♪♪♪ male announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund.

Jason Perry: Tonight on "The Hinckley Report" Governor Cox issues his first veto and signs dozens of bills that will impact both urban and rural Utah.

As the end of the statewide mask mandate approaches, citizens and leaders pushback.

And things heat up in the nation's capital as Utah's delegation tackles difficult issues ranging from immigration to public lands.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ 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 Maura Carabello, President of the Exoro Group; Thomas Wright, former Utah GOP Chair; and Brian King, Minority Leader in the Utah House of Representatives.

So glad to have you all tonight, so much happening in the world of politics, but I want to jump into what just happened.

We had the 20 day end after the session where the governor gets to sign, veto, or some turns out can go into effect without a signature.

Thomas, I wanna start with you on one of the big vetoes 'cause this is interesting.

Four bills vetoed and I think it's just kinda fun to note that the governor's first veto was against his brother in law's bill.

Thomas Wright: That will make for interesting Sunday dinner, Thanksgiving dinner, whatever.

Jason: This is Senator Mike but let's talk about that bill for just a second.

This was the electronic free speech amendments bill.

It was controversial through the session as they talked about it and the end the governor said there were a lot of technical issues associated with it.

Particularly when it comes to how social media companies moderate the speech that exists on their platforms.

Thomas: Well, you know, you gotta love Utah.

Utah is always tryin' to lead the way and not afraid to have a difficult conversation.

This is the question of the day.

In the presidential race there were times when social media companies were censoring people and they were choosing when to and when not to and that was perceived to be unfair.

So you have to balance the first amendment rights people have to say things with when do companies censor, how do they censor, and what are the rules and guidelines around that?

This bill called for an outline of the guidelines so that everybody understood the playing field and what the rules would be.

I think it was vetoed though because there would have been inevitable legal challenges to it and so I think the party's all got together and realize that and said, let's get together again and have a further conversation with stakeholders.

So that we have a defensible position that makes sense, that won't put Utah in a bunch of legal challenges.

Jason: So, Representative, some of the argument on this bill was interesting because there's some thread here that the the conservative voices, maybe are not-- are being filtered out in some way or moderated in some ways.

This bill would have said you have to give reasons if you're gonna take things out.

You set the rules and you say why.

Is that happening?

Rep Brian King: Well, I think that there's an attempt to put in place guidelines to-- it's not just the conservative voices that are being silence.

It's extreme voices that are being silenced.

It's voices that are creating the threat of danger to others or harm to others that are being filtered out.

That's one category that's being filtered out but there are others that could and perhaps should be filtered out.

The more interesting issue to me is we're talking about restricting the speech of private companies here and there's a question in my mind about at what point do private companies, such as Facebook or Twitter get so large that you can legitimately from a policy perspective say there needs to be some restriction or infringement on your otherwise free speech, because you're so powerful and big but you have a disproportionate potentially negative impact on society at large.

Jason: Maura, to that really good point, it's interesting entirely 'cause just yesterday some of the executives of these companies were in Washington D.C. being grilled.

You had Facebook and Twitter and Google with this very question and issue that Representative King was just talking about.

Where is the line?

Who should be making these decisions?

What's your thought?

I mean, you advise people all the time on social media.

Maura Carabello: As comments alluded to we're starting this, right, this is the very beginning of the conversation and where we draw those boundaries, and as ubiquitous as these platforms have become, we have to ask ourselves the questions about who controls and who owns them.

To go back to the question a veto on this bill and the three others, I want to bring in that state crafting that went on.

The governor from the very beginning previewed that he understood the power of the governor signature on things and he used it very artfully.

This bill along with the two others and perhaps the fourth one even was then negotiated--or a negotiated veto if you will.

The sponsors all knew about it in large part they had come to some kind of an agreement with the governor's office about the fact that it should be reworked, re-crafted, and vetoed.

Bringing in rural Utah.

He's done a tremendous job and a very methodical job about using his veto or using his discretion about when he finds things then the fanfare that he goes through with finding.

And we still have on the horizon the note that he might do some more ceremonial finding.

So I want to bring to the conversation the statesman crafting that this governor has done from the beginning and understanding his bully pulpit and the power he has in bringing attention to these issues.

Rep Brian: I think that's a great point from Maura and it's not just vetoes that were negotiated.

It's non vetoes that were negotiated.

There were great negotiations that went into H.B.

220, which was a bill to basically repeal a lot of hard good work that we did in the 2020 session.

