- [Announcer] PBS Utah presents "The Governor's Monthly News Conference", an exchange between Utah Reporters and Governor Spencer Cox.

(dramatic orchestral music) - Good morning everyone.

It's great to see all of you again.

Wanna wish you a very happy Thanksgiving.

I'm gonna start off, I know we have lots of questions, but I've just been reflecting a little bit this week.

Again, a special time of year.

I think it's my favorite week of the year, and just some of the things that I'm grateful for.

I hope that everyone gets an opportunity to reflect a little bit on the good things that are happening all around us.

I just, I'm grateful this time of year for my incredible family.

I know most of you know my amazing wife and the work that she's doing, but to my kids as well, we're lucky to be in a state that cares so much about families.

Second, I just want to thank the people of Utah.

I'm so deeply grateful for you.

I know that there are people that are struggling financially, struggling with health issues.

It can be a difficult time of year for so many, and yet, everywhere I go, people are quietly serving, giving back, taking care of their neighbors.

It's really what we do best.

The third thing that I'm grateful for is some of the progress that we've been able to make this year.

It's been a, there's been some difficulties for sure in our state but some positive things as well.

We were named the best state in the nation again for the third year in a row.

Something that's never happened before by "US News and World Report".

Great things are happening on the energy front.

We're starting to make progress on the housing front.

We still have a long ways to go there, but we're dedicated to saving the Great Salt Lake.

So many people are coming together to make it possible, to be the first, the first great saline lake on earth to be saved.

Something that I know we can do as we work together.

I'm excited.

I'm grateful for what's coming up in January.

Usually I don't look forward to a legislative session, but I know there are gonna be good things happening this year.

We're gonna be working more on housing, protecting our kids from social media and the harms there, a major literacy initiative that we'll be talking more about in the coming weeks, and AI preparedness and reform.

There's so much that we can solve, so many problems we can solve together.

And so, just, I wanna thank all of you for being here as well.

I'm grateful for the media who come and ask the hard questions.

And I'm grateful for what you do to share accurate information with the people of Utah.

It's hard to find trusted and accurate information.

And even when you write things that I don't like about me, I still appreciate you.

And so with that, let's go ahead and jump into the hard questions.

- Governor, the special session call- - We'll go here and then here.

I promise I'll get to both of you.

Please, ma'am, yeah.

- There's a special session that the legislature called this morning, once again addressing redistricting.

They say that you are supportive of this.

What do you expect to be on the call and what do you want to see the legislature accomplish in response to this ruling?

- Yeah, so for sure.

So just to clarify, I will be calling the special session, not the legislature, even though they have the ability to do that.

They'd ask me if I'd be willing to call that session and I said that I would.

We're still working through the details of what will, what will be on that call.

And so there will be more information over the next couple weeks as we get closer to what that looks like.

- But what do you want to see them address in response to this ruling?

- Sure.

Well, I said from the very beginning that it's important to appeal that decision.

And look, this is a really tough one, and I know everyone has strong feelings about this and about what should be done and how it should be done.

There's right way to do things and there's inappropriate ways to do things and I hope we're doing this the right way.

I know a lot of people are upset at the judge's decision.

I think it was a wrong decision.

And what you do when you get a decision that you, that you disagree with is you appeal that decision.

And that's exactly what we're going to do.

You don't threaten the judge.

That's completely inappropriate.

And there is no room for violence or threats of violence in politics or in judicial rulings.

I want to be very clear about that.

You don't disobey judicial orders.

That's not something that our administration will ever do.

I know people wanted the Lieutenant Governor not to follow the judge's orders.

That's not a thing, we don't do that.

We follow the constitutional order.

The people want the legislature to do things that would potentially not be appropriate.

And so, I'm really grateful for the legislature and I'm grateful for the work they're doing.

I think it's important to appeal this decision.

Hopeful that we can, that we'll get a different or better ruling from the Supreme Court.

And so, we'll work through that process with them.

They are an independent branch of government and they get to, they get to, they get to express via resolution or law their, how they want to be represented.

