Church leaders urge civility in politics and defense of constitutional principles

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ General Conference contained lessons for American politics.

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Politics and religion have been major forces in our nation even before the birth of the republic. This reality is especially intriguing in Utah where one faith is so influential. In the April 2021 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, talks by general authorities grabbed national and local headlines. We explore the impact of these important statements on political deliberations.

President Dallin H. Oaks of the First Presidency reminded conference listeners that the U.S. Constitution and its inspired principles are of “special importance” to church members. He said that no party or candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Thus, members may at times need to consider “changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election.” What is the significance of this speech?

I am an Italian Irish Catholic native Utahn who has watched some portion of every conference for more than three decades — oftentimes with my Latter-day Saint wife. This gentile benefitted from the wisdom provided.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was born in a republic without the blemish of supporting the “divine right of kings” that plagues other religions. For many decades, adherents suffered tremendously through the despicable actions of fellow countrymen. Therefore, church leaders have unique moral authority to admonish Americans to respect our beloved Constitution. Because of recent events, President Oaks’ deliverance was timely and much needed. He reminded us there are higher objectives than petty score settling.

Partisan discord is corroding the fabric of our society. President Oaks prescribed a simple, but very proficient, remedy for all voters regardless of their affiliations and persuasions.

Utah is consistently heralded for a well-managed government, tremendous work ethic and deep compassion. These are all traits directly derived from religious heritage. So, it’s natural Latter-day Saint leaders are providing a path to resolve national and state divisiveness. This heathen is proud to participate in the solution.

Webb: Non-Republicans in Utah were quick to interpret President Oaks’ comments as a clear signal that it’s OK for church members to support candidates and parties other than the dominant Republican Party.

I think they are correct in that assumption, although such positioning by the church is nothing new. Church leaders have frequently encouraged members to be active in politics, but have made it clear that the church does not support particular candidates or political parties. Such choices are properly up to individual members of the church.

Of greater significance, in my view, President Oaks strongly encouraged church members and everyone else to “uphold and defend” the divinely inspired principles of the Constitution. That clearly means supporting candidates who share that commitment.

He explicitly encouraged support for “five divinely inspired principles” in the Constitution. I strongly urge everyone to read and reread his talk and review and think about how we can champion those five principles to protect our freedoms and the vitality and durability of our nation.

I was especially pleased to hear President Oaks proclaim as the second “inspired principle” of the Constitution “the division of delegated power between the nation and its subsidiary states.” As a strong defender of balanced federalism in our nation it was heartening to see this key principle elevated by President Oaks. I firmly believe that a restoration of the proper federal/state relationship could help solve many of the nation’s most difficult problems.

Elder Gary E. Stevenson articulated scientific and anecdotal examples of why kindness is necessary. He denounced bullying and said that prejudice and poor treatment of others because of their personal characteristics have no place in society or in the church. He reminded church members they have a responsibility to set a tone of “inclusion and civility” in a society that is shifting toward division in “politics, social class and other manmade distinctions.” Can this counsel improve political dialogue?

Pignanelli: I will never forget Elder Stevenson’s talk. His stories of the laboratory rabbits and neighborliness of Quincy, Illinois, were moving and reaffirmed unkind poisonous language is not justified.

For too long, commentators on cable television, talk radio and social media have vilified others simply for policy differences. Religious leaders must consistently denounce these tactics. Elder Stevenson offered a successful formula.

Webb: In politics, there are certainly issues, principles and candidates worth fighting for. There are also issues, principles and candidates that should be opposed and defeated. But it really can be done without personal attacks and vicious language.

Admittedly, it is hard to stay civil and respectful on hotly contested issues. I often fall short myself. But we would better solve problems if our exchanges were courteous, with even a bit of grace and understanding in the mix.

Could the statements by church leaders generate backlash among members, or produce a deeper commitment to their objectives?

Pignanelli: Demanding charitable behavior toward those with different religious or political beliefs always generates criticism from the narrow strident believers (just ask Pope Francis). Unfortunately, it’s happening in Utah. But the legacy of the church, and its members, commands respect nationwide. Frequent admonitions similar to those delivered Easter weekend can change American discourse.

Webb: The behavior of those on the extremes may never change. But the entreaties of good church leaders can absolutely motivate centrists of all political persuasions to do better.

"It is truly humbling to be acknowledged by the Best of State Committee Members for our professional success and commitment to community engagement, especially during an unprecedented year. We have exceptional clients and dear friends who play an integral role in our firm's success. We thank each of them for their continued support."

