Jason Perry: On this episode of "The Hinckley Report," votes are tallied in important elections locally and across the country.

The ongoing government shutdown becomes the longest in history.

And our expert panel analyzes the latest news in Utah's redistricting case.

announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund and by donations to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Jason Perry: Hello, and welcome to "The Hinckley Report."

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

Covering the week we have State Representative Candice Pierucci, a Republican from Riverton and Majority Whip in the Utah House; State Representative Andrew Stoddard, a Democrat from Midvale serving in the Utah House; and Lindsay Aerts, anchor with ABC4 News and host of "Inside Utah Politics."

So glad to have you all with us.

This is an interesting week in politics.

We had some elections, Utah, across the country.

I want to start with those, because we had a lot of interesting local races.

Some changes of the guard are happening, but I want to start with turnout with you, Lindsay, for just a moment.

Of course, all municipalities don't have--did not have an election.

There are some candidates who ran unopposed, so the overall number is around 36% turnout.

In some rural counties, like Rich County, 73%.

Salt Lake County had 32%.

Talk about that just a little bit.

Lindsay Aerts: Yeah, when you have 700 voters in your whole county, it's easy to get them to turn out, right?

There's a lot of turnout in those rural counties.

I think the turnout number is significant.

You know, at 36%, that seems high to me.

There may be some outliers there that are kind of bloating that number, but I think that having Salt Lake County be really low is really interesting.

Maybe it's because not--there wasn't anything really driving the ballot in that county.

We had a handful of city council members in Salt Lake City.

We certainly had mayors across the county, but nothing that was really that, you know, just that driver that you usually see that drives turnout on a ballot.

Jason Perry: Representative Pierucci, we did have some interesting races, and sometimes when you have a big race, that kind of drives turnout.

Maybe give a comment about the importance of these local races, given your experience as an elected official.

And then let's talk about Utah County.

Candice Pierucci: Yeah, I mean, what's concerning to me is that means roughly three out of ten people voted, and that's of the registered voters, and so I think we see this in the off election year where people really engage in national politics, but rubber really meets the road at the municipal level, and, quite frankly, has some of the biggest impacts on locals if you think about city budgets and their impact on property taxes or if you think about your trash collection and who's coming to get it, right?

So, I think it's important people recognize, while it may not be the hottest and most exciting topics on the ballot, you still should show up to vote.

You had some exciting mayoral races and some upsets, so in Provo, former representative Marsha Judkins beat Mayor Kaufusi, and knowing Marsha from having served with her, no one outworks her.

She's really, really a workhorse, and also talks about the kitchen table issues and that--things that impact Utah families.

So, she also had a great campaign team.

So, I think that was quite an upset to see it, but I look forward to seeing what she does as mayor.

Jason Perry: Mayor Kaufusi, eight years in the job, and is-- it sounds like she kind of did a concession speech.

Is that what we're seeing right now?

Is that where we are?

Is there still some work on the canvassing?

Candice Pierucci: They're still canvassing ballots in Utah County.

You know, they were working on that, but I think at the time when she gave her speech, it was a nod to Representative Judkins.

Lindsay Aerts: And I talked to Marsha Judkins too, who told me that Mayor Kaufusi called her and congratulated her.

So, by all accounts, it seems like a concession.

She didn't explicitly say in that post, "I am conceding," but she basically talked about how what she's gonna miss the most, so it really implied that concession.

Candice Pierucci: Gotta be hard, I mean, eight years serving as mayor of a town she loves, city she loves, I think both these women are fantastic, and just a lot of respect for anyone who's willing to jump in the arena and try and make a difference in their community.

Jason Perry: Representative Stoddard, you were watching a mayors race also.

Andrew Stoddard: Yeah, I mean, Cottonwood Heights was a huge issue for me because one of my colleagues, Representative Gay Lynn Bennion was running.

And I know that she ran on issues that were really important to her, things that she tackled in the legislatures such as water, air, the canyons, and she pulled off a big upset there.

Jason Perry: These are some interesting changes, and Lindsay, we had a couple others.

Park City, we had a change there.

