Will Utahns back Trump for a third time — and how will Trump react if they don’t?

The 2024 presidential election is moving in as candidates declare their intentions to run. Will Trump still lead the GOP?

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Around this time next year, nearly two dozen presidential primary and caucus elections will already have been held in states across the country. That means the 2024 presidential election is currently heating up with declared and undeclared candidates maneuvering for advantage. We take a look at presidential electioneering in Utah.

The big question for Utah Republicans is whether they will support Donald Trump for a third time. Does he still have his magic among Utah voters, or are Republicans ready to switch loyalty to a younger generation of conservatives?

Pignanelli: “The history of national primary polls more than a year away from party conventions shows that early front runners can have serious problems getting across the finish line.” — National Constitution Center  An unidentified dynamic is percolating among Utah Republicans regarding the former president. In December 2022, a Deseret News/Hinckley Institute poll revealed the preference of 600 Utahns intending to vote in the GOP presidential primary: 28.9% for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, 18.8% for Trump, 10% for former congresswoman Liz Cheney, 7.5% for Sen. Ted Cruz, 6.4% for former Vice President Mike Pence 6.4%, and 3.7% for former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

However, a month later OH Predictive Insights released a survey of 302 Republicans: 42% for Trump, 29% for DeSantis, 11% for Pence, 6% for Cheney and others receiving no more than 2%.

Although polling methodologies may partially explain these disparate conclusions, they disclose fluidity amongst Utah’s GOP. Readers are reminded that in November, over 86 Utah elected officials signed a letter urging DeSantis to seek the nomination. Their opinion is reflected by 60% of Utahns who have an unfavorable opinion of Trump — according to the Deseret News poll.

History suggests early strong contenders such as Trump and DeSantis may suffer the fate of Rudy Giuliani, Gary Hart and Edward Kennedy. Thus, Utah Republicans are likely to prefer a younger conservative.

Webb: I’m an old Republican and I’m ready for a new generation of leaders to take over. That means Trump and President Joe Biden should get out of the way. I’m also tired of losing, and I believe Trump will produce another defeat. He’s been losing, losing, losing. I think most Utah Republicans are ready for a new champion.

I’ve warned many times not to underestimate Trump. But he lost the 2020 election, which he should have won. Then some of his key endorsed candidates in 2022 lost races that Republicans should have won. The GOP would control the Senate today except for Trump’s bad candidates.

And some GOP candidates he opposed won big (like almost the entire slate of GOP candidates in Georgia except Trump-endorsed Herschel Walker). Trump is on a losing streak and it’s not going to get better.

We have excellent prospects to succeed Trump. DeSantis, a true conservative, is just as willing as Trump to take on the establishment and upset the status quo. But he’s not crazy. DeSantis could capture the Trump base unless Trump selfishly tries to burn down the Republican Party if he loses. 

Members of Utah’s congressional delegation have stayed mum about who they will support for president. Gov. Spencer Cox is not a Trump fan and prefers to see a Republican governor win the nomination. Will these sentiments influence presidential politics in Utah? For Democrats, is President Joe Biden the only good option?

Pignanelli: Cruz won the 2016 presidential primary in Utah. He was endorsed by popular local politicians Gov. Gary Herbert and Sen. Mike Lee. So endorsements from Cox, Lee and Mitt Romney will make a difference — especially in a crowded field. Bernie Sanders won the 2016 and 2020 Democrat primaries by large margins. A strong progressive candidate could prevail against Biden.

Webb: Utah’s delegation could split on the presidential race. Clearly, Romney and Cox will oppose Trump. I’d be surprised if congressmen John Curtis and Blake Moore support Trump. I don’t know about Reps. Chris Stewart and Burgess Owens or Sen. Lee.

It’s probably wise politically for them to stay neutral for now. No use alienating the Trump base in Utah. Cox is popular enough that he can withstand opposition from Trump supporters. Romney may have trouble.

The Democratic presidential bench is so weak that Democrats have no choice but to support Biden.

Some extreme members of the GOP continue to roil the political waters (Like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene calling for a “national divorce”). U.S. support for Ukraine is also an issue that divides Republicans. Will these issues impact voter sentiment in Utah?

