announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is provided in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Foundation Fund, Merit Medical, and by contributions to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

Jason Perry: Tonight on "The Hinckley Report."

State leaders continue to test bipartisan waters as they discuss controversial topics.

With the 2024 session behind us, the governor signs a record number of bills.

And our panel discusses the major issues leading up to the 2024 election.

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

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

Covering the week we have Katie McKellar, senior reporter with Utah News Dispatch; Jeff Merchant, executive director of Alliance for a Better Utah; and Marty Carpenter, partner at Northbound Strategy.

Thank you so much for being with us this evening.

We have a lot to get to.

First, this was an interesting day that really wraps up the real end of the legislative session.

They passed the bills, but then the governor has 20 days after that end to do a couple of things to bills.

Katie, so I want you to talk about this for a minute, because it's either he can sign the bill, he can veto the bill, or he can let it go into effect without his signature.

This was a pretty big year in terms of vetoes.

Talk about those for a moment.

Katie McKellar: Yeah, we saw all three of those actions yesterday, which was the last day before his deadline to deal with all of these bills.

The legislature passed 591 bills, which was a record number, and we saw a big number of vetoes from the governor last night.

He chose to veto seven bills.

A lot of those bills were really wonky bills that dealt with requirements for state agencies within the governor's own office, and he basically said these aren't needed, and legislature, maybe less is a bit more.

So, maybe think about passing less bills, fewer bills, so that we don't need as many bills this year that don't really--we don't need a law to accomplish some of these things.

Jason Perry: He used some interesting terminology.

He wrote a letter, this veto letter, where he describes them, but he also said some things publicly.

I wanna show this clip from the governor about how he approached the veto decisions and why he chose the ones he did.

And Jeff, maybe watch this and give a comment after this clip from the governor.

Spencer Cox: My greatest concern with this legislative session is just the sheer number of bills.

Five hundred and ninety-one is a big number.

There are just several bills that maybe started out as something substantive, but then they didn't have the support, so they removed the substantive pieces, and we end up with something that's--doesn't do anything, that is kind of non-substantive.

We also have bills that easily could have been implemented with just a phone call.

It doesn't need to be a bill.

Jason Perry: Jeff, I wanna talk about two parts of this.

One is the number of bills.

He kind of got to that in his letter.

He said he would like to see, like, the high 400s, not 591, like we had this year, which was the record.

Talk about that a little bit through your perspective as well, dealing with the legislature quite a bit.

Jeff Merchant: Yeah, I mean, look, I guess it's an okay point that we pass too many bills, and that's probably accurate.

But at the same time, it seems odd to me that the only reason-- one of the only reasons he gives for vetoing these is that there were just a lot of bills, right?

I mean, why only seven, then?

If he thought that it was just a sheer number issue, he could have vetoed a lot of other bills that frankly had a lot more substance to them.

I mean, I can't quite tell if this is a chest puffing thing or if it's more--you know, I just don't know exactly why he would choose these seven bills.

They just seem so substantiveless that I don't know if he's really making much of a point.

Jason Perry: Well, let's get into a couple of those, Marty, because five of them were directly connected to some of the agencies that he oversees.

Marty Carpenter: The modus operandi we've had for the past decade plus has been that the governor and the House leadership and the Senate leadership are doing a lot of this coordinations behind the scenes during the session so that they don't have a lot of these bills that need to be vetoed.

So, I wonder if this is an indication that maybe there was a, like, a different amount of communication, or maybe just a little titch down less in the cooperation between new leadership in the House, perhaps, and the governor's office.

Don't know that I can say that definitively, but when we're vetoing bills, seven, which is more than Governor Cox has vetoed entirely in his time in office and more than I can remember Governor Herbert ever doing in his time in office, I wonder if that speaks a little bit to that "how are we coordinating this effort behind the scenes?"

And I wonder, to some extent, how much are we coordinating the veto effort to say, "I'm gonna veto these, these are all regulatory things that aren't that big of a deal, let's not come in and override the veto."

Because they had the votes originally that they could do that very easily.

Jason Perry: I wanna get to a couple of those bills a little too, Katie.