Lindsay Aerts: That race is separated by, like, 11 votes, so when we say the rubber meets the road, I agree with that.

It is like if you lose a race by 11 votes, you're calling your cousins and your uncles and your aunts and you're saying, "Why did you not get out to vote?"

Jason Perry: So interesting, for the sake of viewers too.

There is, and you've run for these office, if there is a less than 0.25% difference in the vote, you can ask for a recount and do those again.

But Lindsay, to your point, 11 votes isn't much, but that's above that 0.25%.

Candice Pierucci: There's a curing process, and I mean that is a really tight margin.

I don't know that I would be claiming victory with 11 votes yet, that's-- Lindsay Aerts: I don't know that anyone is claiming victory.

I also think there's a Bluffdale city council race separated by, like, ten votes, something like that.

Candice Pierucci: The Bluffdale mayor is ahead, the incumbent's ahead by 75 votes right now.

So, if anyone thinks their vote doesn't matter in municipal elections, it certainly does, and I think it's--when you look at the size of these cities and maybe 6,000 to 8,000 people turning out, I mean, decisions are made by people who show up, so be one of those people.

Lindsay Aerts: There's an old adage in politics too.

You guys know it as running for office, where you'd rather lose by a wide margin than 11 votes, because 11 votes, you're like, I just had to go to the grocery store and convince 11 more people.

Candice Pierucci: Two more households.

Jason Perry: One more visit, it's true.

Representative Stoddard, what's interesting about some of the municipalities, we had a couple of cities, they're still experimenting with ranked choice voting.

Maybe give us a little--maybe you could explain what that means.

We had Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, and Midvale, and I mention this because as we had-- as this opportunity came up in 2021, 23 cities tried it.

We have only a few that are still doing it.

Talk about that and what might happen in the next legislative session when you have to revisit this issue.

First, talk about what it is.

Andrew Stoddard: Yeah, so ranked choice voting was kind of a novel take on voting, so you wouldn't have a primary, but instead you'd be able to rank all the candidates.

You know, one through however many, I think Sandy mayor last time had, like, nine.

So, one through nine, and then they just do successive rounds knocking off the people with the least amount of votes, but you get to pick which order you like them.

So, hypothetically, you'd have more people getting someone that they wanted as opposed to just the two choices.

So, my city, Midvale, has done this.

I think it's a great way to vote.

We haven't had the mass amount of candidates that some municipalities have, but it's worked great, and unfortunately I think the legislature doesn't have the appetite to extend the ability to do that, so it's running out.

Lindsay Aerts: I saw ranked choice voting too get caught up in a little bit of conspiracy theories, and Candice may correct me here.

But it seemed to be that the the Republican side didn't really like ranked choice voting.

They weren't sure how it worked.

They're not sure how it tabulated.

And so, you saw kind of the dominant party here in Utah kind of take aim at it a little bit, and it seems to be waning.

Candice Pierucci: I don't think it's a conspiracy theory.

I think that right now voters in general have an all-time low of trust in institutions, and we're having a hard time getting people engaged to vote at all anyways, and with ranked choice voting, it's introducing a new complexity into a historical voting system that people-- there's an expectation of what that's going to look like.

I also think there's value in having a runoff or a primary and actually seeing how those candidates realign and what their message shift is.

So, I think we're down to three cities that are doing rank choice voting.

It was a pilot program that started.

I do not think there's appetite in the majority caucus to continue rank choice voting.

I wouldn't support that.

I think we need to get back to strengthening the elections that we do have, and obviously election integrity has been a discussion point for the last four to eight years that we'll be talking about.

But there--it isn't just a lack of trust and confusion.

But I think as well, if you look at these things, it's who's funding the actual program to do it.

I know that different cities in my area have looked at it and felt like if you're gonna change the form of voting, which is a sacred right as an American, it should at the very least go to a vote of the city and the citizens could say, yes, we want to adopt that.

But that's not happening right now.

It's in--it's happening just at the city council level, and then people see their ballot and are incredibly confused.

