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

Jason Perry: Tonight on "The Hinckley Report."

The 2023 legislative session starts with a bang as leaders debate how to spend a historic surplus.

Hot-button issues dominate the headlines as elected officials take positions on tough topics.

And the governor outlines his administration's progress on priorities in his annual State of the 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 Michelle Quist, columnist for the Salt Lake Tribune; Ben Winslow, reporter with Fox 13 News; and Saige Miller, politics reporter with KUER.

So glad to have you with us.

The first week of the legislative session is almost behind us, and a lot of big bills, a lot of interesting topics.

But I wanna--before we get to the specifics, Michelle, I want to talk about the pace.

It's interesting; sometimes you have a slow ramp up, you know, you hit the end and big stride.

It happened quick this time.

Michelle Quist: They are off to a gallop, and they are, you know, they've got their enemy in sight.

They are--they're not saving the Great Salt Lake, they are not protecting, you know, against abusers, they are not-- they have--they are ready.

They are out to get the few transgender youth in Utah.

Jason Perry: I want to talk about a couple of those bills, but to that, before we talk about the specifics.

Ben, sometimes the legislative session, the strategy might be some of these more controversial bills, the ones that are going to have a lot of debate, save those towards the end.

It's interesting that these bills came up in the very first couple days of this legislative session.

Ben Winslow: Yeah, it's, what, day 44?

And they are acting like it is day 44 of the legislative session.

This pace, if we keep it up, I mean, I don't know if my heart can stand it at this point.

Just, you know, the pace.

I need a rest--I need a nap, y'all.

But I think--I wonder if this is by design, because when you think about at the end of the last session, the last night was eaten up by that debate over transgender student athletes, and that was a very controversial bill, and it languished for weeks with will they, won't they?

What are they going to do?

And a lot of bills died on the floor that night.

A lot of bills that are back this year, and some lawmakers are a little bit salty about that, that, you know, they had good bills that could have passed last year.

Now they gotta run 'em all over again, and so you wonder if they're going to do this, let's just rip the Band-Aid off, let's get these contentious issues dealt with, because you have bills dealing with transgender youth, you have bills dealing with school choice, teacher salaries; some of these bills inspire some pretty big debates.

If you get it over with now, you can move on to your other priorities, which include the Great Salt Lake, which include tax cuts, which include a number of other issues that will also eat up a healthy amount of debate.

Jason Perry: And that does happen at the very end, Saige; sometimes, it does make it so you can get some of these other issues.

Let's talk about a couple of those bills for just a moment too.

In terms of the strategy, Senator Kennedy introduced one of the three transgender bills that were up this week, and this one is particularly talking about gender affirmation surgery, puberty blockers, hormone therapy.

Give us a view of what happened in that committee.

Saige Miller: Yeah, so SB 16, there was not--during that committee hearing, not a single seat went unsat.

It was a completely jam-packed committee room, and there were supporters for and against the bill that Senator Kennedy had during his presentation and during public comment and people talking about it, and on the supporter side, it really seemed that people specifically were concerned about--on the puberty blocker aspect of it, they were concerned about the research.

They say that it wasn't necessarily there, we don't know the long term impacts of this, and then Kennedy brought up this question of, can youth actually consent to these kinds of procedures?

Do they know what's actually happening with their body?

And, as he said, we all make mistakes, and this may be a mistake later on in their life that is irreversible.

But the medical community does not agree with that.

A lot of health organizations and associations come out and say that these puberty blockers are 100% reversible, and they are safe, and they are a form of life-saving care, specifically for some of the most vulnerable populations in the nation.

And so, other supporters of the bill said that it was a form of mutilation, they said it was a form of self-harm, and that it really was an opportunity for kids to have some more introspection and to really learn about themselves outside of just taking what they would call dramatic action.

But the opposers of these bills, specifically in the public comment period that I found incredibly fascinating, was it was all parents, and I wonder if that was a way to kind of signal this is a parental choice.

And it was all parents of people who are parenting transgender youth.

And they--a lot of them came out and said, like, "This saved my child's life.

They have significantly more confidence, they're able to clean their room, they no longer, like, want to die."

And a lot of them said--and one person, like, looked at a lawmaker, I'm pretty sure he looked at Kennedy and said, "You shouldn't ask us to watch our children die."

And that really resonated with a lot of people in the room.