Pignanelli: I am impressed by Republican legislators sporting Ukraine flag lapel pins and distancing themselves from Greene’s silly comments. Because lawmakers usually mirror sentiments percolating among their constituents, their public actions indicate broader trends among the GOP. This is a hopeful sign of common sense.

Webb: Support for Ukraine will be a key issue, and it may divide Utah leaders and voters. I hope the United States will maintain strong support for Ukraine against the Russian dictator who is killing children and committing war crimes. We can’t afford to lose Ukraine to Russia, and we can’t afford a prolonged war. Let’s give Ukraine what it needs to win now.

Do these proposed tax cuts favor the rich or poor?

The legislature is proposing a state income tax rate reduction, a constitutional amendment to require income tax be used for education and removal of the food sales tax

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

No legislative session would be complete without deliberations on taxes. Lawmakers are now considering tax cuts and tax realignment. We’ve paid taxes for so long we’re professionals at it, so we offer our two cents (wish it were only that much ...).

A state income tax rate reduction from 4.85% to 4.65% is likely to pass. Is this necessary? Also, key lawmakers want to amend the Utah Constitution to remove the earmark requiring income taxes to be spent on education and some social services — with a sweetener. If voters approve the amendment, the state portion of the sales tax on food will be removed. Why is the Legislature touching this controversial topic again?

Pignanelli: “In levying taxes and in shearing sheep it is well to stop when you get down to the skin.” — Austin O’Malley

For decades, I fielded inquiries questioning legislative rationale of reducing some tax or fee. In response I remind these otherwise intelligent people that local lawmakers reflect a predominant conservative attitude that subscribe to lowest possible revenue intake. Officials also worry a series of surpluses left unchecked will increase state government beyond a normal rate which will be problematic in lean years. Of course, the historical observation that no person lost an election by voting for a tax decrease is relevant.

LaVarr and I remember the late 1980s when Utah was the only state suffering a deep recession with a devastated environment for jobs. Thus, efforts to keep the tax rate competitive with surrounding jurisdictions to maintain and recruit businesses will keep employment strong.

The income tax dedication to public education appropriately haunts the Legislature. If the Legislature attempts another remedy through a constitutional amendment, lessons from prior activities will be helpful. Strong messaging reflecting the popular perceptions, through an aggressive outreach campaign to voters is needed to explain the rationale.

Fortunately, many hot button issues were resolved early in the session to allow intense debate on tax issues that will assure the electorate any results are not last-minute exercises.

Webb: There’s a lot to unpack here. First, Utah already has relatively low taxes that have helped produce arguably the nation’s best economy. I hate to see the tax base further eroded by permanent tax cuts in such uncertain economic times.

We are enjoying great times in Utah, but the national and international economies are far from secure. The world is a scary place right now. Inflation and interest rates remain very high, reducing economic activity and ballooning the federal debt. Tensions are elevated with China and Russia. China could cripple our economy by strategically cutting off exports and banning U.S. imports. The war in Ukraine could expand. China could invade Taiwan.

Now is the time to save and bolster Utah’s future by investing in education and putting surplus dollars into “working rainy day funds” by spending on infrastructure and other one-time projects.

I believe Utah citizens would rather have top-in-the-nation education and an outstanding transportation system than have their taxes cut by an amount barely noticeable.

I support a constitutional amendment providing more flexibility in the use of income tax revenue. But instead of eliminating the state tax on food and eroding the tax base, we should send low-income people a check amounting to more than they would pay in food sales tax. That provides the help where it’s needed. Wealthy people don’t need a tax cut on food purchases.

Democrats and some Republicans are making accusations that the various proposed tax policies benefit the wealthy and harm the poor? What is the reality?

Pignanelli: There was an easy formula when I served in the Legislature: income taxes are progressive and fair; sales taxes are regressive and bad. Unfortunately, such simplicity does not exist today as questions regarding who is benefiting are not easily answered. For example, a recent study by the Utah Taxpayers Association alleges that decreasing the sales tax on food favors the wealthy. Added into the mix are proposals to help those with fixed or lower income by increasing threshold exemptions on taxing Social Security and increasing the earned income tax credit. A potpourri of reductions may be the safest route.