So, I don't see us extending that pilot any longer, and I think the three cities that are doing it has shown it's dwindled in support from the original 23.

Andrew Stoddard: Do you think they could then on a state level put in a policy to allow these municipalities to do it though?

Because, you know, if the cities want to continue, I see my role as a representative is allowing local control and how they want to conduct their own elections.

Candice Pierucci: I think when it comes to elections though, counties, right, are the ones who are actually executing the elections and they funnel into the lieutenant governor's office, and so it is a state call whether or not this is something we want to do.

So, I don't--I don't think we would do that, no.

Jason Perry: One final word on this, Lindsay, too, as we talked about the potential confusion or how you understand how it works.

The other side of this, what people are talking about, whether or not if you have to appeal, you could be people's number two choice and still do it, that it might appeal to-- maybe make things a little more civil.

Lindsay Aerts: Yeah, it does bring in that civility, because instead of saying vote for me, not them, you're saying rank me, and, you know, rank me number one, them number two.

But then to to Representative Stoddard's point, the more people you have ranking you, the better chance you have of winning that race.

And so, it does bring in the less of the disparagement into those races.

Candice Pierucci: But I think things can change in the course of an election cycle.

And so, having that second check in, I actually think it's helpful, and I think you'll see realignment from candidates who are running.

Jason Perry: Let's get some national news that impacts elections, but also maybe the future where our Senate goes, our United States Senate.

Representative Stoddard, talk about this for just a moment.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi announced this week that she is not running for reelection.

She's been in Congress for 39 years.

That's a very long time in there, and she's been a bit of an institution.

Talk about her departure on your side of the aisle through the party, and let's talk about some implications for Utah after that.

Andrew Stoddard: Yeah, I mean, but first I wanna congratulate her.

That's an incredible career, regardless of how you view her politics.

She did a lot of things that no one had done before her, and I am impressed constantly with the way she handled her caucus, the House, and, you know, I may not have always agreed with her, but I respected her.

I do think it was time for her to go.

I think people overstay their welcome in Congress a lot.

We see that occasionally in the state legislature as well.

And so, I'm glad there's more of a shakeup.

I think we do need a younger generation moving into those slots.

Jason Perry: Representative, talk about how it impacts Utah a little bit.

I mean, you think about this race, it's California, but there were times where her name was even used in races here, like alleging people were like a Pelosi or something like that, sometimes on the other side of issues on public lands or water, things like that inside the state.

Candice Pierucci: Yeah, I would say Congresswoman Pelosi has not been one who's been on the side of, say, Utah values or Utah's policies historically.

And I do think term limits, she's a great example of why term limits are important in Congress.

She's been in office longer than I've been alive, and so I definitely think, you know, congrats on a very long time in office, but also there's definitely room for a little bit of churn, I think, in Congress and getting some fresh perspective.

And in terms of Utah, I don't see it having a massive impact other than once again just voters seeing how long she's been in office and shaking their head, thinking, holy cow, this is crazy.

But she has become an institution because she has been there for so long.

I also think it's a shift in the Democrat Party, where Nancy Pelosi at one point was Speaker of the House and was kind of the pinnacle of power for Democrats, but I would say now, she's probably too moderate for her own party.

And I think you're seeing a huge shift to the left by Democrats, and it's interesting to watch now the Democrat Party have a little bit of this internal struggle and identity crisis, and I think you're gonna see more and more of the Chuck Schumers and Nancy Pelosis go and retire and you're gonna see a new firebrand of Democrat come in that may or may not have a harder time aligning with and appealing to Utah families.

Jason Perry: Lindsay, break that down just a little bit too, and maybe just add one more factor to it.

Pelosi stepping down, but you also had the passing of Dick Cheney this past week.

Some of those names that we've known for a while that have had a significant impact, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on.

Lindsay Aerts: Yeah, it's a little bit of a changing of the guard, if you will.

A lot of times for when you're in politics for decades and decades, you become, quote unquote, "the establishment," right?

And people try to take on the establishment and stuff like that, so both with Pelosi stepping down and Dick Cheney passing away, you're seeing kind of this shift in both foreign policy and then also with just her seat in California, for how long she's been there, and her time as Speaker of the House.