You can't really, you know, call out, and you can't clap or anything like that, so people were raising, giving thumbs up when they agreed with individuals that were baring their testimony about why these gender-affirming procedures are critically important to saving the life of youth.

At the end of the day, at the end of that committee hearing, it passed and went on to the Senate where they heard--they heard that bill on the floor yesterday.

And the only GOP that voted against that bill was Daniel-- Representative Daniel Thatcher-- I mean, sorry, Senator Daniel Thatcher, and he gave a very, very powerful testimony, and two of the things that stuck out to me is that he said, "Children will die if we pass this bill.

And the only supporters--the supporters of this bill don't have children impacted by this bill.

But everybody that is impacted," he said, "is begging us not to pass it," and so-- Michelle Quist: There is research that shows that when this medical care is given, you know, at this age by medical doctors, that it does affect-- it does affect suicidal ideation as adults a tremendous amount.

It's give--you know, it's medical research by Stanford University just last year that anybody can look it up.

These legislators are legislating for medical care, and it just doesn't seem right when it's a parental issue.

Jason Perry: Yeah, let's talk about some of the things happening across the country, Ben, because some of the testimony got to getting research, and I wanna kind of talk about that in lens of Governor Cox.

You referenced the transgender athlete bill at the end of last legislative session.

The government was very much involved there about the veto.

Ben Winslow: It was vetoed before it even hit the House.

Jason Perry: So, he was right-- but on this one, this particular bill, I want to read a quote from him and get your thoughts and see what might be different on this issue from that one last year.

This is from the governor this week.

He said, "I believe," to this bill, "this is the right bill, the one that approaches it in the right way.

All he's saying is we're going to push pause, we're going to look at the research, we're going to gather all of the data and make sure we're not doing any long-term harm to our young people.

And I think that's a very reasonable approach."

That's from our governor.

Ben Winslow: This is an issue that is going to take a while to get through the legislative process, at least, even though they've started with it.

The governor will have to review it and determine if he is going to veto it or if he is going to sign it into law.

But this signals that he at least is supportive of some concepts of this, the ban on gender affirmation surgery.

That's currently not practiced anyway in Utah that we know of.

And so, that would just codify into state law.

The sponsor of the bill has insisted that he wants regulatory approaches, that any physician can claim to treat transgender individuals in a manner consistent with, you know, their gender identity, and that they should be subject to some sort of education or regulation or that kind of thing.

That, at least, was his rationale to the press corps when he was talking about the moratorium on puberty blockers for new patients while they set this regulatory framework.

Either way, no matter what happens, if this bill passes and is signed by the governor, you can fully expect a legal challenge.

Jason Perry: This pause the governor referenced, you just said, Michelle, is this moratorium, this three-year moratorium, and some of them are saying we want to get more research around this particular issue.

Michelle Quist: I don't know why legislators are inserting themselves into medical care.

A three-year moratorium based on research?

There's no research that will ever convince these legislators to allow this type of care.

I think it's a ruse.

I don't think they'll ever allow it.

And I think that that--I think it's a ruse.

Saige Miller: And I think that this messaging is a little bit off as well, that there's no regulatory standards, that anybody can practice transgender health care.

From parents that I've talked to that have youth going through this process, it's very grueling.

They have to go to therapists, they have to go to multiple doctors, they have to spend a lot of money, so it's not like they walk in to an office, they say, "Hey, I want to transition," and they hand them these hormones.

It's not like that.

It's a very grueling process that does take a lot of time and can be very traumatic for the person going through it.

So, it's not--they're not giving it out like candy.

Michelle Quist: Do we trust the medical community or not?

I don't understand.

Jason Perry: So, this gets to a couple other points, because there were other bills dealing with transgender students, and one was dealing with school districts.

Ben, this was an interesting one here.

This is Senator Todd Weiler.

Had a first draft, which got to students and their pronouns in school, how they wanted their personal pronouns.

There was a bill, it's first draft, would require parental consent for a minor to change their pronouns at school.

Some changes happened to that bill that made it more agreeable to many.

Ben Winslow: "Some changes," the bill just basically got gutted.

It started out where a teacher couldn't call a student by their preferred pronouns or the preferred name if they had one that they wanted to go by, not without parental consent.

But what it has turned into is just reaffirming the parents have a right to know what's happening with their kid in the classroom.

So, a parent could call up and say, "Hey, you know, I just want to know what--is my kid okay?

What's happening with my kid?

