbon copy either. A safe target is the now repealed tax reform bill and resulting referendum, so expect this as a tool of differentiation. Also expect multiple empty euphemisms such as “deep dive,” “trim the fat,” “streamlining” to be bloodied in their overuse. So a successful candidate will highlight personal skills and attributes that subtly comfort voters a continuation of proven economic objectives. However, this will be contrasted with identification of selective problems that are best resolved through that individual’s abilities. General commitments to education and efficient government will not be enough — some specifics will be demanded. Webb: Some of the governor’s would-be successors whisper that he has been a good manager, but not a visionary leader who took the state to new heights. That understates Hebert’s tenure. Utah’s remarkable success hasn’t occurred by luck or destiny. Utah’s good ride is the result of excellent leadership and hard work now and over many years, even preceding Herbert. If you coast for a minute, you lose. Competition out there is tough. Herbert’s low-key leadership style is not given to flamboyance or self-aggrandizement, but has been very effective. Certainly, the next governor must outline how he or she will achieve higher summits in a new economy amid rapid growth. But it makes no sense for candidates to downplay Herbert’s successes. Especially because most of them haven’t yet walked the walk. Talk is easy. How will Herbert’s impending retirement impact the relationship between lawmakers and the governor this session and for the remainder of his term? Pignanelli: Most Utahns concur our state is on an incredible trajectory, with Herbert as the acknowledged pilot. Although a “lame duck,” lawmakers understand Herbert’s political capital can still be leveraged for immediate projects and endeavors. Webb: Legislators need Herbert’s signature unless they can muster a veto override, which is exceedingly rare. He wields a big stick.

The 2020 legislative session is gearing up to be a busy one. Here’s what’s in store

The 2020 general session of the Utah Legislature convenes Monday morning. We make this announcement because it feels like they never stopped meeting all of last year. Usually, internal dynamics of the institution drive deliberations. But this year is very different. We explain why.

What are the external or unusual dynamics that will impact the Legislature in the next 45 days?

Pignanelli: “It is a rare piece of legislation indeed where there is much agreement about the goals.” — Mike Pence.

“The elephant in the room.” “The 800-pound gorilla.” ”The Big Enchilada.” These are just a few of the many metaphors and expressions to describe how the signature gathering results by the referendum supporters to repeal tax reform legislation will impact the legislative session.

Gov. Gary Herbert and legislative leadership are indicating a repeal early in the session. But this will not resolve the lawmakers’ anxiety as to political fallout they may endure in town meetings, precinct caucuses, conventions, etc. Further, budget deliberations will be extremely difficult as the demand for increased services remains (ironically, to benefit many referendum supporters) while expanded resources in the general fund are no longer available.

The impeachment hearings will overlap early weeks of the legislative session. Public perceptions of the results will be a major consideration as it will impact elections. Lawmakers will also follow the Super Tuesday presidential primary on March 3 — which includes Utah — as the potential Democrat nominee could be determined. This could be a source of joy or angst for candidates in swing districts. The very active gubernatorial candidates will be consistently commenting on legislative initiatives in public and social media arenas — much to lawmakers’ dismay.

To paraphrase another worthy idiom: “It is enough to make a legislator drink.” I’m happy to provide lessons to the uninitiated in such a soothing endeavor.

Webb: By repealing the tax reform law early in the session, lawmakers will greatly simplify the session’s work. But the problems of a dysfunctional tax system will not go away, and the problem will be dropped directly into the lap of Utah’s next governor. That’s where it belongs, because most of the GOP gubernatorial candidates naively and cynically supported the repeal referendum.

As I’ve written previously, I believe the referendum was an enormous mistake. It will raise taxes on low-income and middle-class Utahns and take the state back to an outdated tax system.

However, I congratulate the referendum organizers for proving me dead wrong about getting it on the ballot. I didn’t think they could gather so many signatures so rapidly. It is an impressive political achievement — however misguided.

So now tax reform is gone for the time being. I still appreciate the efforts and courage of Gov. Herbert and legislative leaders for taking on this issue and passing legislation that would have served the state and its people very well. This is a step backward, and I especially don’t like the big tax increase caused by the referendum supporters, but Utah is a resilient state and we’ll do just fine.

What are possible “sleeper” issues that could erupt and capture attention?

Pignanelli: Clean air issues have evolved into a major bipartisan concern, as Gov. Herbert and Republican lawmakers commendably grapple with solutions. If a terrible inversion hits during the session, Capitol rallies abound and legislation results. The tax reform controversy may affect whether legislators pursue much needed changes to the reapportionment boundary commission established through a 2018 initiative. Several states recently adopted the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment provision to the U.S. Constitution. A similar proposal is before Utah legislators. Hotly contested 40 years ago, polls indicate most Utahns support the measure. The debate will capture national attention.