I also think she was just very polarizing for especially Republicans.

I think one key, like, evidence of that is when she ripped up the, yeah, the State of the State--or the State of the Union address after President Trump, I think it was in his first term.

But, yeah, she was a little bit polarizing, but I think, you know, kind of worked her way up in the ranks.

And so, yeah, it'll be interesting to see who kind of comes in to fill those leadership roles.

Andrew Stoddard: Can I push back a little bit on something Representative Pierucci said?

I think, you know, you look at the governors races in Virginia and New Jersey, and I don't think that there is a shift to the left.

I think what this election told us is that the Democrat is becoming more of a big tent as a party.

We've got two, you know, governors who were elected with wide margins that are very moderate.

And I think, you know, then you've got the new mayor of New York who's very far left, so I think what you're seeing is just a spread in terms of the party, and I think that's a good thing.

I think we need a diversity of opinion, and we need to show that there are still--there is still room for moderate Democrats in the party.

Candice Pierucci: I do think that New Jersey and Virginia, the Democrats realize this whole far left--think of the new mayor of New York-- socialist approach to form of government wasn't gonna work, and they did pivot and start talking about kitchen table issues.

And I think that is better for the American people.

I think it's better for the American people when Republicans and Democrats aren't so flipping far apart, right, and that you actually can have conversations.

So, I will also just say that historically Virginia and New Jersey have been blue states, and so it's--we talked about voter turnout, we talked about it being an off year in the midterm cycle.

I don't see them as much of a bellwether as maybe a settling back into what once already was.

I also think that you have to look as well at the campaigns that they run.

We talked about Marsha Judkins running a great campaign.

In Virginia I heard that she also had a phenomenal campaign running.

But I do think the fact that someone like Mamdani in New York was even able to get elected is pretty crazy when you look at the things that he's proposing from a policy perspective.

They generally and they don't align within the American system of government, and it is very concerning that the left fringe, you could say, or the far left keeps pushing that farther and farther out rather than what it might have been 50 years ago.

Jason Perry: Lindsay, let's break down this idea that Representative Pierucci has talked about a little bit too about what issues seem to matter in this election through the eyes of Utahns a little bit, because it was--it seems like the campaigns were a little bit less about social issues, more about the economy.

Lindsay Aerts: The kitchen table issues, yeah, and I was gonna make that point to Representative Pierucci's point, is that you saw sort of what Democrats are calling the Democratic takeover, because to the old James Carville adage, "It's the economy, stupid."

If you can't, you know, put food on your table, if you can't pay for your healthcare, if you don't have healthcare, you're not thinking about what Democrats really ran on in 2024, which we saw them get obliterated over, which is democracy is failing and Trump is going to bring down this country, and he's really, you know, gonna end this 250 year experiment that we've been doing.

So, the message was more about how do we end the shutdown, how do we, you know, feed our families?

Prices are still high, how do we get affordability?

How do we have better housing policies?

Those kitchen table issues that you're talking about with your family as opposed to democracy is failing.

Candice Pierucci: I think it goes back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and I feel this way as a Republican.

We talk about lowering taxes, having free markets, and empowering families, that when you have someone who can't put Cheerios on the table for their kids and you're talking about DEI policies or equity ambassadors, that does not resonate with them because they're worried about paying the bills.

And so, I do think maybe with the government shutdown top of mind and more and more people are using our food pantries and volunteering at it, it's recentered our focus hopefully on what's important and making sure families are able to be successful and pay their bills.

Jason Perry: Representative Stoddard, address that a little bit from the Democratic side, because was this a conscious choice to get to those particular issues?

They take advantage of the moment that Trump was not on the ballot for this election.

There's a government shutdown.

People are starting to maybe not get their checks.

Talk about how all that played into the Democratic strategy, particularly through the lens of the Utahn.

Andrew Stoddard: Yeah, and I hope that the strategy isn't just taking advantage of the government shutdown, but that it is a real shift towards what people care about.

