Jason Perry: On this episode of "The Hinckley Report," mail-in voting takes center stage as courts strike down federal challenges weeks before the election.

Utah leaders consider industry demands for AI regulation.

And new polling reveals what is really driving Utahns to the polls.

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 Brigham Tomco, reporter with the Deseret News; Heidi Hatch, anchor with KUTV 2 News; and Glen Mills, a political expert and analyst.

We're so glad you're here with us on the program.

A lot happening around the country in terms of politics and elections in particular.

I want to start with that, Brigham.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling this week that really went after this executive order from President Trump that had a lot to do with mail-in ballots and election security.

Talk about that case for just a moment because there are implications here in the state of Utah.

Brigham Tomco: Yeah, absolutely.

So, ahead of the midterm elections this November, the Trump administration has made election security its priority through a series of lawsuits to dozens of states across the country.

And on Monday, the Supreme Court struck down one of these executive orders from March, which would have created a new rule for the US Postal Service to actually screen the mail-in ballots going out to voters across the country.

Each of these envelopes would need a individualized barcode, and they would have to ensure that people receiving mail-in ballots are properly registered by each state, but it would have centralized the information in a way that hadn't been done before in the country.

Jason Perry: And Heidi, this was causing concerns for not just people across the country getting their ballots, which have already been sent to a lot of people, but also the postal service itself saying, "Wow, this is a pretty big lift that's going to be required of us."

Heidi Hatch: I think that's the problem.

Even if this was a good idea and a good system, rolling it out so quickly where there wasn't time is difficult.

And when you think about our postal service workers, they do a great job at what they do, but they're not trained in elections.

Trying to get this rolling in a couple of weeks, I spoke to the lieutenant governor this week, and Utah has more advanced mail-in ballots than a lot of other states.

We have that barcode on the ballots that go out but not on the way in.

And so, the idea of trying to redo that entire system in a matter of weeks just isn't realistic.

And then even if you could get them done, could you execute properly in time for the election so people had confidence?

And that was the big question.

Glen Mills: As you mentioned, a couple of states had already started sending their ballots out.

This would have been chaos had this gone through, but perhaps that was the ultimate goal all along.

Jason Perry: Well, talk about that for just a moment, because once you start having some regulation over these ballots, it does impact the potential turnout overall, and Utah has been pushing back on this.

Glen, you've been following this for quite some time.

Talk about Utah's relationship to mail-in ballots, and it might be a little different than what's coming from the administration in D.C.

Glen Mills: Yeah, it's widely popular in the state of Utah.

It's far more convenient.

It gives voters an opportunity to take a look at the ballot for quite some time, to study it, to really narrow in on the way they want to vote, and it has no doubt increased voter participation in our state.

I remember reading a Utah Foundation report just recently indicating that, taking a look at midterm elections both prior to mail-in ballots and after, and we went from the 44th state in the country in regards to voter turnout into the top 15, I think it was like around 13.

So, it has had a huge impact on turnout, and by and large, people in the state of Utah enjoy it.

Jason Perry: Heidi, some of this is connected to some lawsuits and maybe even a Department of Justice investigation that our own Lieutenant Governor is very much involved in, a request for more voter information to go into this system that will be connected to the ballots.

Heidi Hatch: Yeah, and I think a lot of this because it's happening at once is confusing to voters because it's hard to keep up with even when you're working and looking at this every day, let alone voters at home, and they're worried about how does this DOJ investigation affect my vote?

And the answer is this DOJ lawsuit that's been filed against the Lieutenant Governor's office doesn't have any effect on this election.

And the interesting fight right now is that this is really over federalism.

And when you look at Republicans, and especially the state of Utah, we are a very hands off state.

Let us do it ourselves.

We do it better on a local level.

So the question is, while a lot of Republicans don't seem to be at least out loud backing the lieutenant governor on this, I think a lot of them in quiet are, but I think there's push and pull between do we support the president or do we stand up for the state's rights of where we want?

Because federalism would usually be an easy issue if it were Joe Biden or President Obama saying give me all your stuff here in Utah, they'd be heck no, you know, keep your hands off, it's ours.

Jason Perry: Yeah, so and--do you have something for us, Glen?

Glen Mills: Well, that's just a really interesting point, because you take a look at this battle, and it's not Democrat versus Republican.

This is a Republican president taking aim at a Republican lieutenant governor in our state and others across the country.

You do mention that a lot of Republicans are in this spot where they don't know quite where to go, but we are seeing some more moderate Republicans and definitely independents and Democrats coming out in defense of Lieutenant Governor Henderson.