Webb: According to the Legislature, the income tax reduction would cut taxes for low-income households by 22%; middle-income households by 6%, and high-income households by 4%. That seems fair. It’s true that higher income people might see more relief in actual dollars. But that’s because they pay a whole lot more in taxes overall.

In his budget address, Gov. Spencer Cox proposed a one-time rebate to be distributed from the surplus to all Utahns. Is that still on the table?

Pignanelli: The proposal is on the menu but unlikely to be selected. These resources will be directed towards other targets.

Webb: I like the governor’s proposal. In such uncertain times, a one-time rebate is a better way to provide tax relief than permanent cuts. Taxpayers get some benefit this year, but the money is available in future years if needed to maintain education and other critical services. A rebate buys time to see how the economy performs.

Does Utah need these election reforms?

Over the last several election cycles, many of our current mainstream political leaders would have been defeated in convention had they been at the mercy of a relative handful of county and state convention delegates

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

More than two dozen bills have been filed or requested in the current legislative session making changes to Utah’s election laws. We review this perennial obsession by politicos.

This is the 10th legislative session in which lawmakers have proposed laws regarding the delegate/convention system and primary elections. Why does this issue continue to haunt the lawmaking process? Will there ever be a resolution as to how a primary ballot is formulated?

Pignanelli: “Organizing free and fair elections is more important than the result itself.” — Fatos Nano

Through close observation and personal experience, I can attest many families endure repeated disputes with continuing hard feelings and grudges. Similar dynamics abound among Utah’s political class, especially regarding the delegate/convention system. Therefore, the Legislature frequently reiterates this ongoing debate.

I was once a solid proponent of the delegate/convention system. This holdover from the progressive era allowed candidates with limited resources (like me) the opportunity to compete. For decades, delegates were selected in homey neighborhood meetings whose participants echoed local priorities. But lifestyles have changed and the process no longer garners large participation, prompting influence by well organized special interest groups. Regardless, delegates control the fate of both parties and of many candidates — a power not easily surrendered. Legislative deliberations result.

Over time, most family quarrels dissipate. This is the likely outcome for determining Utah primary elections, but not in the immediate future.

Webb: Utah’s dual-track system for getting on the primary election ballot could use a few tweaks (see below). But it would be disastrous to force all candidates to exclusively use the old caucus/convention process. There will always be extreme elements within the Republican Party that want to do exactly that. SB54 and the Count My Vote effort produced an excellent compromise that should be maintained and strengthened.

Over the last several election cycles, many of our current mainstream political leaders would have been defeated in convention had they been at the mercy of a relative handful of county and state convention delegates. But because they had the option to gather signatures to get on the primary election ballot, they soundly defeated far-right opponents when all Republican voters had the opportunity to vote and choose their party nominees.

Next year, Sen. Mitt Romney is up for reelection. He will likely be defeated at the state convention, but has a solid chance of being renominated in a primary election. He at least deserves a chance to make his case before all Republican voters.

Our mainstream conservative governance has served the state very well. Let’s not allow more extreme elements of either party to take over the nomination process.

Several interesting concepts sponsored by Rep. Jordan Teuscher have captured the support of lawmakers. HB202 (Signature Threshold Amendments) would modify the threshold for signature petitions to the greater of existing numerical requirements or 3% of the registered voters of the qualified party in the district. HB205 (Primary Election Amendments) attempts to resolve the primary plurality issue to ensure that the nominee is supported by a majority of the voters in a primary. This is accomplished through a “contingency voting” process that utilizes the multiple choices of voters. What is driving these proposals?

Pignanelli: Teuscher is well known on Capitol Hill for intense and persuasive preparation. He did not disappoint when presenting these bills. A weird disparity does exist between legislative and school board signature thresholds, which his bill tries to remedy. As the state grows, the percentage metric becomes important.

Teuscher also documents that since 2014, 42 primary elections had more than two candidates. Among these, almost 80% of the time the winner received less than 50% of the vote (many with less than 40%). Utahns became aware of this unusual feature in 2020 when the gubernatorial and two congressional races sported four candidates. The legislation would allow voters to provide their first and second choice in a primary election. If a candidate does not receive 50%, there is an immediate reallocation of these preferences to determine the winner.