But what's interesting is last year, last legislative session, the governor did not veto any bills, but he did do a letter, and he essentially said, "I'm gonna be watching these bills closely.

I want more public comment on those.

And just so you know, I'll be-- I'm going to be more likely to veto bills next time."

That was what we saw.

Is that what we saw, or was a little bit like what Jeff was just talking about too, a little bit of I'm just gonna make sure you remember that I'm watching and I have the power.

Katie McKellar: Well, we have to remember too that when the governor came in, he did say, "Watch out, guys.

I'm probably gonna veto more bills than maybe Herbert did."

And so, but you're right, these bills are really small rocks.

They don't really do a lot.

I think the governor might have a fair point that maybe we don't need legislation when--in order to accomplish some of these things when he--it could just be a phone call.

And maybe I'm a bit biased as a reporter up there that get-- that is just, like, trying to keep up with all of these bills flying every which way, but they do a lot.

Maybe they don't need--maybe they're too efficient.

Maybe they're just doing-- passing bills because they can pass bills.

And so, I can see the governor's point there.

But again, like, as a lawmaker that spends time on these bills, puts all this effort into passing legislation, you don't wanna see a bill vetoed.

So, I think maybe the governor is getting at, like, trying to show, look, I can stand up to the legislature, I can veto bills, but when you look at the substance of them, they don't really do much, so I think those are some fair thoughts.

Jeff Merchant: You certainly have to feel bad for the seven people whose bills randomly got vetoed, at least in my mind, you know.

At the end of the day, I think that part of the issue here is a balance issue, and with the size of supermajority that the Republicans have, it essentially renders the governor relatively useless on the legislative aspect of what goes on in the state of Utah.

And the problem with that is it means that his veto doesn't really mean anything.

I mean, I'm interested to see if the legislature decides to come back into session and just kind of thumb its nose at him over these seven bills and say, "Yeah, well, nice try, Governor, but no chance."

Marty Carpenter: It is a bit of a tennis match, right?

They write the bills, boom, put the ball in his court.

He gets to decide what to do.

He's now hit the ball to their side of the net on "I'm gonna veto these."

Now we're gonna find out is he risk averse?

Has he picked some that he really thinks aren't gonna get vetoed?

Does he just, maybe, "I don't care if they get vetoed.

We'll see how that all plays out when they make that decision"?

Katie McKellar: A lot of these bills did have, you know, very clear supermajority proof support.

But the question is, will these lawmakers think it's worthwhile to spend time in a session, an override session, to veto that?

Marty Carpenter: And I generally think the governors can get too worried about having a veto overridden and looking weak.

I don't necessarily think that that's what it shows the general public, even the minuscule amount who would pay attention to that back and forth.

I think if you've got a disagreement with it, that's your part.

You go play the veto card, and then if they override it, they override it, and we all move on with our lives.

Jason Perry: So, Jeff, let's talk about a couple of these bills a little bit, because there is a process now too.

All of these bills had a veto proof majority.

This is two thirds.

They needed two thirds here to override the governor's veto, none of these bills, you know, only a few of them even had no votes, you know.

So, what do you make of that right there?

And what do you think the House and Senate is going to do now?

Jeff Merchant: Yeah, well, I mean, it's expensive to do this, right?

And we're talking about bills that really don't have a lot of substance.

I mean, that's where the governor is right.

We're passing some of these bills that really don't have a whole lot of effect on the lives of everyday Utahns, right?

So, I don't know, it'll be interesting.

I mean, there's a part of me that thinks maybe the legislature will come back into session to just say, "Yeah, no, we have the ability to do this, and we're gonna do it."

At the same time, it really does seem to me to be frankly kind of a waste of money to come back into session to deal with, you know, how people turn left when they're driving.

Jason Perry: Well, that was one of the next ones.

Go ahead.

Marty Carpenter: I was gonna say, I think to an extent, that's what it would show, right?

Because the governor is essentially saying, "I'm gonna give you what you want, just not by way of legislation.

I'll make these changes within my agencies, so you get what you want, if that's what our real goal is, is to get the policy done, consider it done."

If it's still an override, then I think it is flexing the muscle from the legislative side to say, "No, no, we're the ones driving the boat here."

Jason Perry: Katie, talk about that in terms of two bills.

