♪♪♪ male announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by Merit Medical and by contributions to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

Jason Perry: On this episode of "The Hinckley Report," Utahan's mourn the passing of Congresswoman Mia Love, Governor Cox vetoes several major bills, and leaders grapple with the new federal policies that impact our state.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ 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 Doug Wilks, executive editor of the "Deseret News"; Maura Carabello, president of The Exoro Group; and Sean Higgins, politics reporter with KUER News.

Thank you for being with us.

We have a lot to talk about.

The session's ended, the final outcome of bills is now known by many of us, but I want us to first start with a trailblazer in the state of Utah.

We mourn the loss of Congresswoman Mia Love this past week of brain cancer.

I just want to talk about her for just a moment, her significant impact.

Can we just--Doug, can you just talk about that, not just the great work she did as a member of Congress, but outside of that as well.

Doug Wilks: Well, she was a trailblazer.

She broke some glass ceilings.

Her background is fascinating.

Her parent's from Haiti.

She with us, she wrote for the "Deseret News" in her last weeks her living wish for America, and it was to be the America that she knew, and then she listed, you know, her parents coming from Haiti, the opportunity she had.

She started at such a grassroots level, right, trying to help Saratoga Springs and on the city council as a mayor, and then found herself in the halls of Congress.

So, there was an American Dream there that's worth emulating.

And her impact, whatever bill she supported, whatever effort she did, it was really her life, her example that is the lasting impact, in my opinion.

Maura Carabello: I'm struck by to be first, to be the first to do something, is an extraordinary burden and, really, a hard thing to carry.

She was first in many areas.

She was the first black GOP representative in the House.

And she did this and it wasn't about her.

So, to be someone who is bold and gritty enough to be the first to do a bunch of things but not lose perspective on why you're doing it, which is the larger picture.

She ran for Congress three times, she only won one time.

That's more meaningful, and she experienced hardships and obstacles in her public service.

She was enormously gritty, which is why I think she was the first to do so many things.

Sean Higgins: And I didn't have the privilege of ever meeting Representative Love, but one thing that really stuck out to me in the conversations I had with people who did know her well was how just incredibly talented she was.

She was more than just the first black Republican woman in Congress.

She was supremely talented at what she was doing.

And so much of what we try and do is, particularly in national politics, is put people in a box.

We dug up some archival audio from her first congressional run where she talked about how everyone's trying to put her in a box, "I don't fit in any box.

I am a conservative and my message of fiscal and individual responsibility should resonate across the political spectrum."

Jason Perry: Yeah, I was kind of curious.

And she beat Doug Owens in 2014 and 2016.

So in the middle of this, it's interesting, because you alluded to this also, Maura.

She got her start because there was a problem in Saratoga Springs.

It was the midges.

It's so interesting to see someone, "I just--I have to take care of a problem," they get their start, and then they just start to rise, which of course, Doug, it was the 2012 national convention where she got her launch.

Doug Wilks: Right, she had a--they gave her a spot to speak and she prepared a spot.

They were gonna cut it down, but the--to 90 seconds, I believe, but then they listened to it and it was so strong that they were able to put her forward.

You know, one interesting thing, her GOP, you know, as a Republican, but she joined the Black Caucus in Washington, so that--and that was her as a Republican and then everyone else was a Democrat.

So, to be willing to be in that kind of conversation, it's not we're so different on policy.

We're all Americans and we deserve to bring forward ideas and things that are important to our constituencies.

Maura Carabello: She showed that independence later with Haiti and the position that Trump was taking.

And as Sean said, she did what I think she thought was right all the time, and that's an extraordinary trait.

Jason Perry: Absolutely right.

Let's get to our legislative session for just a moment.

Of course, the governor has 20 days from the end of the legislative session to veto or, I guess, sign or let a bill go into effect without his signature, and there were a lot of bills this past year.

I want to get into some of those because the governor really puts all this together in a letter.

If he's going to veto something, he tries to signal why he did that.

And I want to get to some of those because it looks like there were about--there were seven vetoes this legislative session.

I want to get to some of those.

Seven vetoes, two bills were unsigned, he let it go into effect without his signature, and the rest, of course, he signed.

I want to get to some of those, but maybe first, Maura, as you've been advising in the past, too, it's so interesting, talk about the calculation that goes into whether or not you veto a bill or not, because sometimes you're very much supportive, sometimes you're so involved in the negotiations you decide, "I have to let this one go," and why sometimes don't sign it?