The signature gathering process is enduring growing pains, which these bills are helping to alleviate.

Webb: Yes, the signature-gathering process and multicandidate primary elections need some improvements, which Teuscher seeks to address. Any changes need to strengthen the system and make it fairer and more efficient, not sneakily undermine it.

There are several bills mandating an audit of Utah’s election process. Are these needed and why?

Pignanelli: Utah possesses the gold standard for elections. Any mandates for audits should be to maintain this treasured attribute.

Webb: Periodic audits are fine if they are fair and not too burdensome on the entity being audited. For the most part, Utah’s elections are administered efficiently and professionally. When problems occur, such as happened in Utah County a few years ago, they are promptly resolved. 

The biggest election problems occur when vote counting drags on for days and weeks after election day. Long delays produce suspicion and doubt. Any election reform ought to focus on voting efficiency and quick and accurate tabulation of results. 

Why Utah’s controversial bills are up first, not last

The legislature is prioritizing its to-do list from hardest to easiest this year

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

The legislature is an institution of representative democracy wherein lawmakers usually reflect the views of constituents. But this branch of government also reflects deeper political trends. We examine a few noteworthy examples.

The Legislature recently passed, by overwhelming majority, HB215 Third Substitute — Funding for Teacher Salaries and Optional Education Opportunities. In addition to providing pay raises to teachers, the legislation also establishes education savings accounts to be used for private education, online programs, home schooling, etc. This is a remarkable change from when lawmakers approved a voucher program in 2007, which was then rejected by almost two-thirds of voters in a referendum. What caused the shift? 

Pignanelli: “Nearly 90% of America’s school-aged children attend local, district-run public schools. Suddenly it’s no longer unthinkable this paradigm might be challenged.” — Robert Pondiscio  American Enterprise Institute   

History documents serious episodes of disease alter the structure and mores of society. The 1918-1919 pandemic brought us the “Roaring ’20s,” a culture very different from 10 years before. Another effect of the coronavirus pandemic is now revealed.

Closure of public schools in 2020 and 2021 fostered frustration with once revered educational institutions among many parents. Further, the enhanced use of technology and changing work patterns created reassessments of traditional structures. These emotions opened the doors for unprecedented acceptance of concepts behind HB215. (Some polls indicated over 60% of Utahns approved.)

In 2007, proponents rammed the voucher legislation through the Legislature. Conversely, proponents of the 2023 legislation were sensitive to concerns and shrewdly attached significant pay raises for teachers. Also, an educational account controlled by parents is less objectionable than vouchers that directly fund other organizations.

Bill sponsor Rep. Candice Pierucci deserves recognition as a formidable advocate with a strong command of the facts and amenable style. (Of course, she documented good judgment by marrying an Italian).

We are all happy the pandemic is behind us, yet the effects of this traumatic time will continue to offer surprises.

Webb: School choice legislation has been gaining momentum across the country for several years. Utah was actually behind many other states in allowing state funding to follow students as they and their parents choose their schools or education practices. Before this year, lawmakers had been leery of taking on the education establishment, given the big setback in 2007.  

But education choice is now more popular with the public than in the past. And this year, with a lot of money available to provide a large (and deserved) pay raise for teachers, lawmakers pulled the trigger and set aside $42 million for the program, coupled with the pay raise. The governor did not object.

So, it’s a done deal. The only way it will be overturned is if opponents undertake a very expensive and difficult initiative campaign to enact a law repealing the program.

As a big supporter of neighborhood public schools, where all my children were educated, I’m not worried that public schools will be harmed. And the pay raise will really help teachers. Don’t believe the rhetoric that it’s going to destroy public education. The vast, vast majority of Utah students will still be educated in their good neighborhood schools.

Yes, a public school will lose a little money if a student leaves for a private school, but the school also doesn’t have to educate that student. The funding issue is actually a wash and even favors public schools if they retain local funding for students who leave.

Let’s try school choice for a while. Giving parents flexibility is a good thing. 

What Utah’s top leaders revealed in their opening speeches to the legislature

Gov. Cox spoke to the youth. Speaker Wilson kept it personable. Senate President Adams focused on policy

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

The 2023 session of the Utah Legislature is off to a busy start. The state’s three top leaders — Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Brad Wilson — set the themes for the 45-day sprint with speeches. We take a look at their substance and effectiveness. 