Brigham Tomco: Well, some of that tension, I think, comes down to our statewide officials here in the state of Utah, with Utah Senator Mike Lee being probably the national spokesperson for election security in terms of verifying citizenship with his SAVE America Act.

And the purpose behind these lawsuits that, you know, there was this letter sent out to over 30 top election officials across the country last week, and they want this personal data from voter registration bases to verify citizenship.

And they actually have the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies kind of scouring these voter rolls, trying to identify whether there are non-citizens on, you know, our election records.

Jason Perry: People you're interviewing, the stories you're writing, where are Utahns on this particular issue?

As it gets to this issue of sort of federalism, state's rights, it's our job to control these elections versus the federal government.

Brigham Tomco: Well, again, it's that interesting place that conservatives are being put in where for years, certainly under the Biden or Obama presidencies, the focus was on federalism and on state rights.

But when it comes to the issue of election security, I think people can frame it in a national context and say that maybe past administrations were irresponsible with mass immigration and even the changes that were widespread during COVID to mail-in ballots where they were implemented quickly across the country.

And so, when the stakes are framed in that national context of who's going to control Congress, I think lots of Republicans are Willing to maybe set aside some of those federalism concerns and think about this as a federal issue.

Jason Perry: Okay, let's get to some other very specific state issues.

Heidi, of note, this week our Utah State Senate met and confirmed two new members of the Utah Supreme Court.

This is very interesting, how this has happened.

We're up to seven now.

Talk about some of the history on that a little bit too, because it does have the capacity to change what happens with the decisions of this court.

Heidi Hatch: Absolutely, I think there's definitely good and bad that comes with this.

I think it puts us online with where the national average is for Supreme Court justices.

You have anywhere from between 5 and 9, and I think 6.9 is where the average is.

So, the question is, some people are like this is court packing.

Governor Spencer Cox has a huge legacy now of putting these extra justices on the court and naming just about everyone who's on the court right now, which is interesting.

But the question is, you know, is this trying to court pack or persuade cases, or is this really trying to get the people's work done?

Because when you look about one of the biggest fights that we had at the Supreme Court, when we're looking at the redistricting, a lot of people were concerned about how long it was taking and the slow rolling.

So the question is, do we need this?

Do we have enough people in the state, enough cases, where we need these justices so that we can keep the process moving and it doesn't take too long and we're not taking months, if not years to make these decisions?

Jason Perry: Glen, it's an interesting statistic that Heidi just brought up.

So, Governor Cox has appointed seven justices to the Supreme Court in the last six years, six of the current seven that are there, and this is more than any governor in history.

Glen Mills: Yeah, this is an unprecedented overhaul.

We haven't seen anything like it, as you mentioned.

He'll have six of the seven.

It's a combination of both retirements, resignation, and then the expansion.

But I also see some parallel on the national level as well.

We have a president now who's sitting with three members of the Supreme Court, so that's a third of the Supreme Court on the national level.

One other point I'll make on this is this really stems from a fight we've seen developing and playing out for quite some time now where the legislature feels that the judicial side has perhaps overstepped its boundaries.

And so, I think we have--this has contributed to that, and that's where we are sitting at this point.

Jason Perry: Do we have a balance in the Force now?

Our branches of government, Brigham?

Brigham Tomco: I think the unavoidable kind of context around this expansion of the court is a feeling among the legislators and the executive branch, Governor Spencer Cox, that the decisions coming down from the state Supreme Court have not been representative of many Utahns in the state.

And so, some people might say that that's political, others might say this is an instance of accountability in trying to make the--or trying to implement a check on the judicial branch of government.

Jason Perry: It's interesting, before we leave this, when you talk about how Utahns are viewing this thing.

And Heidi, we did some polling with the Desert News, Brigham Tomco, and the Desert News in the past when this bill was coming out, and we asked Utahns about this bill, how Utahns felt about expanding from 5 to 7, I don't know if you know, it was 58% of Utahns strongly supported adding these two new justices, 21% opposed, 22% don't know.

Heidi Hatch: Yeah, and I think that, I mean, without talking to people, it seems like the majority want to see the business of the people done, and I think it really does go back to some of those cases that are making headlines like the congressional districts where you're waiting for those answers.

So, it is interesting that people are in support of it.

The question is, do you remain in support of it or when they make the decisions you don't like, you're like this is a bad idea.

Take them back.

Can we get a return policy on this?

Jason Perry: Yeah, right, final point, Glen.

Glen Mills: As you say that, we hear President Trump lamenting about that very thing on the national level quite often.

Jason Perry: Yes, he talks about the justices he put in place and what those decisions are, very interesting.

Now, let's get to something just as connected.

AI, this is interesting.