Maura Carabello: Right, and it is all about the relationships you're going to maintain.

So, conventional wisdom that I think is good advice for an executive branch is: Exercise your veto muscle.

Right, it's really good to say and signal to the legislature, "I exist, I have a role, and here's my wisdom, my counsel, and my ability."

The question you brought up is important, though.

How do you do that without burning bridges?

The other big calculation is: If they can override my veto, it weakens me.

And so, I should have a degree of confidence or a certainty that I could prevail if there was a veto override.

So, a lot of the calculation is how the floor debate went, how the debate--what the sensitivity is to the bill.

And then this governor, not for a bit, so I'm glad he vetoed this year, this governor has been known to just sort of flex an ideological or, I shouldn't say, a point of view that says, "No, I don't think this is good law."

One of the commonalities you'll find in the vetoes, as we talk about them, is his analysis.

And for many--sometimes he didn't disagree maybe with the point of the bill.

He didn't think it was well drafted or well done enough to go into law.

Jason Perry: Yeah, Sean?

Sean Higgins: I was gonna say, I think something that has--a lot of people have commented on, on how that power that Cox is flexing in the judicial process.

He's definitely taking a more behind the scenes approach to a lot of the negotiations, as opposed to some past administrations who may hold a big press conference and say, "This bill is a bad idea.

I will veto it if it goes ahead."

We didn't hear the governor speak publicly really at all during the session about specific legislative issues.

And from the conversations I have had, that is because he is in meetings behind the scenes trying not to ruffle too many feathers publicly on getting bills where he would be in a place where he could support it.

And I think in the letters that he has sent explaining his reasons why he had a veto, he said those talks broke down at one point or another and he didn't feel like the bill was in the right place.

Doug Wilks: Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of bills, so how do you manage that?

I mean, my issue with everything is Utah is a great state, it has a great economy, it runs efficiently.

So the question is: Is it because you're putting up hundreds and hundreds of bills every year and signing some or letting some go, or should they not be doing that because it runs independent of that?

And it's interesting.

I wish there were fewer bills, more sharply written with more public input because I think when you only have like--a member of the public has two minutes to go into a conversation.

When there's already been so much backroom discussion, so much negotiation, then is the public really getting its voice into play?

Maura Carabello: Doug's bringing up a theme the governor is really pushing.

This is the second year, and actually this language has become increased with the governor, where he is saying we're passing too many bills and he is now being very blunt about it.

What I think is happening, and I've heard some rumblings from leadership on this, is that as we've gotten bigger, very few people are wanting to make our session very long.

So what we all like about it is that it's finite, we pass our bill.

But even within that context, have we grown so big that we need to change some of our processes and structures because we are flying through some things at a rapid pace and our mistakes or it's just too much going?

The nuance of that is I think it's very easy to say, "Let's pass fewer bills," and for years I was sort of among those.

What I do think Utah is doing well is we have a single bill topic.

I think that's incredibly important.

It's impossible for the public to follow if it's a Christmas tree bill and there's--and we bury things within the bill.

So if you're going to maintain a single topic, then you get volume.

Some would argue that some of the bills are taking away, not adding.

So, I think we are ripe for what the governor is pushing, which is, are we passing too many?

I just hope when we have that conversation, it's not a simple one, it's a complex one that is about what serves us the best.

Doug Wilks: He signaled, and Sean will want to weigh in, but he signaled in the past years, like, "Look, I'm not gonna veto a bill this year, but be ready for next year or the year after," you know?

So, he put the legislature on notice that even with the conversations it's the role of the executive branch to either approve or deny or to let it go forward, and he's exercising that.

Jason Perry: The single subject rule for Utah does differentiate us from the federal government, which is why sometimes you get two when they would have had one, is the thing.

But Sean, talk about that veto power just a little bit, too, because you're doing all these great interviews.

I've read the articles too.

You know, is this a power that the governor is using more now, and to what effect with our legislature?

Is this something they're really considering when they're passing those bills?

Sean Higgins: I think the fact that the Republicans do have a supermajority, they're not necessarily putting too much thought into the power of the governor's veto.

And I think Cox has shown his reluctance to really pick really hard fights with the legislature on certain things that he maybe feels uneasy about.

I think he learned a lesson in 2022 with the transport bill that if you stand up to the legislature, they will probably hit you back probably twice as hard.

And I think we've seen some of those played out over the last couple of years.

But this year in particular, I think, certainly compared to the last few, he's been more willing to put his foot down.