The speeches outlined policy objectives for the session, but differed in tone and style. Did the three leaders boost public support for their priorities?

Pignanelli: “The task of the leader is to get people from where they are to where they have not been.” — Henry Kissinger 

Right and left wing activists, some media commentators, and other observers are criticizing the presentations of the state leaders in the first week of the session. But these critiques, usually lazy or rhetorical, miss an important dynamic. All our leading state officials, including Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, were engaged in confronting the most challenging issues in the last decade. The list comprises such controversies as tax reform (twice), a pandemic, severe drought, dwindling Great Salt Lake and unprecedented growth. Therefore, regardless of the details in the oratories, state leaders possess the benefit of experience in numerous political battles. This expertise is demonstrated daily in this legislative session through terms of pace and early priorities.

The three speeches were dramatically different in terms of style and presentation. The governor spoke to Utah’s youth, the House speaker provided heartwarming stories to compel his flock towards greater heights and the Senate president reminded the entire state of our greatness, with the vision for future growth. They all established markers for tax reform, restructuring water usage and providing economic and housing opportunities.

Legislative leaders were clear that education is to be restructured. While expressing support for teachers, the governor was less detailed on this topic but left room for maneuverability

Our state officials implied a common theme — they will utilize battle tested experience, personal background and vision to implement substantiative changes. They are not sitting on their laurels.

Webb: As one who has written hundreds of speeches, I honestly thought all three speeches were very good. Cox’s speech was short (only 22 minutes), very personable and full of relatable anecdotes and metaphors. He asked legislators to withhold applause until he finished, rather than seek as many applause lines as possible. Cox was very effective speaking to young people, recognizing legislators’ children and grandchildren, by name, as beneficiaries of his legislative recommendations and highlighting their legislator parents and grandparents for carrying important legislation.

Wilson used personal stories to make his points and described dilemmas and successes of real people to illustrate policy challenges. He capably outlined the big issues facing the state and steps the Legislature will take to resolve them.

Adams’ speech was a little more policy focused, but he was also personable, praising former Sen. Karen Mayne, a Democrat; thanking the Senate staff for their hard work; and acknowledging spouses of senators for their support. He also provided a short history lesson, relating part of the inspirational life of James Madison and his contributions as a “citizen legislator,” encouraging senators to serve “with that same vision.”

Will Cox play a major role in the budget and key legislation approved in the session, or be more of a bystander?

Pignanelli: Although the governor’s budget presentation articulated major differences from legislative priorities, there is an obvious interaction between the two branches on the final budget product. This is a critical time for the state especially for water resources, housing, maintaining economic viability and planning for growth. Therefore, usual differences are likely to be deferred to achieve the important objectives. Harmony is predicted.

Webb: The governor enjoys the spotlight most of the year, but the 45-day session is the Legislature’s show. The governor is wise to stay somewhat behind-the-scenes and let session dynamics play out. As a former legislator himself and veteran executive branch leader, Cox knows where the pressure points are and how he can have the most influence. He knows how and when to wield the veto threat. It would be a bad mistake to attempt to upstage the Legislature on every issue at every opportunity.

The tension and interplay between the two branches of government are healthy — just what the Founders intended. The result is better government and better policy. Remember, the Legislature’s and the governor’s priorities aren’t all that different to begin with. 

Pignanelli: Cox, in a recent presentation to the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, urged citizens to reach out to legislators, participate in meetings and otherwise be engaged in the process. Otherwise, as he noted, a small sliver will significantly impact policy deliberations. His analysis is irrefutable.

Webb: The Utah Legislature, by any fair measure, is very conservative, but responsibly so. Still, some right-wing legislators and citizens say legislative leadership is too liberal. That sort of criticism of a very conservative Legislature puts the radical right on the extreme fringes of society where they are best ignored.

2023 Utah Legislative Session Week 1

Who’s right about social media, liberals or conservatives?

Does social media need more or less regulation — and who is it hurting?

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Social media has emerged as a big societal issue — and getting bigger. This matter has political ramifications, so the Utah Legislature and the U.S. Congress are debating and may take action. We’re dinosaurs, having grown up in the pre-social media era. But we still have opinions.