And of course I'll leave that up to them when they're ready to share what they, what they want to do in that special session.

- So, Governor, to Ben's question about what do you want to see in the special session, I know no one's really telling us and we'll work out all the details, but I have obtained a GRAMA request from some communications with county clerks.

And it appears that the legislature is discussing pushing back the filing deadline and potentially changing signature thresholds of, you've gotta lower the thresholds 'cause you're gonna butt up against county conventions and things like that.

So which of those plans, I think there's three different plans that they talked about do you support, in terms of: Do you wanna push back the filing deadline?

What do you see as the problem?

Is there an with confusion for voters?

For candidates?

Do you do it just for congressional candidates?

- Yeah, yeah.

- How do you see that?

- So, all of those things are being discussed right now, Lindsay.

I would say, you know, I think there's less discussion about the signature piece and changing those thresholds.

It's just trying to figure out how we can make it all work under the deadlines.

And that's been one of my concerns from the very beginning.

I've expressed that, that because of the, because of the deadlines, we just don't have a lot of room to move on this and to be able to file an appeal to move that process forward.

So, we're looking at those deadlines and what it means.

Really, it's more just you kind of have to back up.

So you have an election in November, right?

We know that's set.

There are deadlines you have to make to reach that.

And so you just keep working backwards.

And so what's the latest possible date that you could get a ruling from the Supreme Court and still be able to implement maps?

If there's a change in maps, if they were to, if the Supreme Court was to go back to map C, then you would need 50 days to get that implemented.

Right?

So, there's a whole bunch of variables there.

And that's what the attorneys are looking at now.

That's why we don't have any additional information on what that might look like.

If we could do it without moving any deadlines, that would be the preference.

- [Lindsay] Are you considering pushing the primary?

- Again, I don't know that that's an option.

Well, I guess it is an option, but it's not something anybody's really excited about is moving those dates.

So, that's what, what they were doing, I think, in probably the GRAMA requests that you got, I think they were just trying to figure out what the options are so that they can have those discussions.

But, there's been no decision made on moving anything yet.

- Republican leadership has also suggested that they would like to see a constitutional amendment, looks to be exploring the limits of citizen initiatives and the powers that they have, especially as you consider these issues of constitutional authority.

Do you support the idea of this constitutional amendment as they proposed it to you?

- Well, so again, I think it's gonna be important to understand the details of what a constitutional amendment would look like, Ben.

But I am very concerned about, so I think it's important to zoom back from redistricting because these are, although they're related, they're actually different questions.

The expansive ruling that came out from the Supreme Court, which was new and created this concept of, of a law passed by initiative that is almost quasi constitutional, that stands above other laws, which has never been the understanding of the legislature or the Executive Branch.

We've always operated under the understanding that any initiative passes just like any other law, which means it can be, it can be amended by the legislature or by a future initiative.

And then we have the referendum process, which means if you don't like a new law by the legislature, then you can repeal that.

And that's been used multiple times.

In fact, we have a referendum that just succeeded that will be on the ballot coming up in '28, unless something happens to that.

That ruling by the Supreme Court turned all of that on its head.

And I have deep, deep concerns about, about a state that is run via direct democracy.

The founders had those same concerns.

We've seen what's happened in places like California and Oregon, where you just see a constant round of initiatives and it's truly, it's just not a great way to govern.

Most states do not have an initiative process at all.

We don't have one at the federal level.

We have representative democracy for a reason, and I support again, the initiative and referendum process within those limits.

And so, yes, I very, very much support a constitutional amendment that would, that would make that clear.

And we'll be working to see what that looks like.

And this is just good governance.

Again, completely putting aside anything related to redistricting.

I'm less worried about redistricting than I am about that piece.

- Governor Cox.

- Yeah, please.

- Multiple legal sources tell us that ICE operations in Utah have become more frequent and more aggressive with more public arrests than before.

We have seen at least two in Salt Lake City International Airport.

What is your position?

And I have a follow up after this.

- Well, my position hasn't changed at all.

