♪♪♪ male announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by Merit Medical and by contributions to PBS Utah from viewers like you, thank you.

Jason Perry: On this episode of "The Hinckley Report," as we pass the halfway mark of the legislative session, lawmakers consider a historic number of constitutional amendments.

Amidst changes in education, leaders aim to realign priorities.

And as funding requests wrap up this Valentine's Day, which programs will get some love and which ones will be left out in the cold?

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Jason: Good evening and welcome to "The Hinckley Report."

I'm Jason Perry, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics.

Covering the week, we have Senator Chris Wilson, a Republican from Cache and Rich Counties, and the Majority Whip in the state Senate; Representative Sahara Hayes, a Democrat from Mill Creek and Minority Assistant Whip in the Utah House; and Holly Richardson, editor of Utah Policy.

Thank you for being with us.

We're halfway through the legislative session.

Has it gone kind of fast?

[all laughing] Jason: Feels longer for some of us.

I want to get to a few bills today about what we're going to see, but I want to start with this issue about constitutional amendments.

And we'll start with you, Senator, if that's okay.

So, we currently have five numbered bills that would change the Constitution.

We could see as many as ten this legislative session.

Talk about that in terms of the context and why we might be seeing more of those.

Chris Wilson: Well, we live in a republic and so that's the process.

The legislative process is they bring bills, legislators, who they feel is important.

Obviously a constitutional amendment is going to have an extra vetting process of voting by our citizens, but it's important that if we want to change the Constitution, that it is a process that has a lot of input from different people including the citizens.

And yeah, we have five right now.

We have one that's passed the Senate that's over the House.

The other four I believe are still in House rules, so we'll wait and see.

We have titles for five more, so a total of ten.

We'll see if they're released if they go through the process, but it's exciting time and I--we know that if they pass and go through the vetting process, then they're good bills.

Jason: Representative Hayes, so it's interesting, you go through this process, you have to pass your body has to, you know, pass these hurdles, and it gets to the people and we have these potentially ten, but we could have more next legislative session for the next general election.

Sahara Hayes: I mean, yeah, and I see so many of these coming up and I feel like, you know, maybe part of the reason why is it's a really permanent way to have your policy stuck, right?

So, we go back and forth on bills all the time.

We've got ones that were passed a few years ago that are being challenged in the House today, and this is a way like it's hard.

It is hard to get a constitutional amendment through because of that extra vetting that the senator was talking about.

So, this is a way to really ensure that your policy is part of Utah for a very long time.

I am a little bit worried about the voter side though.

I mean this year in Salt Lake County, like my ballot was two pages double sided.

That's a lot.

That's a lot of things to Google.

That is--and I'm a very policy driven person obviously, but, you know, not every constituent necessarily has that level of interest or time.

So, I worry a little bit about the voter fatigue side.

Jason: It's an interesting point, Holly, because you have--you do your research on them, these amendments, you get the for and against.

It's a lot of detail that you've worked through for many years.

Holly Richardson: Well, I think to Representative Hayes's point, it really, it's not just voter fatigue, which it is, but confusion, right?

And when you start to have confusion, right, if you have ten or more because you could add more next legislative session to be on the ballot in 2026, then you've got voters who are saying they may just check no on everything, right?

Even though this may be good policy, maybe it's not good policy, but it's gonna be, I think that's really, that's a lot of bills, a lot of constitutional amendments to be looking at.

Jason: Can we talk about a couple of those really quick?

And of the ones that are out now, we have one on publication of amendments 60 days before an election.

We have one on elections, mostly dealing with the president and vice president.

We have one on property tax, unions, but a couple of interesting things that have come up because you're in the middle of this, Senator Wilson too.

One is this is House Joint Resolution 10, Anthony Loubet requires a proposed constitutional amendment to be published in a manner provided by statute 60 days.

There's a little controversy you'll talk about here, the 60 days versus 2 months, and then whether you do it in a paper or online.

Chris: Well, yeah, it's controversial.

Obviously paper, there's a question, I actually put a question in my survey before the session and I asked my constituents, you know, where do they get their news?

And out of seven different possibilities newspaper was number seven.

So, I think we need to obviously adjust that and make sure that we're communicating with our--with the citizens in a proper way that they know where to get it and to be informed, which is very, very important with the number of possible amendments that we'll be trying to vote on.