Jeff just mentioned one of them.

This was the House Bill 144, Vehicle Accident Liability Amendments.

This is about the left turns, and then the second one was about the higher education development areas that allowed institutions of higher education to develop property that they own.

Both of those, he said, were about the intent got changed by amendment, so that's why he vetoed those.

Katie McKellar: Right, he talked about how maybe these bills started out doing something a bit more substantive, but, you know, during the legislative process, bills get amended, they get substituted, and they get watered down, and that's really kind of what happened with these bills.

Kind of, they ended up just not really doing much, which was part of the governor's argument.

"We don't need this.

Like, maybe you tried to accomplish one thing at first, now it doesn't really do much anyway, so why do we need them?"

Jason Perry: Let's talk about that third category, Jeff, because there are a couple of bills in this go into effect without the governor's signature.

Your thoughts about that particular strategy?

Because there were two in particular, one was about motion picture incentives, and the second one was about psilocybin, magic mushrooms, a bill about those.

Jeff Merchant: Yeah, I mean, I think that it's interesting that he let those go into effect without a signature.

I mean, the reality is, is that here are two bills that actually have a little teeny bit of substance.

He doesn't feel good enough about it to sign it, but also doesn't bother to veto it.

And I think that those would have been good examples of bills that he could have vetoed if he didn't like them that may have actually had some substance, because those do have substance, you know.

I mean, I think that the legislature is certainly--I mean, both of these bills passed with very large majorities.

I think that the legislature felt strongly about them, and if the governor feels strongly enough not to sign, why not just veto?

Marty Carpenter: I just figured after signing about 580 bills, his hand must have gotten tired, and so he just said that "that one can become law, but who's got the energy for this anymore?"

Jason Perry: Your thoughts about that strategy?

Because both of those are pretty good policy changes.

On the mushrooms, it was he has an agency, a task force as part of the process there that he felt like was not completely followed.

Marty Carpenter: I've never really understood the whole idea of just let it go into law without signature.

It doesn't feel like you kind of get the chit with the legislature just to say, "This is gonna be a law anyway.

Here, I'm picking up that I have some support for it."

It feels kind of like a peaceful protest kind of way to go about it.

I just don't see what it picks up for you if you're in the governor's position.

Katie McKellar: In the governor's monthly press conference yesterday, we did-- reporters did kind of press him on that.

You know, why sign bills when you don't necessarily like them?

And his answer was basically, "Look, like, I have to work with the legislature.

I need to negotiate.

I want them to pass things maybe they don't like, but it's a priority for me."

He talked about homelessness, and in order for that to happen, he sometimes has to be okay with legislation that they want passed and he doesn't necessarily like.

And so, yes, there is an argument that, you know, he could stand up, and if he really doesn't like something, he could veto it.

But he also acknowledged he needs to negotiate with this.

Marty Carpenter: I suppose you could make the argument too that, like, just sign the ten bills that you actually really care about.

Let the rest of them sit there for 20 days and become law.

But I think it's a matter of maintaining or building a relationship with your legislative colleagues, so you go ahead and sign them.

That's why I don't understand just letting it go.

Jason Perry: Before we leave this entirely, there's one bill that he did sign that he was getting a lot of pressure not to, Jeff, about the Senate Bill 161.

This is the Intermountain Power Agency, had to do with the coal burning power plant and what might happen there.

Talk about what happened in that particular bill, because he did sign it, but he did mention there may be a need for a special session at some point to address that one.

Jeff Merchant: Yeah, to me, that seems really odd, and the reason why it seems odd is because if he feels like there's a problem with the bill, why would he sign it?

I mean, in my mind, it seems like this, again, is a perfect opportunity to say, "Look, I'm vetoing it.

Here's the reason why I'm vetoing it.

It's a substantive reason.

Let's come back together, and we can try and make a fix that will be good for everybody."

And instead he signed it because it seemed like it might be controversial not to sign it.

And then says, "Well, let's come back later and tweak it."

I just don't understand why you would support a bill that you know is flawed.

Marty Carpenter: It goes back to that super majority, and they can still come back and flex their muscles.

So you say, "Look, I'll sign it.