My position is, has always been that laws are supposed to be followed.

That we are, I believe, the most welcoming state in the country when it comes to, when it comes to people who are seeking a new life and who are coming here.

But you also have to do it the right way.

And that's really important.

And so, we've been very supportive of, of operations to enforce the law and will continue to be.

- So also, sources tell us that ICE supervisors here in Utah were replaced with CVP personnel recently.

Do you know if this change actually happened?

And what is your position as well?

- So, I know that there was a change in leadership with ICE here.

I don't know the details of where, you know, the kind of previous positions, but I know that the sheriffs and our team are reaching out to ICE leadership to have those meetings and to get to know them better.

So please, yeah, yeah.

Wendy.

- Thank you.

Question for you, it's two pronged.

Attorneys for accused assassin Tyler Robinson will ask Judge Tony Graf soon to, to modify a gag order in the case, potentially barring any witnesses from talking, including political leaders, some of whom have made statements early on.

The recent filing says some of them are attorneys.

My colleague Natalie Wadas asked you in September the following question.

Quote, "There's been some concerns raised about discussion of the Robinson case in national media.

Are you concerned about prejudicing that case at all?"

You said, "No concerns at all, none whatsoever."

Governor Cox, as a law professional yourself, respectfully, how do you reconcile those statements, even months before the commencement of a trial?

Would you consider that premature?

- No.

- No?

Second question for you.

Do you believe prejudicial public statements by government officials in any way jeopardize the state's ability to allow for a fair and impartial trial by comparison to other cases, other person's accused of serious crimes?

And what precisely is the apparent need to offer up comments of guilt in this particular case, pretrial?

- I don't have any concerns.

- None?

- No.

Yeah, please.

- Governor, you have your financial disclosure conflict of interest forms- - Yeah.

- Says you have assigned a book deal with Penguin Press.

Can you tell us a little bit about what the book's going to be about and what the, when you signed it, and how much you're gonna be getting paid?

- Yeah, so that was, that was disclosed just a couple days ago.

I'm excited for the opportunity.

I actually started a book two years ago.

It's something I've been working on in my spare time for a long time.

I'm not gonna get into to the details of that yet.

I'm hopeful that we'll get this done.

There's still a lot of work that needs to be done.

And writing a book is really hard, but it's something I've wanted to do for a long time.

And I don't think it will surprise you that it's about where we are as a country and just my concerns around the polarization that we've been seeing and how to, how to do better at that.

So that's probably all I can share right now.

But I'm excited for the, for the opportunity that I'll have to be able to share that to a broader audience.

But I will say one thing that I think is very, very important.

I know that people who want to run for president write books.

This is not that, let me make it very clear.

Not running for president, have no interest in running for president.

If nominated, I will not serve.

And if elected or whatever it is, the the saying is, yeah.

No.

That's not what this is.

This is just something that is just so important to me.

It's something I believe in.

I wrote my first article about depolarization for the University of Utah in 2014, and I look back so fondly on 2014.

Those were the good old days, and it didn't feel like it at the time, so.

- Kind of on that note, you had an interview with NPR where you said that you feel like Donald Trump has not unified the country the way you'd hope he had, or hope he would when you endorsed him in 2024.

Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

Talk about what you think needs to be done differently or where you think he's fallen short?

- Yeah, well, look, I mean, he would tell you that if he were standing here.

He would tell you that's not what he's trying to accomplish.

And again, he's done some incredible things, some things I love and and truly believe in.

And that's not been something that he's prioritized.

And, again, that's okay.

This is something that's important to me.

I realize it's not important to everybody, but I'm just gonna keep sharing my message.

And I was grateful.

I've said this before.

I was really grateful for the phone call I had with him after the press conference, after the Charlie Kirk assassination, where he thanked me for my message and said it was an important message.

And that meant a lot to me.

And I continue to have those conversations with him.

And I'm grateful that we have a relationship where we can have those conversations.

- Governor, there's been a lot of pushback on the new Olympic logo, just in terms of the look and also dropping Salt Lake City from the 2034 Olympics.