Jason: Go ahead, Holly.

Holly: They get their news from TikTok, so at least, at least a certain age demographic.

Yes, as of today, TikTok is back in the Google store, so.

Yeah, I think that's one of the issues, and that one I don't find particularly controversial because it really is just trying to keep up with the way things have changed, right?

So, when that amendment first was placed in the Utah Constitution, the papers were everywhere and you had a daily paper in multiple places in the state.

Now, we just don't have those anymore and so, trying to find ways that people get informed by publishing this online I think that's a reasonable request.

Jason: And Representative, we did have this issue just in this last election cycle with a couple of these questions that did not meet the publication requirements as decided by the court.

Sahara: Absolutely we did, and I think this is in direct response to that, and I kind of appreciate it because this is a way that we can make sure that that information is getting out in a way that is going to save the state some money, and I think that that is an important consideration in this.

Chris: And Jason, I think it's the goal of the Senate, I know to try and make sure get that publication down to zero.

I mean we have that capability with the websites and stuff, we certainly have a cost down to zero.

And I think that's what we're--our goal is to do.

Jason: I want to talk about one more of these.

This is Senate Joint Resolution 2, and Representative Hayes, talk about this for a minute.

This is about the statewide initiatives.

It would require 60% of the popular vote for a ballot initiative that would be connected to a tax increase, existing or increasing the taxes.

Talk about that because that 60% is an increased threshold.

Sahara: Yeah, I have some thoughts and some concerns on that one.

I think it creates a very interesting double standard in elections and what is on our ballots.

Like, I have to be--all of us have been at this table have been elected and we have to achieve 50% of the vote.

So, I think adding stipulations to things that say, hey, this is an extra super special vote so it needs more, more people that feels weird.

This is we're looking for a majority, we're not looking for a majority plus extra sprinkles on top.

So, I have some major concerns with that one.

Jason: Senator, I've heard from others of your colleagues, this is connected a little bit to some concerns of what they have seen in other parts of the country when it comes to specifically on the tax issues.

Chris: Yes, we want to make sure that citizens are aware of any tax increases.

And so, I think the 60% threshold is reasonable to make sure that citizens know if you're going to raise your neighbor's taxes, there needs to be an additional threshold to if you're going to expand the tax, start a new tax, or increase the tax rate.

Jason: Okay, I want to get to a couple of bills if that's right.

And Holly, I'd love to have you talk about a sort of a unique bill right here that was sponsored by the Speaker of the House himself, Mike Schultz, the statewide Catalyst campus model, this House Bill 447.

Talk about this a little bit.

These Catalyst Centers, particularly as it relates to career and technical education, what we call CTE.

Holly: Yeah, so, this bill would expand CTE offerings around the state and really start to look at how can we get high school students who are interested in trades, for example, can they--can we expand those offerings so that they can enter right into the workforce as they finish high school?

So, we already have some CTE programs at a variety of high schools, but this would expand those offerings.

So, for example, the Davis Catalyst Center that the speaker spoke about, they offer culinary arts and they offer things in AI and they offer things in, I think dental hygiene and those are all programs that directly apply to today's workforce.

So, what this bill would do would offer, I think, $65 million in grant money for high schools to really start to expand these offerings and to do some rural outreach so that the rural schools who maybe don't have access to as many professionals in their area who could come in and teach that they also have the opportunity to to do these programs.

Jason: Interesting Senator, we've had these conversations on education.

This kind of plays into this what seems to be a dialogue this session in terms of these pathways, career pathways.

Talk about that particularly for you and your colleagues as they're looking at bills like this which kind of creates those I guess on ramps to other places that are not necessarily higher ed, but maybe some of these technical programs.

Chris: I'm a big supporter.

I think Speaker Schultz is right on, and I'm glad he personally has an interest and decided to run the bill himself.

I think that's great.

I think Presidents Adams has run a couple of bills in the last few years.

So, I think it's great he's run the bill.

There's no important and we have one of the best economies in the country, but to continue that, we have to make sure that we have the workforce, educated and prepared and trained for the jobs available.

I think it's great to be able to let high school kids kind of have an idea of what they like to do as a career.