Liberals say social media companies aren’t aggressive enough in eliminating disinformation from their platforms, including conspiracy theories regarding elections and COVID-19 vaccinations. Conservatives say social media companies have been biased against them, have shut down free speech and are damaging young people. Who is right? Has Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter improved things?

Pignanelli: “I think a lot of things that get blamed on social media are just human problems, and social media just makes them more visible.” — Elizabeth Nolan Brown, senior editor, Reason Magazine   

When in junior high, I overheard a heated debate on talk radio (the “social media” of the 1970s) about whether the elitist Trilateral Commission was controlling society. Most historians agree the yellow journalistic tactics of William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer in their newspapers fostered the Spanish-American War. The development of the printing press exponentially spread antisemitism throughout medieval Europe. So whatever medium humans use to collect and distribute news circulates both information and disinformation. (75% of Americans now use social media.)

The internet has done much to expand human knowledge, therefore government regulation of content is a dangerous path. Concerned activists suggest instead transparency of the algorithms used and a focus on consumer protection. The escapades surrounding Elon Musk serve as a valuable prompt to Americans to scrutinize both the organizations and individuals behind statements in social media.

My parents assured me the “Trilateral Commission conspiracy” was a silly rumor — proving that consulting with family and friends is the best check against falsehoods.

Webb: When I was a journalist I was fond of a quote by John Milton, the great English poet and intellectual. I found it inspirational. In 1667, Milton wrote in “Areopagitica”: “Let her (Truth) and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” Milton was right for about 336 years — until social media arrived about 15 years ago.

Today, Milton’s Truth (with a capital T) doesn’t have much of a chance against the falsehoods and pervasiveness of social media — the algorithms that deliver garbage at every click, untruths going viral with no ability to stop them, bots creating millions or billions of deceptive posts sparking outrage and unhealthy bodily comparisons, along with insecurity and depression. When immense success and wealth are produced by clicks, unsavory people and businesses will do anything to generate clicks.

Government interference and censorship are not the answer. Government interference will only give more power to the political party in charge and may stifle more wholesome competition. It would be great if Musk could clean up Twitter, but I’m not hopeful.

An enormous social media issue is the damage these platforms have done to the self-images and mental health of young people. Are reforms needed via legislation and family screen-time rules?

Pignanelli: A conclusion social media harms adolescents drives whether sponsoring companies will be required to limit access by age. To do so effectively will mandate companies to obtain deep personal data on everyone in order to decipher who is a minor. That begs the question of forcing social media companies into such a situation.

Because this is a technology dilemma, solutions teem in technology. A number of apps exist to help parents monitor content and accessibility. Requiring government or corporations to intrude on personal lives is not the answer.

Webb: Used properly and sparingly, social media and other tech platforms can be useful for purposes like communicating with family and real friends and supporting business objectives such as promoting good products.

I’ve spent plenty of time on YouTube learning how to connect a posthole digger to a 3-point hitch on a tractor, or how to build an ATV bridge across a creek. But it takes immense self-discipline to stick to the positive aspects of social media and not get distracted by — and addicted to — the garbage.

The good, unfortunately, is dwarfed by the worship of beautiful bodies, the nasty bickering, the outright political falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Social media addictions too often replace real relationships, people thinking they can find fulfillment following the lives and fashions of the Kardashians. The most popular “influencers” are those who dare show the most skin in TikTok and Instagram posts or promote the craziest conspiracies.

We’re not going to be able to regulate away the damage these platforms do to young people and others. The genie is out of the bottle and government can’t do much more than apply a few bandages. It comes down to families and individuals establishing standards, limiting screen time and filling time with real and more wholesome activities.

Should we allow such incredible communications and political power to be concentrated in the hands of a few social media companies and their owners?

Pignanelli: Constructing regulations just to keep companies from “being big” is destructive and pointless, as our economy is constantly changing the playing field. Indeed, just in the last year the power of Facebook and Twitter has diminished. As American families search for alternate means to garner information, the entities that supply such that will grow, tumble and evolve.

Webb: It’s a very difficult dilemma. The algorithms control the flow of information and those who create the algorithms wield immense power. But government censorship and interference would make things worse.