-The Foxley & Pignanelli Team

Is massive federal spending destroying the concept of federalism?

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

In national crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government rightly steps up and provides directives and massive financial support to state and local governments and directly to businesses and individuals. But this immense federal intervention comes at the risk of making states even more subservient to the federal government, both financially and with more federal regulation and mandates. This raises important questions.

When the pandemic crisis is over, and after the expenditure of trillions of federal dollars, some of it given to states and local governments, will the federal/state relationship have been forever altered?

Pignanelli: “Ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the State governments, would ... be signals of general alarm. ... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.” — James Madison

We who overindulge high-calorie foods would never risk credibility to blame the restaurants for our lack of discipline (I have no willpower with Italian cuisine). Conversely, states’ rights activists suffer no compunction rebuking the federal government for overreach. There are no nationally elected officials in Washington, D.C. — all were chosen from the states or the electoral college. Most diminishment of federalism, and empowerment of the federal government, was through the consent of the states’ representatives. The national checking account is so big, and states’ so limited, that financial considerations compelled acquiescence.

Unarguably, for the benefit of all Americans some national powers needed absolute preeminence to enhance civil rights, air and water quality, commerce, etc. Further, the pandemic demonstrated again the federal government excels in selected actions and state governments are superior for others.

American federalism has always been a partisan issue — the GOP are the modern advocates. But the left-leaning have reason to be equally suspicious of overreaching nationalism on key issues: privacy, immigration, environment, etc.

Saying “No” (especially to a second helping of pasta) is a difficult but must be learned by the states to prevent “unhealthy growth”.

Webb: The Biden administration agenda is producing the greatest federal government domination and dependency in modern history.

The nation’s founders clearly intended states to be equal partners with the federal government in the governance of the nation. But the national government enjoys an immense advantage — the ability to print and borrow money. That means it can shower down trillions of dollars on states, local governments, businesses and individuals for whatever purposes it deems appropriate, with little or zero state input.

But the money inevitably comes with strings attached and the federal bureaucracy grows ever larger. The “free” money obviously becomes very popular among both public and private recipients and a grave danger of growing dependency exists.

I don’t discount the federal government’s critical role in times of crisis. It appropriately takes action to prevent suffering and calamity. And I don’t believe individuals or states should turn down the money. After all, it is their taxes (or obligation to eventually pay the debt), so they should receive their fair share.

I’m also not suggesting that reasonable federal debt is inappropriate. But the proper economic theory is that debt is accrued in times of crisis, to bolster a faltering economy, and then is reduced or paid off in good times.

However, the unfortunate pattern for many years has been that debt soars in both good times and bad, under administrations of both parties. Some very wise people believe it is now reaching a crisis point and it won’t take much for the house of cards to collapse.

The Biden administration and Congress are proposing further sweeping legislation that further encroaches on the prerogatives of states. These include federalizing election procedures (which are currently overseen by state legislatures), a $15 per hour minimum wage, gun control, free college, and even prohibiting states from cutting taxes if they have taken federal relief funds. Will such legislation help or hurt the country?

Pignanelli: Restricting state tax cuts? The Supreme Court should strike this nonsense down, but the mere suggestion propels dangerous thoughts. No surprise Congress is considering further oversight of elections. Many politicians laid the groundwork by condemning state certified results. Respect for states’ rights doesn’t end because of ballot results.

The brilliant founders’ construction will prevent either measure from a long life.

Webb: Congress and the federal government are vastly overreaching their authority, creating more division and anger with one-size-fits-all regulation. Wyoming and New York are very different. On issues like gun control and the minimum age, why not let Wyoming be Wyoming and New York be New York? Half of congressional dysfunction could be eliminated by modestly accepting the diversity of our country.

Can states do anything to hold back the increased federal domination?

Pignanelli: Federalism must be a bipartisan issue. Otherwise, it will continue to be subject to the inconsistent whims of elections. The proposed “Repeal” constitutional amendment (introduced by former Congressman Rob Bishop) would allow a majority of the states to overturn any federal law or regulation. Serious consideration of this measure would send the right signals.

Webb: The galloping trend toward massive power concentration at the federal level will continue unabated until state legislators wake up and use the constitutional authority vested in them to resist and apply structural reforms, making states competitive in the federal system.