Webb: All the state’s big issues bubble up to the Legislature. Proposed laws dealing with mental health, addiction, rural economic development, infrastructure and highway bonding, affordable housing, Equal Rights Amendment, redistricting, education governance and others will gain a lot of attention.

Not since 1992 has the Legislature conducted a session with a retiring governor. How does this impact the sometimes cordial and other times strained relationship between the two branches of government?

Pignanelli: Obviously legislators and the governor will be conferencing on tax reform brouhaha. But because of all the external forces, the relationship between the branches is a minor tune this session.

Webb: To his credit, Herbert is not coasting to the finish. He has put forth some bold and far-reaching proposals for his last legislative session, including changing Utah’s public education governance structure by putting the next governor squarely in charge. He also has broken new ground by proposing to use a healthy amount of state money to substantially bolster public transit.

Herbert will be a factor, especially if he chooses to carefully and wisely swing his big hammer — his veto authority. He has nothing to lose, so why not go big?

What will the ramifications of Utah’s tax reform be?

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Utah politics is much like the recent weather — hard to predict and often erratic. Local meteorologists blame anything chaotic on the “lake affect.” We blame anything weird in Utah politics on “Sen. Todd Weiler’s incessant tweets” — they’re clever and cryptic enough to ascribe any meaning to them. But even the Weiler tweets can’t explain the referendum to repeal the tax reform passed in December. For those insights you must read the following forecast on this political storm front.Most political observers dismissed the volunteer-staffed referendum requiring at least 130,000 signatures (accounting for disqualifications) as certain to fail. Then last week some large grocery chains announced their backing of the effort, allowing signature-gathering on their premises. Then the state PTA encouraged its thousands of members to gather signatures. Could what was once a fantasy become a reality this coming week? Will the effort impact the legislative session?

Pignanelli: “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” — Ronald Reagan

An often used comic routine is two speakers using different languages humorously trying to communicate with increasing elevation of their voices and total miscomprehension as the result. Similar emotions and intensity describe the misunderstanding between state officials and referendum supporters regarding tax reform legislation. The resulting passion and frustration is fueling the massive volunteer effort to gather signatures. Many direct democracy experts doubt the success of the referendum effort. But others believe recent institutional support could carry them across the finish line. Either way — it will be close.Sponsors and signatories of the referendum will maintain feelings long after the deadline, to be expressed during the legislative session. Further tax reform deliberations are chilled for a year, if not longer.Should the referendum be certified, lawmakers must dramatically revise budget allocations, with deep cuts in programs funded by sales tax revenue.Either way, shouting in different languages does not end for some time.

Webb: I still think the referendum storm front will dwindle and die — and that will be good for the state, good for taxpayers, and especially good for low-income people. Don’t kid yourself. If you sign a repeal petition you’re voting to raise your taxes — by a whopping $160 million. You’re voting to hurt low-income people. You’re voting to retain a dysfunctional tax system. You’re voting for long-term challenges to fund critical state services like Medicaid, law enforcement, prisons and social services.

I am hopeful the referendum will not stampede legislators into retreating on tax reform. The hard part is done. Voters will benefit. Give it some time to work.Many lawmakers and their staff spent hundreds of hours during the summer and fall wrestling with tax reform, including over 60 hours of public hearings and discussions. Why is their message not resonating with many Utahns?

Pignanelli: Referendum supporters have the easy message — “no new taxes on gasoline and food!” Defenders of tax reform use words like “structural budget readjustments,” “revenue silos” and “changing economic patterns,” to explain their position. These unappealing descriptions are a monstrous burden for even the most articulate.Legislators endured a grueling process to promote public participation in tax reform, eventually garnering support of businesses and community organizations. But without a crisis, many Utahns do not understand an additional burden at the grocery checkout or gas pump despite an income tax reduction. Although Utah is a well-managed state, a distrust of authority remains.

Webb: Tax reform is complicated. Some taxes go up, some go down. Opponents can focus exclusively on the taxes going up, especially the food tax and fuel tax, and generate lots of angst. Without a million-dollar advertising budget, it’s difficult to win the messaging game on tax reform, even though the result is a net positive for citizens. Personally, I like the tax reform package because I prefer a tax cut to a tax increase. Especially when, along with a hefty tax cut, we get a modern, better-balanced tax system suited to our high-tech, services economy.The grassroots momentum behind the referendum cannot be ignored. How will this play out in the upcoming elections?

Pignanelli: Many of the referendum activists will attend precinct caucuses in March, creating angst for incumbents with interparty challenges. While campaigning, candidates will encounter questions on tax reform, altering the flavor of conventions and primaries.