Was that decision in any way political because of the state's tension with the city run by Democrats?

- Well, so I'll address those two separately.

So let me start with the second part first, if that's okay.

There was nothing political about it.

There was no intention whatsoever to harm Salt Lake City in any way.

In fact, the city will be able to use the logo with Salt Lake City underneath it.

And that's really important.

That decision came from the feedback that we had gotten over the past 20 plus years from cities and counties all over the state.

That the events aren't just held in Salt Lake City.

They're held in Provo and they're held in Ogden and they're held in Park City.

They're held in other places as well.

And a need to really unify the state and bring everybody together.

We want everyone to feel included in this Olympics.

I will tell you, any branding expert will tell you that it's also a really great decision.

Having a four letter and a four number logo makes it, just gives you so many more options.

It's easier to display, it looks better.

You can make it bigger, all those types of things.

And I'm really grateful that the logo has united Utah.

It's really brought people together because everyone seems to not like it.

(reporters laughing) And so, it's great to see the way it really, really brought us together sometimes that's what it takes.

I will just say this, it is a transition logo and so the final logo won't come out until 2029.

So this is a transition.

So everybody can get their feedback in and your voice will be heard.

I understand, I understand some of the, the criticism of the logo for sure.

It's been kind of fun and funny to watch some of that come back in.

I will say, like when you see kind of how they came up with it, I think it's fascinating.

I think it's good.

I love that it's got people talking.

I mean, that's better than, we could have done Times New Roman and called it a day and nobody would've said anything.

But at least people are talking about the logo and it's getting a lot of attention.

So keep writing about it and keep sharing it.

- So what do you think about it?

- Yeah, look, I get the criticism.

I'm not an expert when it comes to this kind of stuff, for sure.

I'm a conservative, so, you know, it's not the most conservative logo, but there are worse things out there to worry about than a logo.

- [Reporter] What's not conservative about it?

- It's just bold.

It's very bold is what I mean.

I'm not trying to make it like a right versus left thing.

I mean in just the traditional word conservative that I'm a little old-fashioned and it's certainly a bold logo and that's great.

I think bold is cool, I guess.

That's what the kids tell me anyway, so- - [Sean] Governor, if I go back to the courts for a moment.

- Sure.

- You've been a fierce defender of the judiciary in the past, are you concerned at all of some of the trickle down effects?

We saw some shades of this last year with the legislature trying to involve itself a little bit more in the retention process of judges.

Are you concerned at all of the ripple effects of Judge Gibson's decision on the greater judiciary?

- Well, yeah.

I'd probably be lying if I said I wasn't concerned.

I certainly have those concerns.

I get attacked all the time because I believe in all three branches of government, and I defend all three branches of government.

And so, when there's something that's clearly within the Judicial Branch's authority, I defend it, which again, redistricting is pretty clear in the Constitution and article nine says that in very, very firm and clear language.

And then I get criticized because I defend the courts and their ability and you can criticize a judicial decision, which I have done and still respect the role of the judiciary and that's what I've tried to do throughout this process and will continue to try to do.

There is a balance that is important and we should always be looking and checking at where we are in that balance, that constitutional, the constitutional rule of law that is so critical.

Our system is very much like the federal system.

And so I look to the federal system for that type of guidance and understanding.

But the legislature plays a role in that balance in being the voice of the people.

And so, the judiciary is not supposed to be the voice of the people, that's not their job.

And so anytime I feel like there's a judicial decision that takes some of that, some of that power from either my branch or the Legislative Branch, I get deeply concerned.

We'll work to try to right that balance.

We did that when it comes, for example, when it comes to the Chief Justice and selecting that.

They wanted to be able to do that every four years and I said I didn't think that was appropriate.

But at the federal level, the President does pick the Chief Justice.

And so I thought that's a model where we could do that and we came to a compromise where that would be done, but they wouldn't have to be looking over their shoulders every four years.

- [Robert] When you announced, if I could just follow up- - We'll go here and then we'll go here.