I mean, we've had, I think $80,000 is what some of the starting salaries have been coming out of this program.

So, the money is there, but I think it's even more important to make sure it's a career that they enjoy and that they're going to want to enjoy the rest of their lives.

So, I think it's a great program to give them a kind of an idea of a number of different career paths that they can have.

Also, will help our economy to fill those jobs that we have and to keep our economy going.

And working very closely with businesses on what jobs they have not only now but with AI technology, computer science stuff.

We don't know what jobs of the future are going to be in the next three to five years and hopefully we can train them and be ready for those jobs.

Sahara: Well, I think it's also important that we're meeting students where they're at, right?

Like I did really well in an academic setting and I went on and I pursued higher education because that was important to me and I enjoyed it.

And that doesn't work for everybody.

And so, I think making sure that we have those pathways readily available because when I was going to school it was very much the message of sort of college or bust.

Like this are the boxes that you need to check in order to be successful in life and that's how you get there.

And so, I love that we're looking at ways to redefine success, to redefine what it means to approach education and schooling in a way that works for the individual student.

I think that is so important and I'm really grateful we're tackling that.

Jason: Holly, when you were in the legislature, you talked about this education funding and it continues to be the question.

Talk about what you're hearing now in terms of where the legislature is going, and then of course we'll test it against your colleagues here too.

Where you see this is going in terms of education funding, particularly with public ed?

Holly: I think more broadly, I mean, we're--the legislature right now is talking about putting more money in the Utah fits all scholarship, I think.

There's always talk about a little bit more for the WPU every year, right?

Cost of living increases and of course we've had inflation and so those are, that's always a big discussion.

I think one of the things that is on the table right now and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but how we allocate tax dollars and trying to figure out if we're going to take money from, you know, this pot, is it going to go to that pot, and how are we gonna do those financial transactions?

Jason: I'm curious if you're seeing anything coming, you know, down in the last couple of weeks.

As is always the question of income tax, sales tax, and how you divide that money for public debt.

Are you seeing anything, Senator?

Chris: No, obviously, we're talking about different tax cuts for, but I don't see anything I've seen as far as different pots.

So, we did set aside 4% increase for WPU.

We did that in December, commitment by the legislature to education.

And our public education budget in the last four years, I think, has increased almost $3 billion in public education.

So, I think the commitment's been there from the legislature.

Jason: And of course, this is the weighted pupil unit here is just how we look at how we fund these education schools around the state.

I want to get to a couple other issues.

Talk to me about what's happening with energy.

We have so many bills that are coming out and it's everything from we see things on geothermal.

Let's start and see where we're going here and a lot on nuclear, Senator, let's start with you and then let's work our way down.

Chris: Well, this is very exciting.

We realize that our energy needs could triple in the next 30 years and it could even double in the next number of years.

Artificial Intelligence and data centers are going to be imperative for our future economy, but they take a lot of power.

So, we need to look at alternate energy sources and we think these modular nuclear reactors are going to be very, very important.

They're about the size of a trailer, semi truck trailer, and we're gonna need to expand the amount of energy we receive for our future economic growth and also to keep--we have the lowest electricity rates in the country which really helps.

And so, make sure citizens don't have that inflationary impact with higher electricity rates.

Jason: Go ahead, Holly.

Holly: Well, I was just going to jump in and say I actually worked for the governor's Office of Energy Development more than a decade ago and we were talking about nuclear then.

And one of the problems is the desire has been there, but the regulatory system coming from the federal government is just so prolonged, right?

It's a good at least 20 plus years.

So, to talk about cities having nuclear and even if it's this, what you call it?

Back, it's not backpack nuclear--the modular units, right?

On these small units, right, even though I think the technology is there and I think the will is there, but I don't think the regulatory environment is there yet, but maybe President Trump or Elon Musk will sign a paper and make it so, I don't know.

Chris: We also have Senator Lee in a very important committee chair, and we think we can cut through that regulatory red tape and we think we can hopefully cut that and and have a nuclear part of our future energy production sooner than 10 years hopefully.

Jason: It does take a very long time.

Representative Hayes, one of the interesting bills is that Carl Albrecht is House Bill 249 Nuclear Power Amendments.

It does a couple of interesting things and I'm kind of curious from your side of the aisle how you're approaching this because it was establishing what they're calling a nuclear energy consortium.