And I think there's room for all these policies, but really Democrats' main focus should be how well is our government taking care of our people?

Are we making sure that they have good jobs, good healthcare, food availability, and I hope that that's a permanent shift.

But I do think that coupled with the shutdown made it really prescient in a lot of people's minds.

Jason Perry: Let's get into some other very local issues, and our legislators particularly tied to this one, redistricting.

Can we talk about that for just a moment?

We talked about this on the show quite a bit.

All of you are connected.

You're on the committee, Representative Pierucci.

But just tell us what's happened procedurally.

We had some--the court has heard something, and we're about to get an opinion of some sort.

Tell us what that--not what the answer is gonna be, because we don't know, but what is the judge supposed to decide?

Candice Pierucci: If I had a crystal ball, I'd love to be able to tell you.

So, November 10 is when the judge--it's the stop dead date on when the elections office needs to have the new maps, so we should hear from Judge Gibson on November 10.

They had two series of evidentiary hearings where they bring in the experts and review the maps, and some of the different issues at hand.

I will tell you, this has been an incredibly frustrating process, because it is very, very clear in the Utah Constitution that the role of redistricting lies with the state legislature.

That is enshrined in our state constitution, and feels very much like the judiciary has been painting outside of the lines in terms of what their role and responsibility is.

So, I'm very curious to see what Judge Gibson does on November 10 with the maps that she's been given.

Lindsay Aerts: So, I sort of have a question on that.

If it's the role of the legislature to draw the map, like, right now what we're doing is the evidentiary hearing, right, of did map C follow Proposition 4?

What happens if it doesn't?

Whose role is it then?

Should the judge have a remedy to issue if there's not a lawful map?

Or does it go back to the legislature to draw?

Candice Pierucci: So the plaintiffs in the actual hearing do not contend that we didn't follow Prop 4 in this last latest wave of redistricting.

Lindsay Aerts: Yes, they do; yes, they do.

Candice Pierucci: They think in terms of--but in hitting all the standards in Prop 4?

Lindsay Aerts: Yeah, they're saying that you-- that it was a partisan gerrymander still, because-- Candice Pierucci: And they presented the most partisan gerrymandered map in the world that doesn't even pass any of the tests and breaks up cities and counties, which is the number one priority.

So, I think it's a partisan, I don't think it's an actual legal battle.

If you were to go back and look at what we did, this second wave of redistricting, we followed the judge's order to a T. We did not look at any partisan data, and we ensured that cities and counties were not split up when they didn't have to be.

Lindsay Aerts: And they're also alleging that your expert had partisan data on his computer when he was drawing those maps.

I'm not saying he used it, but that's what they're alleging.

Candice Pierucci: Sure, and just like if you were to look at the map that the Democrats presented in our committee, there is data that and video evidence that they had partisan data up.

Lindsay Aerts: But not the map that was submitted by the plaintiffs.

That map is invalid.

We're taking over your show, Jason, I'm so sorry.

Jason Perry: Go ahead and finish.

Candice Pierucci: So, I'm gonna say this though.

If--we are in a really crazy place as Utahns if a judge now is legislating from the bench.

Like, this--take a step back from redistricting.

If a judge can say, "Eh, don't like it.

I'm gonna create my own policy here," completely inappropriate, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican.

Prop 4 was a statutory change, and as such, the legislature has the ability to amend and adjust it, which is why there was a bipartisan compromise bill after Prop 4 was passed that a Democrat ran in the house-- she's still serving--to create this new process that we followed.

And now we got, you know, there's this lawsuit to get on it, but it is a much bigger issue for Utah if now we're sitting and saying, "No, a judge should be able to draw a map."

The fact that she's even considering taking a plaintiff's map, nowhere in Prop 4 does it outline that.

Lindsay Aerts: Well, it does outline that there should be-- there is a remedy if the map is enjoined, which is what happened.

Candice Pierucci: But based on the Constitution, here's what to me-- [crosstalk] So I'm gonna answer you.

What she would say is, sorry guys, you failed again.

You gotta go back and redraw your map.

To me, that is within the boundaries of what the judiciary would do.