Will Utah be able to handle such rapid growth? Local elections will be the key

Mayoral races across the state are already heating up.
By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Pignanelli & Webb: “Winning the election is a good-news, bad-news kind of thing. OK, now you’re the mayor. The bad news is, now you’re the mayor.” — Clint Eastwood

Although Utah will not have any federal or state elections this year, there will be plenty of politics at the local level in mayoral and city council races. These can sometimes be rather sleepy contests but, often, local elections are heated and even nasty. Citizens really care about local, neighborhood issues. Some of them are highly emotional.

Many of the hottest local issues are centered on the challenges of rapid growth. Utah’s population is expected to grow by another 2 million people over the next three decades.

Massive new housing developments, high-density housing, affordable housing, lot sizes, infrastructure needs and costs, and a desire to maintain a rural or suburban flavor — “like it was when I grew up” — often spark local battles.

And change is also occurring in rural Utah, causing some discomfort and political ferment. With more people working from home and able to live anywhere, some parts of rural Utah are becoming more desirable, with an influx of people, new ideas, and different values and cultures.

Utah experienced a dramatic increase in voter turnout last year. Vote by mail will likely also boost voter participation in the municipal races. Candidates will have to campaign more broadly, to all citizens instead of just those with a history of active voting in low-key municipal elections.

Further, more mayoral campaigns will be utilizing sophisticated technology and research activities that were once the domain of partisan federal and state contests. Utahns can expect aggressive social media, polling and demographic targeting in some of these contests.

The statewide municipal filing deadline is June 7, with primaries to be held Aug. 10. Most cities (with the exception of a few of the largest ones) feature mayoral contests this year.

Here’s a sampling of some of the more interesting mayoral races:

Sandy: Four years ago, Kurt Bradburn shocked the Utah political world by defeating permanent fixture Tom Dolan in the mayoral race. Bradburn is not running for reelection, and at least two council members are considering the race (Marci Housman and Kristin Coleman-Nichols). Interesting gossip indicates that the City Council Executive Director Mike Applegarth may also toss his hat into the ring.

Orem: Mayor Richard Brunst is not seeking reelection. Rumor is former mayor Jim Evans will run in what is a usually competitive race.

St. George: Mayor Jon Pike resigned in January upon his appointment by Gov. Spencer Cox to serve as Utah Insurance Department commissioner. Michele Randall was appointed by the City Council to replace Pike and will be seeking a full term. Council members Jimmie Hughes and Gregg McArthur may also run. Politicos are watching this race with interest because the controversy over changing the name of Dixie State University could be a major issue.

Provo: Mayor Michelle Kaufusi collected statewide recognition as the running mate for Jon Huntsman Jr. in the 2020 gubernatorial primary contest. She is gearing up for reelection, but there are whispers of heated opposition.

West Valley City: Beloved former lawmaker and state budget officer Ron Bigelow is not running for reelection as mayor. This is likely to produce a number of ambitious mayoral candidates from the City Council and community organizations.

Cedar City: Maile Wilson captured national attention as a young lawyer elected to lead her hometown. She is running for a third term with likely opposition from well-known businessman Garth Green.

Murray: Mayor Blair Camp, a former fire chief, is a well-respected institution among residents. Should he not seek a second full term, the race for the open seat will be interesting as the community has witnessed major political shifts in city and legislative offices.

South Salt Lake: Mayor Cherie Wood has survived several close races and could face another strong challenge should she seek a fourth term.

Park City: Mayor Andy Beerman is popular, but plenty of controversies arise in this ski resort community, possibly prompting competition.

Heber City: Mayor Kelleen Potter has deftly increased economic opportunities in this once-sleepy hamlet. But she has garnered controversy for strong positions on LGBTQ issues and affordable housing. These issues may promote opposition.

Bluffdale: Apparently, Mayor Derk Timothy may not seek reelection. This is fostering interest from council members and local business owners.

Davis and Weber County cities: Many of the municipalities in these two counties have mayors with two or three terms of experience. Longevity sometimes produces increasing opposition and a desire for new approaches. This suggests the possibility of potential competitive races by challengers wishing to oust the incumbents. One exception is Roy, where popular Mayor Robert Dandoy may not seek reelection.

Meet the Republican challengers lining up to oppose Sen. Mike Lee

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

The November 2022 election is 20 months away. But for political observers (aka junkies and hacks) it’s never too soon to start conjecturing about candidates. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee is certainly running for reelection, which is spurring real and potential opponents. We begin the gossip and review the early intrigue.