Electrical energy development zones and also a Utah energy council trying to set the stage for some of these decisions going forward in the state.

Sahara: Sure, and I represent my constituents in this area in that I am a lay person.

I am not an energy expert and so I think a lot of us get a little fidgety and a little nervous when we keep hearing the word "nuclear" bandied about because that usually means--that's not usually a positive context, right?

So, I think we're just really making sure that any of that regulatory red tape that was being discussed, probably some of it's there for a reason, and we want to make sure that whatever is done is done in a very safe way that is sustainable for the people that live here that need the energy as we've discussed.

Like this is a very viable need, but we need to make sure that it's done safely with respect to the people living in the area and in the environment.

So, like I said this is not my field, but I--that's what I'm looking at.

Jason: Okay, we'll watch how these are set up to see the discussions that come after them.

We just ended sort of the midway point of our legislative session, and the appropriations subcommittees have just finished.

And Holly, we'll start with you because you had to do this as well and talk about what happens.

Just for our viewers, how does this work because the first part is really all of us making our case, the University of Utah was making this case for some money, but something happens next now that the appropriations subcommittees have finished.

Holly: Right, so, they actually met pretty much every day, at least some committees met every single day at the first half of the legislative session.

And as you said, they came in and present their case and this is what we are asking for, this is our budget, people were making specific, requests and then the subcommittees vote on what they think are the top priorities for that area whether it's Health and Human Services or natural resources, whatever it is and then that all goes to the Executive Committee, and then they meet and they have their own input and other people can come present to the Executive Committee, Executive Appropriations Committee.

And then by the end of the legislative session, it's the Executive Appropriations Committee that basically presents here's our final budget and then as it goes to both the Senate and House floors, people can make individual requests and say, I want to strike this line, or I want to add this, or--and then they vote on it and that's--that is the process.

Jason: Okay, Representative Hayes, a lot of these, they start with requests for appropriation with these and, you know, kind of what your experience and the big ticket items that you see coming up, maybe you have some of your own as well that you're already pushing.

Sahara: Sure, and I have to tell you I love this process.

It's like Shark Tank and it's really, really, really fun, and it's changed a bit over the years from what I understand it's different from when I started.

I'm seeing a lot of, you know, potentially controversial requests.

We're seeing some for things like increasing Utah Fits All scholarship.

However, there's some great ones.

I think you see a ton that are just designed to really help specific, niche groups and people across the state.

I know social services handles a huge portion of the money and that is so vital for so many of our constituents.

And then you see, you know, the Tanner Dance up here, I used to dance with them.

They had a request and it's so fun to see the different ways that different organizations are helping people and then trying to get them the money, right?

Because that's the hard thing is we're going into a tight fiscal year.

And so, you just were presented with so many wonderful ideas that are gonna help so many people and you have to say, okay, nope, not you, yes you, and it's a real kill your darling situation.

Jason: Senator, talk about the approach in the in the Senate because you're very much part of, you know, you know, prioritizing all of these requests and talk about that in the context of what we see sort of as revenue numbers get ready to come next week.

Chris: Well, that's a great point, and the revenue numbers always around President's Day.

So, we actually have meetings starting the first part of next week, where our latest revenue, not only projections, but are actually, you know, the money we've collected, and then we take those projections and then try and fit a budget.

And, of course, the budget goes till July 1st.

So, we usually set money aside because sometimes those projections may be off, but our budget people do a great job of projecting where they think the revenue source is going to be and where, of course, where the actual collections have been.

So, it's quite a process, obviously we have to, we're gonna balance the budget at the end of the day, we're gonna have a balanced budget.

And--but that's gonna start, boy, I'll tell you we should be start very heavy into the budget next week and try and see how much money we have to allocate for these RFAs.

And like Sister Hayes said-- [all laughing] Chris: Representative Hayes-- It's--there's a lot of great requests and it's very, very difficult to try and choose between, especially social services.

I had four RFAs and social services, and all of them are great request helping people, helping children, and it's a tough process.

Holly: I wanna add this actually.

So, you already mentioned this, Senator, but Utah balances its budget.

It doesn't just talk about balancing its budget.

It actually does.