Representative Pitcher did great work on cash bail reform, moving us in a direction that I think most people involved in that industry and criminal law felt was good.

220 was a repeal of that and it was very controversial and the governor chose not to veto that even though many voices were urging him too because there was a negotiation behind the scenes about continued work in a way that hopefully will come up with something better than what H.B.

220 is but the point is, that Maura's making, I think is good when in the sense that Governor Cox is a smart man.

He's a KT strategic thinker and he is going to be careful about when he uses his power and he's also going to do a good job of choosing his spots in a way that maximizes his power and doesn't alienate people unnecessarily.

Jason: Thomas, what do you think about this approach because the veto power is pretty significant that the governor can use that in a certain way just to kind of be something that preserves power, but it also maybe what we were describing right here is sometimes you can just use that threat and you can moderate in another way.

How did he do as compared to maybe like Governor Herbert for example, who you know had a few vetoes as well and maybe a similar number.

Thomas: Well, it started really early with the budget.

Typically what you see is you see a governor put forth a budget that's really idealistic and that everybody loves and then the governor lets the legislature kind of tear it apart and then says well I did my best and I tried but then the legislature kinda has to deal with reality.

So then they get left kind of holding the bag.

So, it started earlier when the governor really went and collaborated with the legislature on the budget and they came to terms and I'll always remember this legislative session as the session of co-operative cooperation with legislative leadership.

I thought the Speaker and the Senate President did a great job of setting a really common sense agenda.

Everybody knew where they stood and during a pandemic when you have limited participation, you had a very unsure session, they did a great job of passing legislation, fully funding infrastructure, fully funding education.

They had unprecedented participation from citizens that didn't have to drive up and not find a parking spot at the Capitol, but they could do it over zoom.

I thought that was a really big positive in the session.

And at the end of the day I really felt like this session was one that got a lot done, but with a little bit in a more boring sense than they usually do.

Does that make sense?

And I say that as a compliment to them.

I thought the leadership in the House and the Senate did an excellent job and the collaboration with the executive branch really helped that all happen.

Jason: What do you all think about this, and Maura, let's ask you this question about the powers of the governor because not only does he had the power to veto.

Sometimes they have the power to let something go into effect without their signature.

What do you think about that approach?

'Cause I want to talk about a couple of those bills.

Is that an okay way to go?

Are you comfortable with that or should it-- some people say you veto it or you sign it.

What about this third option?

Maura: You know, I mean the third option is a little crafty and so that could be considered bad or good, particularly, you know, let's pick one particular thing that he let go.

He didn't let very many go but he let go of the film incentive and I think that that is the diversion from tradition in which we've opined on things like that.

He also let that choosing the partisan route and when you could affiliate with a party go.

And I think he side stepping the entire the H.B-- they Count My Vote discussion there.

So I do think it is a side step and it is definitely posture position to say don't look at me.

I am not getting involved in these.

So, it's pure politics.

I don't know that that's always bad but it's pure politics for sure in terms of what the strategy is.

Thomas: Well, the signature is just a safeguard against a governor who maybe doesn't want to take up the issues.

And so you know if you're governor that if you don't sign it the bill will go into law.

So it's a safeguard, it's a backstop.

It's not designed to be used like this politically sign the bill or veto the bill when you're as engaged as a governor as our governor was this session.

Sign the bill or don't sign the bill.

I think that's where it comes in.

It is side stepping and I think on the issue of partisan races like in the primary having participated in one this is where an issue where we really need leadership.

Our party needs leadership.

The state needs leadership to figure out a clean election system that makes sense.

The rules are understandable to voters.

They know how to participate.

They understand the rules beside it and and really at the end of the day I worry that this is a short term thing for Republicans that may backfire on them later on.

I've always been a believer in maximum participation.

Make it easy for people to register to vote.

Make it easier for them to vote.

Don't make it harder.

Don't have all these artificial deadlines that make it hard for candidates, hard for campaigns, and this is an issue that I really felt like should have been addressed and I hope it's still will.

Jason: I know we're not done with that issue.

Maybe as a legislator can talk about what's coming there, Representative.

But maybe we can dig into one of those we just talked about the went into effect without his signature and that was dealing with film incentives.

'Cause you've been tied to this issue.

You've watched it closely, Representative, because he said, this is the governor saying, doesn't think that there's a huge return on investment for that but-- Rep Brian: Right.

No, there have been-- this is something that has been debated and discussed in many sessions in the past.