We're not gonna make a big wave here, but let's have an agreement.

We understand there's some flaws with it.

Let's come back and fix and address it.

Because the one thing we can all agree on is that we want electricity.

We're using some right now.

We want that to stay pretty consistent."

Jason Perry: Yeah, Katie, is-- was that the distinction on this particular one, you think?

Is this one might rise to the level where there may be a lot of consideration about overriding, based on who you're talking to?

Katie McKellar: Well, to me, I mean, the governor was facing a lot of pressure, like you mentioned.

Cities asked him to veto it, the Intermountain Power Agency asked him to veto it too.

They noted that they already have an agreement with the EPA to shut down this power plant and transition to natural gas.

And so, I think the governor is maybe giving a nod that there are problems with this bill, but he doesn't wanna crack open a fight with the legislature over this.

He does, like, support the overall concept.

He's a big champion for rural Utah.

He sees this as a jobs issue.

And so, I think he's acknowledging there's some issues that need to be solved, some legal issues potentially, and that he wants to work with legislators to make it work.

Jason Perry: All this is happening while we're having a lot of changes in the legislature.

I want to talk about those for just a moment.

Marty, in particular, one very long-serving member of our senate, the longest serving, 24 years in the senate, Curt Bramble has decided to step down.

Marty Carpenter: Yeah, I think this surprised some people, but not everybody, because 24 years is a really long run in the legislature.

Curt Bramble is one of those guys who's been known that when he gets an issue that he really likes, he will be a bulldog on it and go get it done.

That made him really effective during his two decades there.

And now we're starting to talk about how does that kind of shift what the senate looks like when you take someone who's been there that long out, and who does their--who is his replacement?

Jason Perry: Well, it's interesting on that replacement, Jeff, because we have several.

A couple former legislators and a current legislator, Kevin Stratton from Orem, and two former, Dan Hemmert and Brad Daw.

These are people that are right in line, talk about those dynamics for just a moment.

Jeff Merchant: Yeah, I think that we're gonna see a very interesting primary in that part of the state.

I think that's always a good thing.

It's always a good thing to have, you know, some strong competition down there.

I don't believe a Democrat filed for the race, so whoever wins this is likely to become the nominee.

I suppose there's always a chance that somebody else could come in without party affiliation, but I think that the reality here is that you're looking at a strong seat the Republicans have had since, I mean, I don't know when they haven't had it.

It's been a long time, you know.

Marty Carpenter: He's been there since 1999, essentially.

Jeff Merchant: Right, like, I think that I was still in college when we were--when he was elected first.

So, I do think-- Marty Carpenter: You worked on his campaign, right?

Jeff Merchant: Yeah, not that far, and not that old or young.

But yeah, I think that, you know, it'll be interesting to see what happens over the course of the next few months and where these candidates line up in terms of, you know, more conservative to more moderate over the next couple of months.

Interesting one there is Hemmert, just because he's been in Senate leadership, so if he comes back in essentially as a newly elected senator, but not just a newly elected senator, one who's proven to be very effective in his ability to work there and to move up into the leadership ranks.

Jason Perry: Katie, a few other notable departures.

Representative Tim Jimenez of Tooele is leaving' Phil Lyman, because he's running for governor; Representative Brian King, also running for governor; Marsha Judkins, been in the House since 2018; and Auditor John Dougall, who is running for Congress.

It's interesting, we see several of these folks are leaving positions because they're running for higher office.

Katie McKellar: Yes, for sure.

I think one of the interesting aspects was Tim Jimenez, the timing of his departure really kind of let him handpick who could be the Republican candidate, and Tooele is a very red district.

And so, it's basically, like, here, just take over for me.

That's Nicholeen Peck.

She's with the conservative organization Worldwide--or the Worldwide Organization for Women.

And so, that'll be interesting.

Yes, Phil Lyman and Brian King are running for governor, so we'll see how that pans out.

I mean, it's a big election year, so we're gonna see turnover.

Jason Perry: Yeah, I just--just one comment on this, Marty, what the new dynamic was this legislative session was.

You had to file before the session started, and so it's given some opportunity for people to get through a legislative session, pick some certain bills they want, or maybe even set the stage for a successor.