- When you announced the nomination of Justice Nielsen, you were asked if you supported expanding the court to seven justices.

You said it was worth looking at.

Have you looked at it?

Have you come to a decision or a position on that?

- Yeah, yeah, I have.

And it's something that I do support.

But not just, I support getting more resources to the court generally.

So, I think the Court of Appeals also needs to be expanded.

Again, I think we're seeing the timelines and just the amount of litigation that we're seeing in the courts, I'd like to get, I'd like to get more resources to, to our district court judges as well.

I've seen their dockets.

They're really backed up.

We're not the state we were 40 years ago, we're not the state we were 20 years ago, from a size perspective.

And when you look across the country, I mean, there's a reason that most medium sized states to larger states start to move to the seven to nine justice range.

And so, I think we're probably, it probably makes sense at this time to expand from five to seven and certainly to expand the Court of Appeals and see if we can't start moving the, so justice can move quicker through the system.

I think that really matters.

- When President Biden, when there was talk of President Biden expanding the US Supreme Court though, there were accusations of court packing.

- Sure.

- Is that, is this not court packing?

- Well, I mean it's not, not for me.

I mean, this is strictly based on, on the speed of the cases.

And you can go map this out and look at the number of decisions over the past 10 years and how difficult this has become for the court.

It would also be weird to look at court packing when, you know, it's been Republican governors and Republican senators that have, have made all of the appointments.

I've never looked at it that way.

- Yeah, so there is consternation among the Republican legislature and the court?

- That that's fair.

Yeah.

There is.

I didn't have that same consternation and I think it's a good idea.

- On the nomination of Judge John Nielsen, he's described himself as a textualist, an originalist.

How much did that factor into your consideration?

And do you believe he was kind of going to help you in this redistricting case when it comes to interpreting the state constitution to say the legislature shall divide the districts?

- Well, look, I mean, I didn't, I didn't pick him because of this case in any way.

As I look at the, I also will just point out back to the last question.

So there were seven candidates that were sent to me.

I don't get to choose those seven candidates.

There's a commission that picks them, sends them to me.

One of them dropped out, so I only interviewed six of them.

Five of the six of them said their number one concern with the Supreme Court was the time it was taking to get decisions out.

So, this is not me.

This is lots of people who believe this.

But I'm a textualist and I'm an originalist, and I always have been.

And so, that's always important to me.

And those are things I've looked at for every candidate that I've selected.

Every candidate I've selected has told me that they're a textualist and originalist, not just Judge Nielsen.

- What do you think of his ties to the case, though?

Where he wrote an amicus brief on behalf of, you know, his law firm where he's saying- - Well, I don't make anything of his ties to the case.

He has ties to lots of cases.

Every single, every single person I interviewed has ties to lots of cases that are, that's because they're the best attorneys in Utah and you would expect nothing less.

- Governor.

- Yeah.

Let's go here and then here, please, yeah.

- Utah Valley University's adding eight new police officers and two new security managers following the Charlie Kirk shooting.

But even with those additions, experts are saying that police staffing will still be quite low compared to other schools of its size in different states.

So what do you think about these changes and is there anything that you'll push to do, such as urging the state to free up funds for the public universities to further expand their police forces?

- Yeah, we're having that conversation with the Department of Public Safety and all of our colleges and universities.

We want our students to be safe.

I've got kids on college campuses right now.

It's important to all of us.

Public safety is paramount, that's what we're supposed to do as government.

I haven't seen the feedback that even with those numbers, it may be understaffed.

I will say that while UVU is the largest university in the state, there are also some differences.

The campus is much more compact than most other campuses in the States.

So that's, I think that's a factor that would go into that.

But I'm gonna leave that to the experts, other than to say yes, we want to make sure that we have the funding necessary to keep our kids safe on campuses.

- Governor, that's all the time we have for the television broadcast.

Thank you for joining us for "The Governor's Monthly News Conference".

- [Announcer] This has been "The Governor's Monthly News Conference".

For video and more information, visit pbsutah.org/governor.

(dramatic orchestral music)