Pignanelli & Webb: The following individuals (in alphabetical order) have already announced their candidacies, or have told others they are considering a run, or are hearing “whispering in their ears” about seeking the 2022 GOP Senate nomination.

Rebecca P. “Becky” Edwards is a well-liked former member of the Utah House of Representatives, representing south Davis County from 2009 to 2018. Edwards has said she is “all in” and is moving forward with her campaign.

Henry Eyring is a very smart young political newcomer who holds a doctorate in business administration and has been teaching at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

His name is familiar because he is the grandson of President Henry Eyring of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Jeff Flake is former member of the U.S. Senate representing Arizona. He (yes, that Jeff Flake) is spending a great deal of time in Utah. Numerous sources are telling us that he is receiving pressure to run for the seat.

Dan Hemmert is a successful businessman and former effective state senator who now serves as director of economic development for Gov. Spencer Cox. He has served in his current job only a short time, but has been mentioned as a possible Senate candidate by numerous insiders.

Gary Herbert was, of course, an immensely popular governor who is likely enjoying retirement and his grandkids, but is being mentioned by his friends as perhaps still having some political fire in the belly.

Ally Isom is a well-respected communications, public policy and campaign expert, having worked as deputy chief of staff and spokesperson for Gov. Herbert. She held key positions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is currently chief strategy officer for EVOQ, a nanotech company.

Erin Rider is a hard-driving local attorney and MBA with degrees from Georgetown University. She specializes in corporate and securities law and has a commitment to “principled conservatism.” She appears to be moving forward with a campaign.

Brendan Wright is a Lehi resident who has announced his candidacy. He has advanced degrees and has worked at Motorola, ExxonMobil, Savage Resources, and currently works as an area planning manager for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thomas Wright runs a successful real estate business and was the very effective chairman of the Salt Lake County and Utah state Republican parties. He was a candidate for governor in 2020 and arguably had the best and funniest TV ads — but the pandemic intervened to take the fun out of politics.

Mike Lee helped take out incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett in the state convention in 2010, and then defeated another solid Republican in the GOP primary. Is he himself vulnerable in 2022?

Pignanelli: Five years ago, high-profile Republicans were grumbling about Utah’s junior senator’s participation in the government shutdown. Serious threats percolated against his first reelection. Yet, Lee worked tirelessly to avoid the mistakes of his predecessor. Within six months he was unopposed in the convention and had secured enough petition signatures that his nomination was unanimously supported.

The new detractors face challenges. The incumbent is quietly raising money to finance the necessary media and grassroots operations. Furthermore, Lee enjoys an unmovable base inside the Republican Party.

As before, some Republicans are troubled with Lee’s style and rhetoric. But claims that Lee is too conservative or over strident will not resonate with the GOP faithful. His efforts and speeches pushing back against a Democrat controlled federal government will be embraced.

Lee is an outspoken, energetic, controversial persona who can articulate constitutional principles with amazing clarity. Consequently, he attracts disgruntlement and passionate support. Objecting to Lee’s approach is easy but constructing a campaign to oust him is enormously difficult.

Webb: Lee obviously causes discomfort within the moderate wing of the GOP, especially because of his support for former President Trump (although he differed with Trump on some issues). It is significant that a number of potential opponents are lining up this early in the election cycle.

But no one is going to sneak up on Lee like he did on Bennett 11 years ago. And Lee is likely saying, “Come on in. The more the merrier.” A large field of moderate candidates will split the centrist vote in a multi-candidate primary and allow Lee to waltz to victory with his strong conservative base.

What external forces could impact Utah’s primary and general elections in 2022?

Pignanelli: As in 2010, perceived overreach by a Democrat administration and Congress will be influential. The post-pandemic economy, China and Iran could be additional factors determining decisions by Utah’s electorate.

Webb: Trump is always a wild card. He will be a factor in 2022 and will likely support Lee — which will cut both ways but will be a net positive in Utah. If the Biden administration continues its leftward lurch and pushes bigger government, more regulation and higher taxes, Utah voters may want to send a conservative to go to battle in Washington, not someone who wants to get along with everyone.

The GOP just can’t resist the temptation to fight election law battles

The Utah Legislature grappled with bills about how nominees are selected, who can vote in primary elections and how proposals get on the ballot.