We're talking about it here at the University of Utah.

We're talking about a lot.

Our students are talking about it, but Brigham, our own governor is talking about AI a lot, and he has actually just put out a statement, calling on Congress to create a national framework for governing artificial intelligence.

I want to read this in just a moment, but he's not alone.

And what's interesting as we get ready to talk about what he wants is we have elected people talking about it, bipartisan.

We also have industry talking about more regulation.

Talk about how that works together.

You don't always see that.

Brigham Tomco: Over the past few weeks, the industry giants in the artificial intelligence space, including Elon Musk or Sam Altman of OpenAI and Dario Amodei of Anthropic, all came out and said, listen, this is accelerating quicker than we can control, implement policy regulations, or even predict the outcomes, and so there needs to be a slowdown along the frontier of these new AI softwares.

But there have been relatively few elected officials that have kind of stuck their neck out and said, "We need kind of this national framework, we need states to, you know, have personalized approaches to how we regulate AI."

And Governor Spencer Cox has kind of been at the forefront of that.

Jason Perry: I want to read this tweet from--this on X, the post from the Governor.

Heidi, if you'll give a comment on this, because it does get to what the governor wants to see happen in terms of this regulation, and we'll talk about whether or not we can get there.

This is what Governor Cox posted.

"America should lead the world in developing artificial intelligence, and that leadership must keep people firmly in control.

I'm calling on Congress to establish a consistent national framework for the development of frontier AI.

It should require serious safety incidents to be reported, protect those who raise credible concerns, ensure independent evaluation of the most capable models and prevent powerful AI chips and enabling infrastructure from being sold to China.

We can build the world's most advanced AI here in America while ensuring it remains firmly in the service of humanity."

Heidi Hatch: I think we all would like it to be in the service of humanity, so I think it's a good thought.

It's a good statement.

I think that we probably should make rules and create those guardrails before we get so far down the road, but I think sometimes the problem, whether you're talking about license plate readers in the state where people are like, oh wait, do we want this and do we need rules?

We're at the same place with AI where you have to understand it, it has to start to be in use before you start realizing there are issues and you need guardrails.

So the question are, you know, how do we come up with what those rules are?

And especially when you see those people who are working on it saying, yes, please give me some guardrails and some rules so I'm not completely in charge, it makes you wonder who has the ability to figure out what these rules are, what do they need to be, and will AI follow our rules?

I don't know.

That's a good question.

Jason Perry: I can't wait to find out.

Yeah, so Glen, it's so interesting right here.

We have states that are putting their own controls in to some extent, the federal government looking at it, but this ends up being one of those things where can states regulate on their own, or does there need to be some kind of national framework, sort of your government entity for the oversight of the models that are coming out?

That's a very interesting new issue.

Glen Mills: What tends to happen when we just see it at the state level on--really, across the board is you can have this Swiss cheese type regulation, where what you can do across one border you can't do in another, so we'll wait and see what happens.

My personal opinion is it should probably be handled on a federal level with one standard, but then states can potentially go in and do what they see fit as well.

This is just such an interesting conversation of technology to me though, because one, it's starting to make all those 1980s and '90s movies that seemed so realistic, we're looking back at those and all of a sudden saying, whoa, are we heading down this path?

But also this is an area where the younger generation is more uncomfortable with AI than the older generation is, so we're starting to see that they really view it as a potential of taking their jobs, and they're really concerned about how that could impact their lives coming down the road.

Brigham Tomco: You know, the acronym, AI, can feel pretty abstract to people, but what we've seen just in the last couple of months is OpenAI and other groups come out and reveal that their newest AI models that they've been constructing have been able to kind of break out of these control settings and hack other companies and then cover up their footsteps, right, to try and hide the laws that they've broken or the, you know, the firewalls that they've cracked.

And so, I think this could have very real consequences for cybersecurity and national security, and it's hard, I think, to translate to voters what this could look like, because even lots of the tech industry leaders don't know what's coming.

All they know is that sometimes this thing can, you know, I'm not going to say it has a mind of its own, but sometimes it seems like it.

Heidi Hatch: At least it knows it did something wrong if it's covering up its footsteps.

It's like, well, we did something bad, let's hide this.

So, I don't know if that's a good thing.

Jason Perry: Before we leave this, it's an interesting point, because you talk about some of these concerns they have with AI and whether or not you have to have federal regulation, Heidi.

But it's also this concern is manifesting itself in some conversations about data centers themselves, particularly here in the state of Utah.

Talk about it a little bit because there is a clear connection, but this is where the concerns are sort of manifesting themselves.