One of the things that we see is a race to the bottom in terms of states competing with each other to attract those kinds of industries and that's what we have here at Yellowstone for example, which was filmed in Utah, two or three years ago.

Moved to Montana, when we got rid of or cut reduced substantially the film incentives.

They said, okay fine, we're leaving.

And they also made it clear we'd love to come back.

Please help us come back.

We want to come back to Utah.

So, what you have here is studies that have shown that when you're talking about just pure dollars and cents the return on investment of film incentives isn't great or is nonexistent.

The question is do you want to have more-- a morpheus return on investment that you acknowledge and that you want to recognize is valuable to the state of Utah.

Reasonable minds can disagree about the extent to which it's a positive thing to have Utah's image promoted across the country and across the world or not.

Some people would say no, no, no, we don't want that because we don't want more people coming to Utah, but there are a lot of people that would say no, we want Utah's image to be promoted in a positive way whether they come to Utah or not to live.

We want 'em to visit Utah at the very least.

And that's why I think that bill got passed.

Jason: Let's get to one or two more vetoes because I want to make sure everyone and all our viewers know these bills.

One of them impacts your industry a bit, Thomas, here on its House Bill 98, local government building regulations, which essentially let third party inspectors provide inspections, certificates of occupancy.

Governor vetoed that one mostly because became a federal issue.

Thomas: FEMA came in and said look we-- they threatened to pull flood insurance for the entire state of Utah if that bill were passed.

So that bill had a lot of good things in it that will help solve our affordable and attainable housing crisis.

Unfortunately that FEMA provision was a nonstarter.

So I think that will be first on the docket interim House Bill 98, because I think people recognize that we do have an attainable housing crisis.

We have a shortage of housing.

And there are things that we can do to accelerate the supply.

We have a supply and demand problem.

And that was a good bill except for that FEMA provision.

So I think that was vetoed for that reason.

I think it will come out.

I think it'll be first up at interim and I expect about bill to pass without that FEMA provision.

Jason: So this did get to this issue that all of you have been involved to some extent to on this housing shortage in the state of Utah.

Thomas, you start with this 'cause I want to hear what you all have to say about this because it's impacting our district that you represent, Representative King, and the whole state of Utah.

What is this problem, why is it happening, and talk about the solutions?

Thomas: I'm so glad we're talkin' about this.

I'm so passionate about this issue 'cause that's the industry that I'm in but this is about quality of life.

I think it speaks to the suicide rate of our young people.

We're number one in the country.

We need we need to acknowledge that and do something about it.

And the housing crisis is just what I said before.

It's a supply and demand problem.

The housing that you see coming online now was approved a couple of years ago.

The approval process is long, it's arduous, it's difficult, cities sometimes get backed up maybe through no fault of their own.

Maybe it is designed to be strategic and slow their growth.

But the biggest problem surrounding our affordable housing crisis is nimbyism, the not in my backyard mentality, and that comes from people that maybe have a smaller view of density and affordable housing than what we really mean, when we talk about it.

So just quickly I want to tell you it's not a four story apartment building in your backyard that blocks your view and that puts you in the shadows of a high-rise.

It's about small lot single family housing that people can afford that's attainable for first time homebuyers.

You can still have the yard.

You can still achieve the American dream, but it's just a little bit higher density of those single family homes.

And if we do that then we're going to continue to grow.

If we don't we were 55000 housing units short before the pandemic.

I can tell you that number has grown dramatically.

We'll see what it is shortly but that's a big problem for the state of Utah in growth because our economy will not continue to grow if employees that we need to grow our businesses have don't have places to live.

Jason: Maura-- Maura: And I'd like to continue on the train of thought that Thomas just started which is affordable housing is as much about intergenerational incorporation.

It's not about-- we're socio-economically as divided as we are politically divided and that has not served us well.

So what happens to the grandparents who want to stay in the neighborhood that they raised their families in but they need to downscale.

They need to be more aware of their budget.

What happens to the young people and the nimbyism is now really based on these large stereotypes that aren't true as Thomas suggests, but also think about the enrichment of our community when we have generations and we have people who have different kinds of jobs that work together.

And the backyard conversation get to be expanded.

So we have tended to treat it like an economic and a land use planning and it is in part those things, but it isn't part of community decision and we need to break down these barriers and talk about different lifestyles and the integration.

In America the tradition has been we haven't been as economically-- we have these huge imaginary walls built around us based on our economics, our personal economics.

Good land use planning, good affordable housing planning break download and enriches.

It takes the way of suggesting a lot of loneliness, mental health issues, stresses on family economy, but it makes for a much more balanced family and community unit.