Marty Carpenter: And the motivation there I think was, well, then we'll be able to just go do our business during the session without having to worry about who's jumping into the race.

We'll kind of know how the field is set.

I think there's a flip side to that though, where you're gonna see some people who filed and gotten into the race who maybe did so just as a placeholder, and they're thinking about it, and some folks we might think, "Well, that person is definitely running may not still be so motivated to run as we get a little more into the process."

Jason Perry: Really quickly just for any of you, this is a new dynamic this session too.

Brand-new House leadership.

Brad Wilson left from--to be speaker to run for the Senate as well.

Observations about the approach this legislative session.

Katie McKellar: It sort of felt like more of the same over the last couple of years.

Yes, Speaker Schultz is new, but he kind of has the same style as far as, like, running the House, like Speaker Wilson had.

But so, he and Adam seemed to get along really well.

We saw the same approaches as far as, like, setting the agenda, frontloading the session with super heavy issues, polarizing issues, like the transgender bathroom bill and the DEI legislation in the first couple of weeks.

And so, yeah, more of the same, they kept us all busy.

Jeff Merchant: I think that's exactly right.

I think that--I think that we're just seeing more of the same.

I think we're seeing maybe a refining of this let's get these ultra-controversial, ultra-conservative bills out at the beginning so that these members that we have that we kind of have to manage will be happy, and then we can try and do all the rest of our business.

And I think that's what a lot of people saw.

Marty Carpenter: I think the body shifted more conservative, I think the leadership shifted more conservative, but at the end of the day, productivity was still at a premium that everyone really thought that that was something that needed to be put at the forefront.

And I think, you know, hats off, not just to the legislators, but to Abby Osborne, the chief of the--chief of staff in the House, and Mark Thomas, the chief of staff in the Senate, those guys have a process down.

They know how to do it, and they can adjust to fit whoever the leadership is, but they know how to keep the trains running.

Jeff Merchant: Though I'm not gonna lie, 600 bills for a bunch of conservatives is a lot of legislation and a lot of regulation on the people of Utah.

Katie McKellar: Yeah, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I guess it depends on who you talk to.

Jason Perry: I guess that's true.

Let's talk about the presidential race for just a minute.

There's some interesting articles coming out nationwide.

Jeff, let's start with you on this.

There's this category, we're talking about President of the United States, this--I don't know what this term is coming from, but the double haters, all right.

That's one of the things some people are talking about here is people do not like their options.

You got, you know, President Biden, you know, former president Trump, and they're saying, "We just--we're just not--can't get behind these folks, necessarily."

According to these articles, this is about 3% of the population in 2020.

They're speculating this is somewhere close to 20% of the population right now falls into this category, so what happens with this group?

Jeff Merchant: Yeah, I think this is actually a really, really fascinating issue.

I think that you're going to see polling be just all over the map this year.

This race is actually, even though it's the same two candidates as in 2020, I think this race is a lot more like 2016, where we have the same kind of dynamic.

People didn't like Hillary Clinton, people didn't like Donald Trump, and so every little thing made the polls shift, right?

And at the end of the day, Donald Trump was the last guy standing, because things shifted away from Hillary Clinton as a result of some of the Comey stuff that happened.

I think that this year is gonna be very similar to that, where you're gonna see something bad happen to Donald Trump legally, and it's gonna shift one way, and then you're gonna see Joe Biden make a gaffe, and it's gonna switch the other way.

So, I think that the real issue here is gonna be one of how effective polling will be with these people that just don't like anybody.

Jason Perry: So, how are you gonna approach that?

You're a strategist on this stuff, Marty, too, because it's kind of hard if you don't like any of the candidates necessarily, it's really hard to get some gauge as to where people are or if they'll participate at all.

Marty Carpenter: So, at this point, whether you're Biden or Trump, you're saying, "Nobody has to love me.

I have people who love me on each side.

I just have to have everybody in that bell in the middle say, 'Do you hate me less?'"

And if you're Biden, you're saying, "Remember the chaos.

Do you hate me less?"

And if you're Trump, you're saying, "Go look at how much gas costs, go look at your grocery bill, go look at the inflation that's come, do you hate me less?"