Heidi Hatch: Yeah, we're seeing a lot of talk about this, about AI, the data centers, do we really need them?

And the interesting thing is when we saw a lot of people actually turning out in real life to oppose data centers and you saw the signs they were holding, and they were made by AI, and so it's an interesting conversation of people fighting on social media that we don't need more data centers, we don't need more whatever, but you can see that people are using this technology.

So the question is, are we creating data centers for what we're actually using?

Are we creating data centers beyond what our actual use is?

So, I think a lot of it is still just trying to get the public in line with what the actual needs are in our state.

Are we building things beyond what we need, or are we just trying to keep up with the growth of what we're already using and technically need with what we're doing in our everyday lives?

Glen Mills: It was somewhat whiplash how quick data centers became the focal point of the primary election.

As we started through the primary cycle, we weren't even really talking about it.

I was the moderator for one of the congressional debates, and when I agreed to do that, data centers weren't even on the radar.

And by the time we got to the debate, maybe just a month or maybe a month and a half later, it was the hottest topic there was.

Heidi Hatch: People flipped fast on it.

Jason Perry: Yeah, we're gonna keep watching that one for sure.

The issue did come up this past week in the midterm Republican National Convention.

Brigham, let's talk about this for just a moment because there was one, it was in Texas, and it's not something that has to happen.

It doesn't happen very often.

Talk about why the Republicans chose to have this national convention ahead of the midterms that are coming up.

Brigham Tomco: So, lots of times we try and compare the current election cycle to trends that you've seen over decades, and since World War II, I think that the party in power in Congress in the White House typically loses 30 to 40 seats during a midterm election.

And so, that is a big threat, I think, to President Donald Trump's agenda.

And so, here you have this rally trying to gin up support among maybe some of those lower propensity voters that come out only for President Donald Trump.

And so, the theory behind it, at least among the president, is if people act as if he and his agenda are on the ballot this November, then maybe some of those lower propensity Republican voters will come out.

On the other hand, some of these GOP candidates are saying with, you know, the president underwater by 20% or 30% in approval polls, I don't want him anywhere near my election this November.

Glen Mills: In addition to the historical element that you bring up, there's a really important factor that's going to play into this election, and that is what people are feeling in their wallets, in their bank accounts.

Gas is high, groceries are high, almost everything around them that impacts them is a high cost at this point, and I think that is going to overwhelmingly be what leads voters to the polls.

Heidi Hatch: Yeah, and I don't think President Trump, when he speaks to the people, I think has that empathy for people for gas prices and groceries, because he's like, this is just going to last for a little while, just hang on with me.

But on the other end at this convention, he promised people, hey, if we can keep both houses, I'll give you each a check for $5,000.

And so, I think he's hoping some people will be like, okay, let's do it and let's get the $5,000.

But when you look at the $5,000 and how much more it puts us in debt from $1 trillion to maybe $1.3 trillion, it just creates more problems.

And so, I think there's a real worry about losing those seats, as Brigham said, and the question is, you know, will this help?

And it may if people listened.

Jason Perry: Just before we leave this, President Trump, to your point, said, "Pretend that I am on the ballot as you show up to vote in this election cycle."

Talk about what that means right there, because I think we've really set the stage pretty well, but it is connected to the economy, it seems.

Glen Mills: Yeah, time and time again, history will show us that's the most important element that draws people to the polls, and I don't see why that'll be any different this year.

And as Brigham has already mentioned, historically we see that swing in the midterms anyway.

Jason Perry: So, let's get to some interesting dynamics within the parties themselves.

As people are starting to show up, as you have your different elements within the Republican Party and in the Democratic Party, but Brigham, I wanna start with you on some polling that we have just completed with the Deseret News.

And we wanna talk about the Democratic socialism, the DSA, as people are calling them, and we actually asked the question, do you support or oppose each of the following economic systems?

Let's start with this, because this is what's changed a little bit over the years.

Capitalism, this is Utah, 55% said they support capitalism, 31% said they support democratic socialism, 28% socialism, and 11% communism.

That is a very interesting mix.

Talk about how that can be.

That's not what you would have heard in years past.

Brigham Tomco: Well, I think this plays really heavily into our midterm conversations, because as Republicans are trying to counter some of the negative polling and public opinion around costs, they're pointing to some of these Democratic Socialists of America victories in Democratic primaries and trying to frame the Democratic Party as communist or socialist or Marxist, and they throw out these words, but it turns out that when you look into some of this poll data, that Democratic voters in the state of Utah as well are open to the Democratic socialism label.

And maybe they have different definitions of what that means, but 74% of Utah Democrats said that they have a favorable view of, quote, "democratic socialism," and that's actually 11 points more than Democrats nationally in our poll.