And so, if you remember during the 2008 recession and subsequent years, there were multiple times that the legislature was called into special session to cut the budget again because the revenues didn't end up being what was projected and they had to make the budget balance and so, programs were cut.

I mean, that can happen, right?

If you anticipate revenue and then it's not there, the legislature will go back and make the budget balance.

Chris: If I could mention something, one thing about it, we set money aside, you know, there's some high risk income that we know, so we set money aside so we don't have to cut budgets.

So, we set money aside.

We have ongoing money that we spent one time and this is, this is a budget decisions have been done years ago.

Senator Stevens has done a great job and Representative Peterson in setting money aside to make sure that we don't have to cut projects.

We have a set aside, we have rainy day funds, but our budget is very strong and we do a great job of taking care of any contingency things that might happen between now and July to take care of any downfalls or projections that don't meet the numbers.

Jason: I want to get to a couple other bills.

I'll just give a big topic here, the Supreme Court, the courts generally.

So Representative, let's start with you for just a minute.

We have several bills, some numbered, some not so much that are kind of working on the court itself.

One of those that has not been numbered.

This is judicial officer modifications.

Representative Jefferson Moss talks about potentially expanding the Supreme Court, the number of justices.

And then another one, Jason Kyle, requiring the appointed judges get 66% in the retention elections.

As people know, because you talked about the long ballots, you know, there's that retention election part.

You go through all these judges, you know, everyone has their own methodology on there, but right now it's a majority that you have to get to be retained and this would increase that number to 67%.

Talk about this a little bit and what you see going on these bills addressing the courts.

Sahara: Sure, and I, ooh, there's a lot going on with the courts, and I think I don't want to be, you know, in my own little conspiracy theory bubble, but I think there is--I think it is in relation to how the courts have been blocking the legislature and some of the bills that are moving forward in the last few years, I think this is in response to that.

I am very curious, again, like 67 is a very specific number, and I know it got there somehow.

However, that would put it to the highest rate in the country for retention.

And I think one of the things that is important to me is that our judges get to focus on being judges.

Like I've run an election I've run a re-election, and it's expensive and it's a different skill set.

Being a candidate is a different skill set than being elected.

And I want our judges to have the skill set of being judges.

I don't necessarily want them to have the skill set of fundraising and of making connections and of knocking doors.

That's not what I think they should be focused on.

So, moving that bar up, especially by so much, I think that that is going to push us into that territory, and that makes me really nervous.

Jason: Holly?

Holly: Yeah, I just think there's interesting conversations going on around the role of the judiciary.

Sometimes I wonder if people forget that we actually have three coequal branches of government.

They're meant to be checks and balances.

That's the way the process is supposed to work, so I'll use your word and watch with curiosity, but I'm not sure an expansion of the Supreme Court is going to be, you know, controversial necessarily, adding more judges.

I don't know that that makes it more efficient, but it may I mean just have more eyeballs on an issue, I get that.

But I think there's some real conversation to be had about the proper role of all three branches.

Chris: If I can comment about that.

Our state Supreme Court only had 24 rulings last year.

That's way lower than any other, you know, most any state Supreme Court.

So, I think expanding, helping them, you know, trying to see, make them more efficient by expanding maybe somewhere around two to four more justices I think would help spread that case load out and have more help with that.

I know that in our Supreme Court there's nine justices, and I know that I did a resolution a few years ago of keeping it at nine, and I know that Justice Ginsburg thought that nine was a good number for the Supreme Court.

So, I think five for a state Supreme Court might be too few and maybe that's why we're only seeing 24 rulings in a whole year.

We have a backlog in our Supreme Court.

Some of those cases are taking years and years and years, and so I think adding that would help with expanding some of that case load to other to help out with getting those through quicker.

Jason: In our last 30 seconds if you don't mind, yeah?

Sahara: On the efficiency note, too many cooks in the kitchen, I think it can slow people down when you're having to herd a bunch of cats.

Chris: Well, when nine works for the Supreme Court, and I think we could look up to nine for our state Supreme Court.

Jason: Okay, thank you so much for your insights.

So many bills yet to come.

We'll watch them closely, of course we'll have them here on "The Hinckley Report."

Thank you for your insights and thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

This show is also available as a podcast on PBSUtah.org, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by Merit Medical and by contributions to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