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

As we all know, the pandemic affected billions of lives. And it also impacted how Utahns elected their political leaders last November. This was reflected in legislation considered by Utah lawmakers earlier this year. Thus, it would be political malpractice for us not to offer our opinions.

SB205, sponsored by Sen. Dan McCay, was on the fast track for passage. This legislation would allow political parties to choose how their nominees are selected — by delegates at a convention, by signature-gathering, or a hybrid. But then the bill died. It was learned there was a meeting with top GOP officials who decided to kill it. But activists promise another attempt. Why will this issue not go away?

Pignanelli: “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do” — song by Neil Sedaka

The defenders of the delegate system refuse to comprehend the Utah political class has moved on and no longer has affection for them.

Despite their small numbers and cluelessness, these diehards are vocal and aggressive. Thus, lawmakers must pay them attention. Sen. McCay crafted a sincere, but complicated, solution that encompassed all alternatives.

But the 1.5 million Utahns who voted in the 2020 election will not tolerate a return to a system that gives .0002 % of voters total power to determine GOP nominees. This prevalent emotion could drive an initiative or referendum. Lawmakers also understand this, which effectively prevents major legislative changes.

Time and attrition will eventually end the controversy. The strident minority will receive the political equivalent of “Dear John, we will always be friends ... ”

Webb: SB205 would have turned the candidate nomination process over to political insiders. The Republican Party would turn exclusively to convention delegates to determine party nominees, or who gets on the primary election ballot, excluding hundreds of thousands of voters from the process.

It also could have ripped apart the Republican Party, severely damaging fundraising and producing another big intra-party brawl. Proponents of the SB54/Count My Vote compromise were considering a referendum to repeal SB205, or another ballot initiative to create a simple direct primary election in Utah.

Cooler heads prevailed and SB205 was tabled. The vast majority of Utahns support SB54’s hybrid approach to the nomination process. Most candidates like the ability to gather signatures to get on the ballot.

So, how about, instead of continuing to brawl over this issue, we instead make a few needed repairs to SB54, including improving the signature-gathering requirements and dealing with the plurality issue when multiple candidates are on the primary ballot?

For a freshman lawmaker, Rep. Jordan Teuscher had a busy and productive session. He sponsored HB136, the initiative modifications bill, which would make it much more difficult for citizens to get proposals on the election ballot.

Pignanelli: Our state constitution wisely allows for a public initiatives. This provides opportunities for policy discussions outside the legislative process. Yet, problems were percolating. Signatories and voters did not always have pertinent information when considering the initiatives in 2018. If they had, the results may have been different. The legislation leaves a strong procedure in place, while preventing abuses. Utahns will have greater access to information when engaging in this important activity.

Webb: Utah’s Constitution allows citizens to make laws, and the process is already very difficult and costly, requiring a majority vote in a statewide election. The Legislature makes hundreds of new laws each year. By contrast, only a tiny handful of laws have been enacted by citizens over the last several years, and they have been promptly amended (properly so) by the Legislature.

Thus, HB136 is a solution in search of a problem. It’s not like citizens are willy-nilly enacting a bunch of dumb laws. I absolutely agree that the Legislature should be making the vast majority of laws and it should be very difficult — and it already is — for citizens to go around the Legislature.

But there ought to be a reasonable means for citizens to enact a law, and HB136 goes so far as to make citizen-lawmaking nearly impossible.

Rep. Teuscher also sponsored HB197, the voter affiliation amendments, which limits the ability of individuals to change party affiliation after March 31 of a primary election year. This was in direct response to many Utahns switching to participate in the 2020 GOP primary. Was this really needed?

Pignanelli: In 2020, 70,000 Utahns switched affiliation to vote in the GOP primary, almost all in good faith because they preferred one of the four gubernatorial candidates. Spencer Cox led in the polls for the nomination cycle and the new voters only verified his wide support. Concerns about down ballot races when voters shift at the last minute may be more realistic.

Because of the changing dynamics and demographics of political parties, this issue could be revisited in the future. Candidates will want the ability to recruit new categories of supporters.

Webb: HB197 is another solution in search of a problem. Democrats voting in Republican primaries hasn’t been a problem, and hasn’t skewed elections, even in 2020. Under President Ronald Reagan, the GOP was a big tent. Reagan encouraged participation in the party, welcoming independents, unaffiliated voters and even Democrats who wanted to vote for Republican candidates.