What's going on?"

And it now basically affirms that school districts can't actively work to block that, schools can't say, "Well, we're not gonna tell you anything."

Or, like, it just reaffirms that right.

But teachers, at least on the surface of how I read the bill, it looks like they can still treat the child as they like to be treated.

Michelle Quist: Is this--are we small government or not?

I'm so confused.

Why are we writing bills to reaffirm things that already exist?

I mean, first it seemed like we were legislating about pronouns, which is ridiculous.

You know, teachers--teachers have, you know, make safe places for students.

We want that to happen.

We don't need to legislate about pronouns.

At least, you know, Senator Weiler recognized that his bill was stupid, and he gutted it.

I'm glad, but we don't need to reaffirm that parents can call schools and and find out what's going on.

We don't--we're small government.

Let's, you know, let's keep that principle in mind.

Jason Perry: Okay, so one more connection.

Saige, you had a comment before.

Saige Miller: Just to kind of, like, piggyback off of that is that Maslow's hierarchy of needs, right?

Which is somebody that in the committee hearing, when that bill was being presented, brought up as an educator of-- in order to create a healthy teaching environment for students to learn, they have to have a safe space.

And I was a debate coach for five years, and I had a student that went by a different name when I saw them than they did at home.

And it wasn't that they didn't feel safe, it was just they were--they were exploring their own identity, and it wasn't really my place to tell their parents, "Hey, your child is going by this name here and not at home."

And eventually they came out, and they were embraced with open arms, and they go by that name now indefinitely.

And that's great for them.

But it was my job as a debate coach to make sure that they felt safe as I was teaching them, as I was taking them on the debate trips.

Jason Perry: Then one more in this theme here is from Senator Dan McCay.

It was whether or not you can change the gender on your birth certificate until--you cannot change it until you turn 18 years old.

This one passed.

Ben Winslow: This also passed.

This seems to be in response, at least partly, to the Utah Supreme Court ruling about gender marker changes.

This was a case that the Supreme Court sat on for years because they were waiting for the legislature to do something.

The legislature never did anything.

And the issue there in that case, just a quick primer for everybody, is that there were certain judges that would or would not grant gender marker changes dependent on--you rolled the dice, and which judge you got.

There was no uniform policy.

The court wanted a uniform policy because these two transgender individuals sued and wanted the right to be able to do that because they happened to get the judge that didn't want to do it.

So, the court was waiting for the legislature to do something, the legislature didn't do anything, so the court finally ruled, and the court said all judges have to grant these things.

What this is doing is at least somewhat in response is setting guardrails and saying that as youth, as minors, you don't get the ability to do this.

I can't help but wonder if that may also present a legal challenge, especially when it comes to driver licenses and other documents that you do rely on a birth certificate for.

Jason Perry: One more big issue, abortion.

And I'm gonna--I'm gonna put that as a general category, because there's a bill that might--you might not think it's necessarily just connected to abortion, but it is.

So, as our attorney here on the panel here, Michelle, I'm gonna talk to you about this.

This is--Representative Brady Brammer brought up a bill this week, we talked about it a little bit on "The Hinckley Report" last week, changing the rules of civil procedure about what can happen with a preliminary injunction.

Talk about the restrictions that would go in place with this bill.

Michelle Quist: So, to get a TRO and a preliminary junction right now in Utah, you have to go and prove that certain things, including that you're--that you could prove your case when it eventually comes to, you know, when it eventually comes--you know, is heard.

Right now the abortion bill is under a preliminary injunction or a temporary--TRO.

This bill would say that all preliminary injunctions, all cases that are under preliminary injunctions have to be re-reviewed, they have to be re-reviewed, they have to--you have to go in, they have to be reheard in front of a judge, and you have to show that it can be proved.

It takes out one of the standards.

It takes out one of the standards.

And what happens is that instead of just taking--instead of just--I'm not explaining this very well, obviously.

But it takes all of the cases that are under a preliminary injunction instead of just the abortion case.

Jason Perry: So, let's take about why this would be the case, Ben, because it's a retroactive bill.

So, the new standard would be can grant a temporary-- Ben Winslow: Not quite so retroactive as it used to be.

It was amended, but you can as a party, as the losing party, go back and say, "Hey, judge, are you sure you sure?"

Jason Perry: So there's that possibility.