Maybe that has to do with he is not planning on running for a third term.

He's not wanting to be in front of the voters, at least here in Utah, possibly again.

So I think it's a really interesting dynamic.

I talked a little bit about that, a little bit more behind the scenes power that he's been willing to flex in, particularly, this session in particular.

So, I think it's very tactical and very strategic in where he applies that veto power.

Maura Carabello: It's worth saying, in a supermajority it's very important that the executive does maintain this ability.

Doug Wilks: Can I just say this?

I mean, look at the position he's in.

I give him a little more credit than that.

I don't think it's just simply a political calculation.

He's trying to manage a new administration in Washington, right?

The governors are under fire in certain states if, you know, our president and the administration doesn't like what those states are doing.

So, he's trying to manage that.

He's trying to keep the public parks open at a time when a lot of federal jobs are gonna go away through DOGE.

So he's looking at: How do we position Utah in the best place possible?

And so he's working that, looking up at the federal level and looking across the hall at the legislature.

The legislature's in the middle and that's this--you know, you have that lawmaking body, and it should be in the middle.

But the judiciary provides a check, the executive branch provides leadership in a direction, and then they work together.

And Utah does it pretty well.

And it should be, if not adversarial, it should be healthy conflict, I would say.

Jason Perry: That's interesting, because I want to talk about a couple of these vetoes, which are interesting.

In the last night of the session, the governor gave a speech, he said, "I may be vetoing some of your bills," what you're saying, Sean, and President Adams immediately responded, "And we know how to override those vetoes."

So, there may be at least one of those let's talk about.

But let's get into a couple of these.

First is Senate Bill 197 "Property Tax Amendments."

There's this program, this circuit breaker program, Maura, if you'll tell us about this just a little bit, this circuit breaker program that helps--it's tax relief for older Utahns.

The governor vetoed this particular bill because he thought that the goals were worth having, but the program itself were going to add regulatory burden.

Maura Carabello: Yeah, and this was a continued theme.

He didn't feel like the drafting was quite up to snuff and that the unintended consequences were unacceptable because of who it would hurt, and it was mostly elderly folks.

So the risk of a bad, poorly drafted bill was too high in the governor's explanation.

Jason Perry: The second one, House Bill 353, this is Ryan Wilcox, "Criminal Code Amendments."

So Sean, this is interesting.

It was talking about reviewing the criminal code, required each state agency.

They would go through the criminal code, they'd try to do some updating.

And apparently, the governor felt like not enough at all to say that he wants more.

Sean Higgins: Well, public safety and--was one of the big themes of the session this year in--through the lens of immigration in many ways, but I think this is part of that greater conversation that lawmakers want to have on updating the criminal code, whether it's who goes to jail for what period of time or the things that are specific to this bill.

So I think it's a worthy discussion to be having, and it sounds like the governor just wants that to be a little different.

Maura Carabello: I sort of love this one on the executive's role because essentially he said, "I agree with the goals.

You all want to have more legislative input."

He--the bill had instructed that several committees receive input, and he's like, "Yeah, I don't want that commission.

I think I will do another one."

So, I mean, he asserted a little bit of oversight in this area as well.

Jason Perry: Doug, talk about that for a second because it's a task force that he called it a criminal justice task force by executive order.

That's what he asked to happen instead of this bill.

Doug Wilks: Well, there's a debate.

Is a task force efficient government?

Is another committee efficient government?

How do you get things done?

And from the governor's point of view, he wants it done a different way.

But the goals of fighting crime, of trying to do a better job, it's not a bad strategy to say, "This bill is not up to my measure."

The legislature says, "Well, you should sign it anyway."

And then they say, "Well, we'll take it to the next session," and then they call a special session.

And the legislature now can call a special session, right?

That authority was taken by them years ago.

Jason Perry: Let's talk about a couple more.

It's interesting, some of these got some headlines, some did not, which maybe is a conversation also.

But this one on precious metals, Sean, can you start us off on this?

This is Ken Ivory, of course, with the support of our treasurer Marlo Oaks, was to have a competitive procurement process to find a company to operate a precious metals backed electronic payment system.

This is paying in gold.

Sean Higgins: Paying in gold.

This one was really interesting.

I actually happened to be in the committee where this was first discussed in the House, and the logic of it kind of makes sense.

Precious metals, particularly gold, have appreciated, I think it's by 40% in the last few years, far outpacing certainly the markets in that sense, so--and I think some people have commented that this could open the door to eliminating capital gains when it comes to some of these things.