And but because she took so long on a case that has been going on five plus years and sat on her desk for months and months and months, we're up against a deadline for 2026.

Jason Perry: One more issue from the Democratic side, because it's interesting, as we're talking about redistricting the state of Utah, there was a proposition on the ballot in the state of California, who does have an independent redistricting commission.

It's called the Election Rigging Response Act.

Talk about this, because the Democrats in California were pushing for this for a three-cycle period to adjust their own maps, which would give them, the Democrats, five additional seats in Congress.

So, it's not just our discussion we're having here.

It sounds like other places too.

Andrew Stoddard: Yeah, and this may be the unpopular opinion, but I think this--all mid-cycle redistricting is stupid.

It's really people trying to rig the system to win control of the House, and I blame our president for kicking it off, and I think we should stick with the norms we've had that have worked.

I personally like the independent redistricting committee, and I wish more states would adopt that, and I-- Candice Pierucci: But the California, what they've done with this proposition is they've overrode their independent commission.

They've said never mind, it's going back to the legislature, because we gotta go gerrymander some more so we can get five more seats in Congress.

That's insane.

I agree, this whole midterm, this actually, to me, you're pulling the rug out from what is the process we've historically done, and we didn't want to go back and redistrict.

We had already set our maps in 2021 and had to go through the process.

The very expert that the Democrats brought into our committee has a paper he published that says the independent redistricting commissions actually end up gerrymandering more than the legislature does.

And he in his paper did an assessment on our 2021 map and said Utah didn't gerrymander.

This is a fair map.

It was the Democrat's expert they brought in that said that.

So, to me, it's a double standard for Democrats to say, look, we have to have a commission.

Oh, except for in California right now.

We need to go back and redistrict so we can upset the balance of power.

It's changing the rules midgame.

And both parties are doing it.

Jason Perry: I want to get to one more issue before we close.

We are still in the middle of a--middle, and I don't know where it is--the government shutdown.

We're still doing--it's the longest shutdown in history, and Lindsay, talk about this for just a moment, because there are about to be some serious things felt here in the state.

And not just on things like SNAP benefits for food, but also airlines are going to be impacted starting this very day.

Lindsay Aerts: Yeah, I think now that the election is over and we don't kind of have the, you know, potential implications on people being elected and the fact that flights are starting to be impacted, there is no group of people who flies more than our congressional delegations who have to get back and forth from D.C.

to their districts.

So, I hope you start to see some movement on this, but now that people have missed paychecks, multiple periods, we're in a legal battle over whether we fund SNAP benefits, Utah's not funding SNAP benefits in any sort of way, although they are giving money to the food banks, right, to help there.

So, you're just starting to see these really, really serious impacts on everyday people that hopefully will push the needle.

Candice Pierucci: Yeah, I mean, I would just push back.

We have set aside $4 million to backfill the needs of families who we want them to have food on their table.

This is ridiculous.

You know, we are in a historic shutdown at this point, and the Senate has voted 15 times.

Republicans have voted 15 times to reopen the government, and the Democrats are holding the American people hostage to try and extend the Obamacare premiums and the deadline there for healthcare.

That doesn't expire until December 31st.

I don't think it's fair to hold single moms and their kiddos hostage so that you can extend something that, quite frankly, when Democrats had the majority in Congress, they should have done under President Biden, and instead they kicked the can just a few more years.

They could have pushed that deadline much far out, so this is a shortfall on their part, and I think that they need to be adults and come to the table and say we will negotiate healthcare aside from our constitutional responsibility, which is the power of the purse and actually funding the national government.

Jason Perry: The last 20 seconds here, Representative Stoddard, because the Democrats and Republicans are both having a similar comment in Utah about get this fixed so people can get the food.

Andrew Stoddard: Oh, absolutely, they need to.

But I don't think it's a one-party shutdown.

I think we need more adults in Washington that are willing to compromise and work together to help, you know, everyday people.

Jason Perry: Okay, very good.

Thank you so much for your great insights.

A lot of interesting things happening.

And thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

This show is also available as a podcast.

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund and by donations to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