And so, it seems like whether it's an, you know, an appetite or the appeal of economic populism or maybe someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leading in some of our presidential polls for 2028, a self-described democratic socialist, but it seems like the Democratic Party is more open to that label and those policies.

Heidi Hatch: I think Utah--go ahead.

Glen Mills: No, you go ahead.

Heidi Hatch: Utah, I think, has fallen along those lines, even if you look back to when Hillary Clinton was running for president, running against Bernie Sanders, Utahns showed up in favor of Bernie Sanders, and so you saw that push towards the socialism side.

But the interesting thing is you're looking at our Congressional District 1 right now, they could have pushed more to the socialism side or to Nate Blouin, and they had other options, but they really went to the more centrist of them with Ben McAdams.

So, the interesting idea is that they accept it on a national level, as in president, but the question is, were they accepting it when it seemed a little more local and close to them in the congressional race?

Glen Mills: And I can't help but pinpoint the reality or the irony of the Republican message of let's go out, defeat socialism, defeat communism, and oh by the way, if you help us do that, we'll write you a $5,000 check.

Heidi Hatch: Free lemonade for everyone.

Glen Mills: It's like satire is reality now.

Jason Perry: What you're describing is interesting, 'cause it depends on what people think democratic socialism is.

And Brigham brought up this point, but Heidi, so we asked in our polls, when you hear the term democratic socialism, which of the following comes closest to the first thing that comes to mind?

The two highest getting answers, 28% said universal healthcare and stronger--a stronger social safety net, that's 28%.

27% of Utahns said higher taxes and more government spending.

Put these two together with what we're seeing, this sort of--this higher approval of these things with these two big issues?

Heidi Hatch: And I really think it comes down to cost of living and when people are looking at how much they're paying for their healthcare and how much more their premiums are going up and how much they pay if they go to urgent care or if they have to go to the emergency room.

And when you look at examples of countries that have pulled this off well, in the Nordic countries, people point to that and say, "Look how easy it is.

I went on vacation and I broke my leg and I fixed it and didn't have to pay anything for it."

The question is, can we pull something off like that in the United States of America with a lot more people, and can you do something like that?

And so, I think that a lot of it right now is really just driven by people trying to figure out how to take care of their families, and as we've been talking about, our bottom lines, and I think that's why we're starting to see it in that direction and we're getting these younger voices like AOC we're seeing Mamdani in New York.

And the question is, can they pull off some of these things they promised in their elections?

And if so, people, I think, are going to be more and more attracted to it.

Brigham Tomco: There also is a generational divide.

You see a lot more of Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, who are open to democratic socialism or have negative views toward capitalism.

And so, some of this also could come down to the perception of capitalism or our economic system in the US that they get from social media or from their education.

And so, I think there's a question about that generational divide, and who knows, maybe AI plays into this as well.

If they think that they're not going to have jobs when they graduate, maybe they think that some stronger form of government support and subsidies is needed.

Jason Perry: Okay, Glen, it's such an interesting conversation, and I want to give one more poll question in our last 90 seconds because it makes me wonder whether or not what's described as sort of a symptom of not having something as opposed to the rise of the thing itself, based on what Brigham just talked about.

Because we asked whether you have a favorable or unfavorable view, which of the following do you think best explains why it has become more prominent in US politics?

And this is what we talked about, and this is 41% said growing wealth inequality, and 35% said the rising cost of housing and living.

Glen Mills: So, I think that plays to the latter of what you just suggested, in that people are missing out and/or feeling like things are out of reach for them.

They don't have the money to get a house.

They're watching the rich get richer in their view as they're not making ends meet.

So, I think a lot of it is driven that way, and they see a system that is saying, hey, come here and we will take care of you.

We will provide these things for you, and that is attractive to some.

Jason Perry: I've got 30 seconds, Heidi.

Talk about that as a symptom of sorts, where there might be something that could be addressed that's giving cause for the rise.

Heidi Hatch: Yeah, I think it's attractive.

The question is, once you actually have that and those services in place and then you have those higher taxes, would you be just as satisfied or worried because you didn't have your money in a paycheck?

I have family members that live in the Netherlands, and they're not democratic socialists, but definitely leaning more in that direction.

And when you talk to the problems that they're having, a lot of them are the same things of I don't have enough money to pay the rent or I don't think I'll ever own a home.

And so, I think these are questions we'll have to wrestle with as a country and what the right direction is.

Socialism used to be a dirty word.

It isn't anymore.

Jason Perry: It's gonna have to be the last word.

Thank you so much for your insights on these very interesting topics, 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.

♪♪♪