That's a little bit of a technical, maybe a little bit of a legal stretch in some cases.

But as it pertains to this bill, I will add, I believe this may have been the very last bill that the legislature passed.

I saw Representative Ivory literally running in between the House and Senate to get this on the House floor before the stroke of midnight.

And then reading Governor Cox's reasons for vetoing this, that it just doesn't sound very practical and the language of the bill kind of sounds like it's built for one vendor in particular, which is not how the process should be done.

Jason Perry: We'll come back to this one, I know, eventually because I know some people are very interested in that.

Doug, let's talk about this next one.

This is House Bill 315 "Elected Official Vacancy Modifications."

If you have a municipal election and there are three or more candidates that are tied, how do you decide who gets it?

And the legislation itself talked about a game of chance.

You know, sometimes we talk about flipping a coin or something like this.

Talk about this for a minute because the governor said this phrase "game of chance" is gambling and therefore not okay.

Doug Wilks: Yeah, I mean that was his explanation.

I don't know if this--I mean, Utah doesn't want to have gambling or any aspect of it, so does this--this doesn't quite open a door, perhaps.

But how do you decide an election?

The electorate is pretty uncomfortable going through a whole process and then flipping a coin or doing something else, so there should probably be a better way to decide it.

Maura Carabello: This was necessitated, though, by actual challenges in the year.

So, this wasn't a made up problem.

This has actually been a scenario than in the municipal election cycles particularly, which are odd years, that have come up two and three times.

This was the only bill he vetoed from a Democrat and his explanation was one of, and I--it read as though an attorney said, "Let's not codify this language.

It will create problems in other statutes."

But the need is still there to figure out if we have--apparently, we've had a couple of races in which there's a three-way tie.

Jason Perry: The "Utah-Ireland Trade Commission," Sean, this is Senate Bill 106, Senator Wayne Harper.

It's a Utah-Ireland Trade Commission, had legislators on it by the individuals appointed to be part of this, including the governor's Office of Economic Opportunity.

This one was vetoed.

Sean Higgins: Vetoed.

I'm very Irish myself, so I took great offense to this veto.

No, I think it's--reading the governor's reasoning, again, just found it was not necessary.

So I think it's one of those things where we have so many bills and are we spending the right amount of energy on the right topics, so.

Maura Carabello: I'm gonna go a little further with the governor on this one, I think this was some national signaling.

It was a low consequence bill to veto, and I think it really aligns with what Trump is putting out about loyalty and a point of view in the Middle East, and particularly Israel.

So, I think there was a little virtue signaling from our governor.

Jason Perry: There could be some of that.

Let's get to a couple that did get some headlines and some swift comments from the governor and also from our legislature.

Doug, I want to talk about this bill from Senator Chris Wilson on judicial amendments.

So, this is the governor appointing the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Utah.

It would happen every four years, that's what this bill would do.

Governor point the--point who's going to be the head of the courts, and governor said maybe that would put him in a position or her in a position where they feel some loyalty to the governor.

Doug Wilks: Well, apparently there was a lot of negotiation and discussion on this, but ultimately the governor said, "Yeah, look, it's tempting to do this, but I don't want to do it."

And there's a lot of different bills that were pointed to the judiciary.

A lot of this came after the judges turned back some of the decisions that the legislature had made.

So, there was a tension about should the legislature assert more control over that branch of government.

And in this case, the governor didn't want to be the one to appoint.

And there's a timing factor.

If you're dealing with this every four years, that's difficult.

Maura Carabello: Well, and that was an important poison pill that I think he pointed out.

I think this was the most interesting because the governor explained himself the most on this bill.

And I think it was twofold.

One, he's sort of very cheeky.

"Well, I should give myself this authority."

It's fair to say that most states don't do it this way.

The federal government does it, but most states don't do it this way.

And he sort of, I thought, was very blunt about what he thought was the motivation of the legislature, which is somewhat punitive.

They were saying--he said, "You know, I get the power grab, and it would be a power grab for me, but I don't think we should do it."

The second part was really important, though.

It was that the Senate would reauthorize every four years.

And that, I think, was a big poison pill because that should not be read lightly.

That amount of control, shifting back to the legislature, is not insignificant.

It was very significant.

So while the appointment was interesting, I thought the poison pill that the governor pointed out and, frankly, protected the judiciary against was this reappointment.

Sean Higgins: I think, absolutely.

If this bill only aligned the process with the federal process of appointment and confirmation once throughout the tenure of the--of this chief justice, I think this bill probably would have been signed.