The standard here would be the judge would not be able to grant a preliminary injunction unless there was a substantial likelihood of success, and this going back to some extent is kind of what Michelle is talking about as well.

Jason Perry: Yeah, but there were, like, tens of thousands of cases, and they would all have to be reheard.

It would put the court system in ruins, right?

Because all of these cases, and we're talking about stalking injunctions that currently affect women and children.

All of them would have to go and be reheard.

Not just the abortion case, all of these cases that are currently under preliminary injunction, all of them would have to be reheard.

The courts can't handle that.

So, because these legislators want the abortion case to be reheard, all of them, all of the cases would have to be reheard.

It can't happen, it just can't happen.

Everybody, everything would be a mess.

Saige Miller: And, Michelle, for your--from your perspective as well, there's that stipulation in the bill, right?

The likelihood of success, and the question that I have is can judges determine that?

Michelle Quist: It's discretionary.

You know, it's hard.

Right now the standard says-- right now the standard includes a more discretionary factor, and what the bill does is it takes out that discretionary factor, and it says-- you know, and it just includes this one.

Ben Winslow: There are a lot of groups that have a lot of concerns with this particular piece of legislation.

Michelle Quist: Every attorney in the state.

Ben Winslow: Not sure how far this is going to get in the overall legislative scheme of things, just given how many different organizations are weighing in on this.

The Utah Medical Association spoke about this, the Salt Lake County District Attorney's office, the Administrative Office of the courts, while taking no position on the bill, did express concerns about the impact of the legislation, so its fate remains uncertain at this point.

Michelle Quist: Every comment in that committee went against it, and then they passed it out.

Ben Winslow: Yes, no one supported it.

Jason Perry: Okay, so speaking of-- Michelle Quist: I feel like I failed you in my explanation.

Jason Perry: It was just right, and we'll watch this one go forward too, very closely.

Can we talk about school choice just a tad?

All right, so-- Ben Winslow: The other one that's still going on.

Jason Perry: It is, so, the governor has talked about school choice; seems to be the legislature and the governor are united in trying to get more money for teachers.

Whether or not there's a string to that is the question.

So, Saige, just talk about that just for a moment, because a bill came up this week, and it passed out of committee 12 to 4 on from Candice Pierucci and Senator Kirk Cullimore, which they're talking about--they're calling scholarships, the scholarships, tax money that would go to a student would now follow the student.

You could get a scholarship, take your kid to private school, home school, other approved educational facilities.

Saige Miller: Yes, they are corning it--coining it school choice, other people call it a voucher program.

It's all about perspective on that.

But what essentially this bill does is tie teacher pay raises to that scholarship fund.

So, in order for public school teachers to receive that raise, they also have to create this fund that would allow parents to send their children to private school or help pay for home school, for example.

And it is really contentious, specifically within the education community.

I know that the teacher union in the state says these are two separate issues, they should not be voted on as one issue, they should not be tied together, it should not be determined-- teacher pay should not be determined on whether or not vouchers or school choice is actually going to happen.

And so, yeah, there's a lot of very robust debate around it.

And people say that a lot has changed since the last time the--what year?

Jason Perry: 2007 is where it started.

Saige Miller: 2007, a lot has changed.

President Stuart Adams will say COVID, you know.

He says that there has been a lot of his constituents called and said that they want this choice, they want the ability to use their tax dollars other places for education.

And there's--I'm sure we're definitely not at the end of hearing what's going on.

Ben Winslow: No, in the bill, I think, now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it has a cap on how much money is authorized for this program, where previously it was sort of open-ended, so that might be a little more palatable for some, you know.

And it's this idea of whether the governor will support this legislation, but it seems like they have a little bit of a bargain where if you can fund education to the levels that he's happy with, he has at least signaled that he will sign this, or at least consider it.

Saige Miller: And additionally, the thing that is kind of interesting about this too is that these voucher programs in other states has usually been directed towards individuals who are already in private school or have a higher income, and something that House Majority Leader Mike Schultz said is that they're really trying to target lower-income families to actually move them out of public education and into private education to where they probably wouldn't be able to afford otherwise.

But that remains to be seen.

That's signaling, but that's not execution.

Michelle Quist: Yeah, 'cause $8,000 won't afford any private school.

I call this the Mary Poppins bill, because just a spoonful of sugar will help the medicine go down.

Listen, if you think that your bill is a good idea, let it sit--stand separate and see if it will pass.