And they're going to pick essentially by saying, "I don't know, I really hate paying for gas.

I really hate doing this.

I'm gonna vote here."

Or "Well, I remember what it was like, and I didn't like that.

I'm gonna vote here."

Who do you hate less?

Jason Perry: So, Katie, talk about this analysis right here, because I think it's interesting is, if these candidates have historically had a base, but there are specific issues that could say, "Well, maybe I'm not as rock solid as I once was."

Katie McKellar: Well, to me, I think about, you know, the double-haters dynamic, like, kind of leads into this question about the No Labels, like, third party possibility.

Like, if there's so many people that just don't really like their options, don't you think that there'd be an opportunity for a third party candidate?

But No Labels is really well funded, they cannot find a candidate willing to go on their ticket.

And I think that really just shows we're super entrenched in our two party system, and it's either a Republican or a Democrat, and people just need to choose between two people that they don't really like that much.

Jason Perry: Jeff, you're so closely connected to the Democratic Party.

Talk about that dynamic, because are people feeling like they will just disengage?

Is a third party really even likely?

Will people check into that, or will they do what we--maybe we've seen in past elections, where "I don't like my candidates, but I remember what party I'm part of"?

Jeff Merchant: Well, I think a couple of things first.

I think that this is a country that is slowly breaking over the weight of only having two parties.

I think that it's something that, you know, if you talk to legis--I mean, you go up to the legislature, it's a great example.

You've got at least two parties within the Democratic Party up there and probably five on the House side--on the Republican side.

And we're seeing that strain now.

I don't think--here's the interesting thing.

A lot of polling out there shows that people don't want to throw their vote away, and that's where the real problem with a third party candidate is, is that people feel like "If I vote for RFK, if I vote for a No Labels candidate, I'm throwing my vote away."

And there's some truth to that, right?

And so, as a result of that, I still think even with these double haters, I still think at the end of the day they'll come home to either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, because they're afraid of just throwing their vote away.

Marty Carpenter: And that's really interesting, because if you think about it, the flip of that is that other--so many people could argue "my vote doesn't matter," right?

"Like, I'm a Republican in Utah, whether I decide to check a box for Donald Trump or not, it doesn't matter because the state's gonna go for Trump."

So, at some point, yeah, you would think there's a breaking point where people say, "I'm over the fear of I'm throwing my vote away, or I'm good.

My vote for a third party candidate will just really hurt the guy I prefer slightly more than the other in the two party system."

Once you get past that fear, all the numbers would indicate that, yes, a third party candidate who says, "I'm gonna pick where the majority of the country is on all of these issues with a running mate that everyone can deal with, and that's a winning ticket."

Like, it should be so easy to just drive through that lane.

But nobody will get over that fear of, "No, if I do that, if I get--if I go vote for a third party candidate who is sort of middle right, that's only gonna hurt the Republican.

Or if I go do the same for someone middle left, that's only gonna hurt the Democrat."

But all of the numbers, yes, would show you if everyone just got over that fear, a third party candidate should win every time.

Jeff Merchant: Yeah, it really is fascinating.

I mean, I do believe that polling for the most part is a snapshot in time, but when you have polling that consistently for years says that people don't like Republicans and they don't like Democrats, and it's still-- and it doesn't seem to do anything, it's just a really odd thing.

And I think that there are some--there are several kind of built-in structural problems for helping third parties, and I don't think the Republicans or the Democrats have any incentive to make a change, to make a multiparty system.

Marty Carpenter: We're always inclined to say, "I'm more comfortable with the devil I know than the devil I don't."

That's just our nature.

Jason Perry: Last ten seconds, is there a place for bipartisanship?

Give us a positive yes or no.

Katie McKellar: Well, if Blake Moore and Jimmy Panetta, I mean, they came to Utah to tell us that, they really tried to demonstrate it, they pointed to the tax bill that passed recently.

But divisiveness is so on the forefront, it's hard to get past that.

Jason Perry: It's gonna have to be the last comment, but we appreciate it.

Jeff Merchant: If they can do it, anybody can.

Jason Perry: That is true.

Thank you so much, and thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

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

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is provided in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Foundation Fund, Merit Medical, and by contributions to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