I think it was exactly like Maura said.

It was the poison pill of every four years that injects too much partisan politics, too much either real or perceived loyalty to the legislature and the governor every four years for the chief justice to hold their job.

Jason Perry: Of note, there were numerous bills that were impacting the judiciary this year, and a bunch of them went away.

I want to read a quote because this got a response from the speaker and the president.

And Doug, if I can read this, can you give a comment about this?

Because it gets to your point about there were negotiations going on, and what does this mean about those negotiations?

Let me read this and get your comment.

This is from President Adams and Speaker Schultz.

"Through meaningful dialogue with the Judiciary--particularly with Chief Justice Durant--we did not proceed with many bills during the session, and both the Judicial Council and the Utah Bar Association took a neutral position on several bills that moved forward, including SB296.

This veto undermines that good-faith compromise, and we will work with our chambers to determine the best path forward."

Doug Wilks: Well, you don't want there to be a punitive reaction to a veto.

In other words, this is the process.

You go through the process, there's a bit of horse trading like, "Look, we won't weigh in on this bill, but please let's--don't do this bill."

And the legislator says, "Okay, well we want this.

Thank you for not weighing in.

We'll put it forward."

And then the governor at the end of the day was able to have a say, and so they can--I can see why Stuart Adams and others might feel like, "Really?

We did all this work on the front end, we didn't go after this other bill, and now we get nothing."

Maura Carabello: It's a fair process, but it also lacks the rest of the process, right?

I mean, that's fair to say.

"Hey, we negotiated this and we want it to stay."

It's equally fair for the governor to say, "Job well down--done.

Now I will do my part of the process," which doesn't bind him to legislation, hence the independence.

Doug Wilks: I think this is his process.

Maura Carabello: Yeah, exactly.

And so I, again, I appreciate the assertion, the reassertion, House and Senate is making about what they did, but we shouldn't confuse that with disloyalty.

The governor is not loyal to anybody but the process and the citizens who elected him.

And so, I think this is nicely playing itself out.

Sean Higgins: I would agree that this is good process, and I think on the flip side of that, that the legislature has been very clear that they firmly believe that they are well within their purview to alter the judiciary in the ways that they were proposing to and then stepped back on.

So, whether this will come to an override session, I'm not sure.

I was looking at the votes and how it broke down in the House and the Senate.

Some tough people I think they'd have to flip, but this is not unprecedented for the legislature to come back and override a Cox veto.

Jason Perry: Of course, the seventh bill was on the property tax being put into this--Utah's general fund.

We talked about that at length on this program before.

Also, something he had vetoed previously.

But I want to save just a couple of moments about a couple of bills that he went and--he let go into effect without his signature.

One in particular, the flag display amendment.

This is about the flags that can be flown on government buildings.

Doug, there are implications here throughout government, but maybe even some economic impacts.

Doug Wilks: Well, there are two first of its kind bills that the Utah legislature--that Utah has going forward now.

One is to get fluoride out of water, and "The New York Times" wrote about that today, actually.

And the other is trying to have neutrality in schools, which Governor Cox agreed with, but thought this went too far and won't succeed in doing what the supporters want.

Because it's so specific on flag, there'll be other displays that might not do what they wish to.

But this does have an impact, and the LGBTQ community was not happy with it because the pride flag won't be in there.

Cox made the point in his letter today that, "Yeah, why didn't anyone write about MAGA flags not being in there?"

In other words, it got focused on the LGBTQ community, it extends a bit beyond that, and then from Cox's point of view it doesn't do what you're saying it will do.

Jason Perry: We have 60 seconds.

Maura Carabello: Yeah so, I mean, the theme of this is role of government, and Utah has a reputation of being one of the best run states.

These cultural battles don't aid being a best run state.

So I find it, again, repeatedly ironic that I'm seeing a conservative supermajority do really cultural bills that should be best left to local control.

So for me, there's the politic of it, but there's also the process of it, and this is a really big government big overstep.

And the legislature is unfortunately developing a theme of "we know better than anyone," whether it's a school district, whether it's a municipality, and that was a theme that keeps reoccurring.

This is one of many cultural bills that I think they should stick in their best-run-state lane.

Jason Perry: This is another one of those bills we'll continue to watch closely, has impacts to the state, maybe some economic impacts as well.

Thank you so much for your insights this evening and thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

The show is also available as a podcast on PBSUtah.org, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

male announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by Merit Medical and by contributions to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