Jason: So how is this working our district and a lot people are saying these buildings are going up, you know, what does that mean for us?

Is this addressing the problem?

As the representative, I know you're asked about it so.

Rep Brian: Well, District 28 is an area everything north of 13, everything west-- east of 13th East, everything north of I-80.

It's a relatively affluent district.

It's a relatively high priced real estate market and you all live in it.

And so we recognize that the challenge this is for all of us and it is a challenge.

One of the things that is a particular challenge when you're talking about legislating at the state level is local control.

Do we want to retain and to what extent do we want to retain the ability of cities and counties to come up with their own zoning ordinances?

What Thomas talks about when he talks about nimbyism is absolutely right.

And the challenge is unless you have something other than local control you encourage the likelihood that nimbyism is in place.

So, there's a lot of tension between state control and local control and that's what played out in the ADU Bill that we had at the legislature.

That was one of the key issues, but zoning is one of the primary things that is a challenge to us putting in place affordable housing because the locals generally do not want to do the zoning that Thomas is talkin' about.

Why?

It impacts detrimentally their tax base or at least that's the concern of the locals.

Jason: I want to spend a moment on the local control in a second but I just want to finish up these two last bills that were vetoed.

One of them gets into this local issue a bit.

This is, Maura, Senate Bill 187, the local education agency policy amendments.

It was an interesting effort, the governor says this is not about control necessarily but this is whether local health departments have to notify education agencies before certain policies go into effect.

Maybe talk about the policy consideration there and why the governor decided maybe we don't want to put that particular mandate on these local health agencies.

Maura: This trends with his two others that we've talked about in which it was unintended consequences and he had identified in which he felt like there was a glitch in how we could apply our local ordinances and laws.

And so, these first three bills I suppose we'll talk about the Hemp Bill in a moment, but I think in terms of this, this was a matter, will probably come back in some form and fashion, but it was really a matter of he identified unforeseen glitches in this and wanted to see it cleaned up.

Jason: Okay, sounds like we're gonna talk about Hemp 'cause that was the other one and it is your favorite topics.

So maybe you can even try to describe this problem which maybe-- Rep Brian: This is a bill, I think Senator Vickers was the senate sponsor of the bill and Senator Vickers is a pharmacologist.

He's a pharmacists down from Cedar City.

Great member of the leadership team in the Senate Republican caucus, and well respected and well liked.

And when Evan Vickers speaks about hemp and cannabis, medical-- medicinal cannabis, people stand up and say they salute smartly and say, yes sir, because he's known as a straight shooter and a well informed legislator.

So this came out of the Senate, I don't know that there were any negative votes that came over to the house.

It was sponsored in the house by Representative Daily Provo member of my leadership team in the House Minority Caucus.

I don't think anybody really looked at this and thought oh, that's problematic and controversial.

I don't think it picked up a negative vote in the house.

So it was a little surprising to see the governor veto it but information came to him that suggested that it was just not a good idea.

Jason: Very interesting how the information flows and what he does with it which is the perfectly into Kane County, all right.

So we have the end game.

We got the end of the mask mandates coming for the state of Utah based on legislation itself, but Thomas, Kane County met together and they voted say we're ending it now.

Thomas: Kane County is a fantastic place.

There's some amazing people down there.

It was honestly-- and so look I was on the record early on on this.

The numbers were coming down.

The vaccinations are effectively being deployed.

People are getting their shots.

I do think government closest to the people makes the best decision.

I don't think Salt Lake County is the same as Kane County, with the mask mandate coming to an end to statewide on April 10th.

Kane County is a little bit ahead of that curve.

I think they have the right to do that.

Just-- and I think we have to as a society stop and stop the polarization of this and really ask ourselves this question before there was a statewide mandate masked mandate last year when the pandemic started, Salt Lake County came out and said we want to have a countywide masked mandate.

And I said at the time what I'm saying right now.

That is if Salt Lake County wants to have one they should be able to do it because Salt Lake County is different than Kane.

So, I'm applying the same logic that I applied last year, even though now it may be a little bit more convenient for me.

And I think we all have to do that.

Let's be a little more intellectually honest with our conversations so that our elected officials will do that.

I'm just coming here with my state representative so he can hear me say-- He's great, you know, we're on different sides of the aisle, but when I reach out he's responsive.

We don't agree much but he is very respectful and responsive.

Rep Brian: But I have to be careful with Thomas in the district, I mean, I can't screw around.