But they won't, they're adding it to this money, you know, this extra raise for teachers because they want to see if--you know, because they're adding sugar to their poison.

Jason Perry: So, to that amount, to the money, so our viewers know, it's $200 million is what is currently designated for salary increases, and $42 million for the scholarship overall.

Those are some numbers we'll be watching.

Michelle Quist: The teachers deserve that raise separately.

Jason Perry: So, a couple other issues I want to get to as well.

Just because so many people are weighing in this week, a new state flag.

I want to show a picture so our viewers can see the new state flag.

So, as we talk about this, because a lot of people are weighing in on this flag.

There's the old flag and the new flag.

So, this is Senator Dan McCay.

Ben, he's been working on this for quite a while.

Ben Winslow: A long time, and this bill for some reason just-- it's gonna always inspire a little bit of debate.

But, you know, you see online everybody has opinions.

There were thousands of comments when they were designing this, a lot of input.

Certainly there's a lot of support at the reception for the Governor's State of the State address last night.

I saw that people were getting their photos taken in front of the new proposed flag, even though the full Senate has yet to vote on it.

But, you know, certainly there's some excitement surrounding this.

There are a few people who don't like it, and they're very, very outspoken about how much they don't like it.

But, you know, stay tuned.

This is gonna get a vote in the Senate, and then it'll go over to the House.

Michelle Quist: What's not to like?

Jason Perry: About the new flag?

Michelle Quist: Yeah, let's get it over with.

Jason Perry: Well, it was interesting, Senator Mike Lee posted an opinion piece about this in support of the new flag.

Michelle Quist: He used a good word.

I don't remember what it was.

Jason Perry: Sempiternal, our eternal desire to improve.

Yes, a million dollar word for us.

Ben Winslow: Interesting to note that the House sponsor of this bill is the House Majority Leader, Mike Schultz, if that doesn't give you an idea of the level of support for this.

Michelle Quist: I'm sure it'll pass, let's just get it over with and move on.

Jason Perry: The old--the current state flag will become designated as a ceremonial flag that the governor could then direct when it is going to be used at events and functions.

Very interesting.

Saige, you gave some great commentary last night on the State of the State.

This is the big moment for the governor of the state of Utah to put forward some priorities and to talk to Utahns directly in front of the legislature.

Some themes from that that you saw?

Saige Miller: Yeah, specifically, I'm a big water nerd, so I really kind of focused on water, and I'm happy that there has been a lot of momentum to try and fill our drying reservoirs, the Great Salt Lake, and trying to get on top of the Colorado River.

But, yeah, that was a big theme of--you know, but he also did kind of signal, you know, if God's not going to fill the lake, then we are.

I would really like to see how we are going to fill the lake, and that's something I think, as Ben's pointed out, will be a topic of conversation in the legislature once we get through these controversial bills.

Ben Winslow: And there are-- they're already being introduced.

You have legislation that's been filed last night.

I was up reviewing bill filings, like I do, and it is--you've got a turf buyback bill that has now been filed, you've got agriculture optimization is gonna be a priority funding request, which is going to be huge, because the biggest water user is agriculture, so if you give them money for new technology to use less water, the view is that this is water that can go downstream to the Great Salt Lake.

And then you have cloud seeding enhancements, which just squeeze a little bit more juice out of a storm, that they're seeking funding for; the Department of Natural Resources also wants money to pay farmers not to grow crops, that maybe you let that alfalfa crop sit, not plant it this year and let the water go downstream.

At the end of the day, they got to show their homework, and you've got to get water into the lake, because these storms, they're fantastic, but really you need much more going into that lake.

Saige Miller: They're great in the winter and definitely go away in the summer.

Jason Perry: In our last 30 seconds, Michelle, one more thing in this speech that our legislature seems to be united on is tax cuts.

That was a theme in that speech.

How likelihood is that going to be for this session?

Michelle Quist: Oh, I think our legislature loves tax cuts.

They like to say we've cut your taxes, and that's what we do for you, and go and enjoy your extra 60 cents.

Ben Winslow: But I don't think it'll be as deep as people would like, because they are worried about a recession in the future.

Jason Perry: Yeah, that's definitely seems to be a theme, as we have some surplus now, but will we have it later?

And I think we're gonna see some--not just those interesting investments, but also some rainy day fund as well.

Thank you so much for your insights this evening.

What an interesting start to the legislative session; thank you.

And thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

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

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