Today’s party is in danger of becoming the party of exclusion, purity and litmus tests. It is a sign of insecurity. In reality, Utah’s Republican Party is strong and dominant and will continue to win almost every major race well into the future. It has no need to be fear a few more independent, moderate or even liberal Utahns registering as Republicans and voting in a GOP primary.

The Utah legislative session is over, but plenty of work lies ahead

From COVID-19 to education, legislative politics continues

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

The 2021 general session of the Utah Legislature ended a week ago ... but, rest assured, legislative politics continues on. We review some of the ongoing controversies.

In his State of the State address, Gov. Spencer Cox suggested that he would veto more bills than his predecessor. What are the ramifications should he do?

Pignanelli: “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.” ― Calvin Coolidge

The gubernatorial veto is the kale salad of lawmaking. Few enjoy the taste, but all benefit from the steely nutrition.

My sentiment for this constitutional prerogative was developed through 35 years of public service and lobbying on Capitol Hill. I believe the occasional veto enhances deliberations and strengthens both elected branches. First, a well-used veto pen provides legislative leaders a tool to persuade recalcitrant lawmakers to modify their beloved bills or face defeat at the governor’s desk.

Secondly, the dynamics of a veto override session prompt coalition building. Legislators search for allies to override the rejection, while the governor befriends factions to sustain his decision. (Even the minority party can join in the fun.) Both sides promise to review the specific issues to curry support. Such machinations foster strong public policy deliberations.

Then there is the necessary public relations component that a veto reminds voters their representatives are engaged in an important democratic activity.

Gov. Cox and his staff are fielding numerous requests for this action. Among other considerations, they will analyze the Senate and House vote counts and the possibility of an override. (Note: I have several clients that may pursue, or object to, a veto of legislation.)

Thus, a veto is the necessary vegetable that strengthens the body politic.

Webb: Some of us like to watch a good political fight. But we aren’t likely to see a lot of sparks fly between the governor and lawmakers. Surprises always pop up, but most of the potential disagreements, at least the major ones, were ironed out (or died out) during the session.

A few bills are usually vetoed after every session, some for technical reasons. But on a number of big issues, including executive branch emergency powers, Count My Vote and transgender issues, legislators and the governor did some talking and compromising. The bills either died in the legislative process or differences were worked out.

That’s actually a good way to govern — even if it’s boring. It once again demonstrates that good governance and problem-solving occur on the state level, while dysfunction and hyperpartisanship continue in Congress.

What were key legislative achievements? Which will most benefit Utah families and business?

Pignanelli: The serious infusion of dollars into the public education system will help teachers and parents with their students who suffered through the pandemic. Direct expenditures and bonding will fund numerous construction and transportation projects. This assures to maintain growth, especially with a potential downturn looming. The mandate for legislative involvement in long term emergencies will help future generations.

Webb: It was a very good session, especially considering it occurred during a year of fighting the pandemic and the ensuing economic downturn. Rather than retrench, lawmakers were able to make important investments in education, infrastructure, affordable housing, parks and many other areas.

Utah’s biggest challenge continues to be rapid growth. Lawmakers were wise to invest a lot of money to ensure a good quality of life for future generations. And the teacher bonus was a nice gesture to dedicated educators who have been stretched and stressed over the last year.

There are always things to quibble about. I wasn’t a big fan of the modest tax cut, although it was targeted pretty well. Most recipients won’t even notice it. The money could have better been spent to further bolster education, especially teacher salaries.

Because of the pandemic, many lawmakers felt 2020 was a never-ending series of legislative activities that spilled into the 2021 session. They are rightfully exhausted. But interim committees and a redistricting special session are ahead this year. What is likely to be reviewed and studied for the remainder of this year?

Pignanelli: The always evolving fields of technology, financial services and health care will be studied — possibly fostering legislation. Recalibration of state agencies will be occurring, including positioning of metrics to monitor government efficiency. Of course, the redrawing of political boundaries will haunt the minds of our elected representatives, culminating in a fall special session. Watch for this entertaining topic in future columns.

Webb: Redistricting will be the big issue this year, and it will be historic, with an independent redistricting commission recommending district boundaries for legislators, Congress and the State School Board. The interaction between the independent commission and the Legislature’s own Redistricting Committee will be something to watch.

Utah is going to get a big chunk of money from the federal COVID-19 relief legislation (although probably not as much as we deserve). Depending on how prescriptive the spending guidelines are, a special session could be required to appropriate that money. That might mean more money for infrastructure because one-time money should not be spent for on-going programs.