I can't take my job lightly.

I'm with Thomas on this actually.

I believe that local control is in this situation fine.

I think it's folly on the part of the legislature to think that we can declare an end to the virus by Fiat, by legislative action, that's a little foolish in my mind.

I think whether you're talkin' about Kane County or Salt Lake County, whether you're talkin' about the state of Utah or the country as a whole, let's give heed to the people who are in the best position to tell us what the science and the medicine tells us we should be doing as a matter of public health concerns.

So, look, I don't know that that doesn't necessarily mean that Kane county should do something, do the same thing that Salt Lake County, but I mean, I think it means that Kane County should be making whatever decision they make with the best information from a public health perspective in mind.

If they're doing that, great.

If they're not, they're stupid.

If they want to go ahead and ignore the best thinking of public health, fine.

That may mean they don't get people comin' to Kane County that they would otherwise like to have visit.

Thomas: And I want to weigh it but we also have to think about civil liberties, right?

We have to be really careful that we don't allow government to encroach on our civil liberties.

This is a pandemic.

There is an emergency.

We do need to keep people safe.

There is a public health interest.

We all understand that but we also wanna make sure government doesn't get to a point where they're impeding on our civil liberties.

It's really an important part of this macro conversation.

And i know, there's a continuum people have different views on it but it's time to be respectful and to listen to each other and to try to apply that intellectual honesty so we can preserve civil liberties and we can get through this pandemic with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

Jason: Maura.

Maura: They passed this big test that we're about to start on right now that we're in the last mile of the race and the last mile of the race is largely a mental exercise.

You can train for it, you know it, and we're all so ready to be done with that but we also have science, and we need to follow it.

I will say in terms of the mask mandate, I agree with the notion of local control, but I will also agree with the notion that wearing a math is hardly the biggest infringement we've had on us.

So, I think that the red herring in terms of a political argument because if mask wearing were to help keep someone in our community safe, it's such a small ask of us and I will say we all just have to be aware of how much we want this to end and at the last mile is a mental mile.

So, I want to caution our local leaders from just as Brian suggested just declaring it over because we're all so tired of it.

And really complete the last mile so that we can be done with it in the long run and not limping along with this challenge.

Jason: So, Maura, what do you make with that argument in mind, the Kane County argument, which was one size fits all doesn't work in the state of Utah, you should leave it.

We've had this discussion well here already tonight, but where does that leave counties like Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City itself 'cause these mayors are in a position right now where they're evaluating this law and trying to make a decision.

Where are they left right now?

Maura: You know, they're going to probably take a very different prediction.

I mean it follows the same line of reasoning.

They're going to look at their population, their density, what their goals are, what they think brings economic development and safety and health and safety.

And I think you're looking at two entities in Salt Lake City and then Salt Lake County, who are probably going to look at the extending what they see as the mask mandate.

Now again in this last mile, everything we've heard about extension is a 30 day or a 40 day.

You're not looking at overly aggressive extensions and you're not really looking at a different analysis of where we are in the pandemic, but in fact, a different approach to what they deem as the best science and the best health.

So, when I've heard speaking of extensions you're really looking at maybe a month long extension of a mask mandate.

Jason: Just something-- I love to get a sneak peek, Representative, so a lot of things going forward since we've changed who can emergency declaration orders we're monitoring day by day to tell us what's gonna happen at the legislature.

We're gonna have a special session soon.

What are you hearing about when?

What are we gonna hear discussed?

Rep Brian: Well, I think you may very well see a special session on a couple of things.

One is we haven't talked about the fact that there are some tax consequences associated with this most recent bill that passed and the federal government saying you can't, states, provide certain tax credits when the federal government has provided relief.

And so, there's a tension that has cropped up with the passage of the most recent federal act or at least a potential conflict between what we did in the session in terms of how we treated the taxability of Cares Act money and this new money that's going to be coming to the citizens across the country and state law.

So, I think there may very well be a special session dealing with a tax consequences of that.

It's very complex, we're gonna be relying heavily on the State Tax Commission Chair Valentine, our legislative fiscal analyst's office, but there may be some things that need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

I think we also ought to be dealing in the interim at least with study H.B.

220, this cash bail issue.

Jason: We'll watch this closely 'cause I know we'll see more of you.

Thank you for your representation and thank you all.

Brilliant conversation tonight, so informative, appreciate it.

And thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report" the show is also available as a podcast on PBSUtah.org/HinckleyReport or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you for being with us.

See you next week.

♪♪♪