Webb: Clearly, many candidates, including some naïve gubernatorial candidates, will campaign against tax reform. I hope voters will recognize what they’re really saying: “Vote for me because I promise to raise your taxes. I promise to reduce benefits for low-income people. I promise to reinstate a dysfunctional tax system. Vote for me because I’m cynically grandstanding even though I know it’s not good for the state.”Candidates are supposed to be campaigning on how they will courageously take Utah to the next level. Instead they’re promising to reverse progress and take Utah back to a bad tax system.

The Utah gubernatorial race is heating up. Here’s where things stand

Pignanelli and Webb: “Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business.” — Winston Churchill

The Utah real estate market is hot, but no location is hotter than the governor’s mansion on South Temple. A number of Utahns are willing to devote a year of their life to raise money, travel the state, give speeches and endure criticism just for the opportunity to move into the historic residence. We look at the strengths and weaknesses of the current slate of candidates as they each seek to “take Utah to the next level.”

Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox: The undisputed leader in the polls has organized an impressive signature-gathering campaign using volunteers, demonstrating an ability to use his many social media followers. A question dogging him is whether he can financially compete with wealthy opponents. Another is that although he’s a nice guy and everyone likes him, is he “tough enough” to govern? A third is whether a win for him will simply be another term for Gary Herbert.

Former Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.: On paper, this scion of a beloved family should be the frontrunner. But some Utahns seem to resent him leaving early in his second term to serve as an ambassador in the Obama administration. Conservatives also worry that he’s too moderate. But, Huntsman is immensely smart and charismatic, is a great speaker, in person and through video, and he should be able to use his extensive national and international relationships to his advantage.

Former Speaker Greg Hughes: He left the Legislature on a high note with a strong perception among insiders and some in the media as a bold and effective leader who could cross partisan divides to take on tough issues and find solutions to problems. But Hughes, loved by Trump supporters for his conservatism and early support of the president, has been quiet for a long time and has serious catch-up to do for voters to get to know him.

Businessman Jeff Burningham: The persona of a successful business leader outside of politics who will apply business principles to state government has been a successful recipe for many gubernatorial candidates. Burningham has run ads and has plenty of money to be a factor. But, so far, he has not gained much traction in the polls.

Salt Lake County Council Member Aimee Winder Newton: Her gender, energy and stated conservative positions in county deliberations could make Newton a real contender. But she faces challenges of not being well known outside the county, lack of fundraising clout and persistent rumors that her real target is lieutenant governor.

Former GOP chair Thomas Wright: Universally acclaimed as a tremendous leader of the Utah Republican Party, Wright enjoys valuable affection of veteran delegates and can unite conservative and moderate factions. He built a very successful real estate business and will have ample resources. He has a bold vision for the state. But he is almost unknown outside of political circles, and he got into the race late.Former Utah GOP Chairman Thomas Wright announces run for governor

Congressman Rob Bishop: Well, he has until March to decide.

What is the strategy for going through the caucus/convention system and/or gathering signatures to get on the primary ballot?

Pignanelli: History documents that a victory at convention does not guarantee primary win. Delegates, the heart of a party, get really grumpy if ignored. Plus, a poor showing creates momentum problems that are overcome only with expending more resources. So, spoiling 4,000 activists with extraordinary attention is still a requirement in Utah electioneering.

Webb: Most candidates will do both, which likely ensures they will get on the ballot. Hughes is putting all of his faith on delegates in the convention, and won’t gather signatures, obviously seeking to show conservatives he’s their guy. But Wright, Cox and Bishop will also have convention strength, so it’s a risky move. A perception could also exist that a convention-only candidate cares more about delegates than general GOP voters.

Are there various “lanes” or specific categories of voters these candidates will try to woo in a traditionally low-turnout closed June Republican primary?

Pignanelli: Utahns will hear much this election about so-called lanes for ultraconservatives, Trumpistas, millennials, moderates, etc. But with the potential of seven primary contenders, these avenues will have more than one participant. So, winning will require attracting and building a broad coalition beyond habitual GOP voters. This may include younger Republicans, nontraditional conservatives and independents willing to register. Such a combination will be drawn by the candidate promoting an unusual compelling message through an innovative campaign that defies conventional routines.

Webb: The fun of this campaign will be the intrigue and strategy deployed to win sufficient votes in a multi-candidate, low-turnout primary. The winner could emerge with only 30% of the vote, or even less. Turnout will be key. Getting one’s voters to the polls at vacation time will be paramount. How will the factions line up? Who will really vote?

A traditional campaign won’t work. And Utah definitely needs a runoff system.