Can fewer Democrats still be effective? What forces influence lawmakers? Your legislative questions, answered

A healthy legislature mirrors its constituents — which means we won’t all agree with everything, but we can all agree on something

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

The Utah 2023 General Legislative Session commences Tuesday. Your columnists have a combined 85 years of experience monitoring, analyzing, lobbying (and with Frank, a decade of public service to) this annual convocation. In other words, we’re old as dirt. We’re compelled, as usual, to offer our geriatric insights and prognostications.

Utah legislators will be facing a broad array of issues, including saving the Great Salt Lake, distributing a massive budget surplus, tax cuts, education and contemporary social issues. What will be the major themes and why?

Pignanelli: “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” ― Chief Justice Earl Warren  

A significant number and diverse quality of citizens frequently engage in harsh critiques of legislators. These strong emotions erupt because the Utah Legislature is a pure form of representative democracy. Lawmakers’ actions are influenced from special interest groups, lobbyists, social media and — overwhelmingly — their constituents. Thus, legislative proceedings can be a rollercoaster ride. Yet, these dynamics are fundamental and necessary to a robust republic. Authoritarian regimes are devoid of such inconveniences.

State officials are reaping the benefits of educating residents on the Great Salt Lake’s potential extinction. Voters support mitigation to this disaster through massive funding of various programs. Utahns always prioritize public education and substantive additional infusions are expected. Strong organizations are pushing for scholarship or voucher programs for alternative schools and heated deliberations on this topic are predicted. Although controversial, there are pressures to clarify new abortion restrictions and prohibit transgender operations for minors that will garner attention.

A major theme for legislative leaders is an efficient Legislature addressing tax cuts, water shortages, growth, public education and cultural concerns with conservative principles. Readers can expect the usual push against the federal government and progressive policies, but especially in legislation targeting Environmental Social Governance (ESG) investment policies.

The Legislature is a mirror of who elected them. Therefore, by adjournment every Utah voter will both appreciate and dislike the results — another sign of a healthy democracy.

Webb: Lawmakers have an ambitious agenda. Here’s my advice: Go forward with school choice, but do it wisely so the program provides a net financial benefit to public schools, where the vast majority of Utah children will always be educated. House Majority Leader Mike Schultz told me that’s the plan. Students who move to private schools will leave a large chunk of their per pupil funding in the public system. That, combined with a possible $6,000 raise for teachers, will leave public schools in better shape than previously.

Be smart with tax cuts. Don’t erode the tax base or you’ll regret it in the next economic downturn. Keep tax rates low, but the base broad. Look for ways to eliminate tax incentives, as proposed by Rep. Kay Christofferson. Continue the wise practice of spending surplus money on one-time, generational investments like infrastructure that will benefit our children and grandchildren. It makes sense to set aside surplus money to retire state debt.  

The focus on water makes great sense. Water conservation and development will benefit future generations. The era of taking water for granted is over forever.

What are the internal and external forces that will be exerted on lawmakers during the decision-making process?

Pignanelli: Despite the contentions of contrarians, legislators value communications from their constituents. But judgements are also shaped by the current political, economic and social forces. Nagging concerns are percolating that the economy may flatline, which could limit new ongoing expenditures. National organizations on either side of controversial social issues will be engaged. Especially effective will be those local activists in both parties that capture the attention of their representatives.

Webb: Lawmakers must be responsive to their constituents and to ideological activists, while keeping an eye on the next election. Happily, the Legislature enjoys a fairly high approval rating, providing some political capital to be spent, and is led by sensible people. There will always be crazy bills and speeches, but in the end common sense will prevail (mostly).

Democrats have reduced numbers this year, so how will they articulate their positions with effectiveness?

Pignanelli: Shrewd Democrats understand the balance they must maintain of an aggressive, loyal opposition without antagonizing independents and moderate Republicans. Articulating positions attractive to the mainstream will require the same discipline for Republicans — ignoring the extreme forces within their party.

Webb: Republicans rule the Legislature, but they play nice with Democrats — except when they don’t. Democrats will have opportunities to sponsor important bipartisan legislation, but won’t make progress with liberal causes.