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," Utahns react to the results of the New Hampshire primary as the race for the presidency narrows.

As the second week of the session concludes, Utah's legislature continues to debate tough bills.

And new polling reveals what Utahns think about the consequential issues ahead of this year's 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 Republican representative in the Utah House of Representatives Candice Pierucci; Jen Plumb, Democratic senator and Minority Assistant Whip in the Utah Senate; and Robert Gehrke, news columnist at the Salt Lake Tribune.

So glad to have you all with us as we finish the second week of the legislative session, a lot happening on the national stage, but also locally.

We're gonna get to all tonight, including some new polling and some numbers where Utahns are on key issues.

Representative, let's start with you a bit about what just happened in New Hampshire.

We just had the New Hampshire primary on the heels of the Iowa caucuses, Donald Trump came out with 54% of the vote, Nikki Haley at 43%, other candidates at 3%.

Talk about some of the dynamics going into that, that election and that race, and what we might see coming forward as we start having a lot more of these.

Candice Pierucci: So, Governor DeSantis had obviously dropped out right before that race.

I had endorsed him over the summer, and--but the polling and study showed that 3/4th of his votes were going to go to President Trump, former President Trump.

So, that obviously was a big boost to President Trump as he was going into the New Hampshire primary.

You had Nikki Haley, who really needed to do well there to convince her donors and her base that she could take on this fight and keep going.

So, South Carolina is her home state, it's her stomping ground.

That said, Senator Tim Scott did endorse President Trump, and so we'll have to see.

I think polling shows her trailing behind.

And so, we'll see how long Nikki Haley stays in the fight.

She's got a really fantastic resume and a history being a conservative fighter in South Carolina as governor and then as ambassador to the United Nations, but I think right now it's looking more and more like former President Trump will be the Republican Party nominee.

Robert Gehrke: I gotta think if she loses her home state, it's pretty much over at that point, right?

So, there's a lot riding on it.

It's also kind of a sad commentary that we can decide who the next nominee is gonna be based on the outcomes of just three states.

The other 47 just don't matter, I guess.

By the time we get to Utah, it's probably going to be, you know, a done deal.

And Utah voters probably will get not much say in who the nominee is gonna be.

Which is interesting, because Utah has not been very kind to Trump in the past.

And, you know, there might be a possibility for somebody to-- somebody else to emerge if we got to that part.

Candice Pierucci: I do think it would be a lot better if we went beyond three states, right, where we see people dropping after one state.

I mean, that was a few hundred thousand voters in our country of millions, and I think it would be healthy if people would stay in longer.

So, I know that Nikki is committed to, I'm here for the long haul, I'm here for the fight, but I do think she's got a lot riding on South Carolina.

Robert Gehrke: It would be nice if we could have a conversation about a way to reform it.

Governor Herbert proposed this idea of rotating regional primaries where a group of states would go on the same day, and each of them would take turns leading out, and then you have regional voices rather than just Iowa, New Hampshire, it's over.

Candice Pierucci: Which I love that idea, but New Hampshire has it in their state constitution, which is why Joe Biden was not even on the ballot.

They had to do a write-in campaign, because they opted to try and throw another state first.

Jason Perry: Senator, give us our perspective, particularly through the Democrats in the state of Utah, as you're watching that particular election, because we've seen high profile Republicans like Senator Romney, for example, say I want to narrow the field.

You know, we wanna make sure we have our support behind a small number instead of a lot of discord in that party.

From your vantage point, what are you seeing happening there?

Jennifer Plumb: You know, it's really interesting to watch from outside of that race, but knowing that ours will be coming soon.

It's been really interesting for me just as a political spectator and also someone who's greatly concerned about our political realm in general.

You know, obviously that's not my party, but I have really appreciated seeing a candidate who comes out talking about issues, talking about policies, speaking with wisdom, and not going after pure character assaults.

That for me has been nice to watch, you know, our party has not really thrown in another person into the ring, we haven't seen anybody else.

And so, I'll be honest, I would--I love discourse, I love dialogue.

I like us hashing through things.

And so, you know, I don't know that I would trade, but for me to watch it, that's definitely there for me.

Jason Perry: I wanna talk about the dynamics inside the Republican Party, Representative.

I wanna show you a clip first, because we were talking about Nikki Haley, and first I want to talk about some--the polling that went into this, because this was Utahns, and keep in mind when this poll was out in the field, Ron DeSantis was still in the mix.

But the question was to Utahns if the presidential primary were held today, who would you vote for?

And these were just Republicans, registered voters that were Republicans.

Donald Trump got 49% of the vote, Ron DeSantis at 13%, Nikki Haley at 22%, that was a rise from the last poll, 17% don't know.

Talk about that dynamic there, particularly the rise with Nikki Haley and where Utahns are on these two choices.

Candice Pierucci: I do feel like 17% said I don't know, that's a pretty large chunk.

I mean, that's almost 20% of Republicans who are wondering where they would vote and what they would do.

I do think the majority of Ron DeSantis's support will go to President Trump since that poll.

But I do think Nikki Haley has shown from the beginning, she was pulling at, like, 2%, so she has been the underdog that has surprised everyone in this race.

But I think it's showing what the rest of the country is showing, that former President Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee, that people like the policies, they like the fighter in the White House that they saw, and they want someone to push back.

I think more than anything, it feels a little bit like Groundhog Day where we're having President Joe Biden and former President Trump running, but I don't think people are satisfied with the past three years, the sky high record inflation, what's going on at the border, just the cost of living in general.

People are not satisfied with the economy.

I think I just read a report today from The Hill that President Biden has the lowest third year approval rating since Jimmy Carter.

So, I think he is in a rough spot, and right now these are the two options that our country feels like we need a rematch on.

Robert Gehrke: And I think it's interesting, because Biden's approval ratings are low, but the economy is actually doing very well right now.

We've come out of the inflationary period into something that's going to be sustainable.

That said, nobody I talked to is happy with this election.

Everybody would like to have another choice.

And there are third parties, but, you know, we've seen the difficulty third parties have.

I think a lot of people are gonna hold their nose and vote for the candidate they voted for last time, and it's gonna be a very close election.

Jason Perry: Robert, if we can get your comment, I'm gonna show a clip from Nikki Haley.

If this gives us a glimpse about what we might be seeing until this election, well, until that primary, till we find out who the final candidate is gonna be.

Let's show this and give us some themes that you see might be recurring through your lenses as a journalist.

Nikki Haley: With Donald Trump, you have one bout of chaos after another.

This court case, that controversy, this tweet, that senior moment.

You can't fix Joe Biden's chaos with Republican chaos.

Robert Gehrke: Yeah, I mean, I think that kind of hits it on the head.

The chaos and the court cases, obviously, the court cases are going to be dogging him throughout the rest of this year right up until the election and probably after.

And then the senior moment I think is an interesting one, because that's hit we've heard-- a swing we've heard Trump take against Biden all the time, but it's a contrast that Haley is trying to draw between herself and both of the other candidates, frankly, who are in the field.

And so, I think that's--those are the vulnerabilities that Trump has, and I think that assuming Trump emerges, Biden and Trump are going to be firing a lot of those same shots at each other.

Jason Perry: Representative, before we leave this one, Utah is going to have a presidential preference poll on March 5.

Can you talk about that just a little bit?

Because that is Utahns' opportunity to weigh in on the presidential race.

Candice Pierucci: Exactly right.

So, that is caucus night, so that's where you go when you run as county, state, delegate, precinct chair, get involved in the party.

That's also where you'll be able to list your preference of who you want to be our party's nominee in the presidential election.

Jason Perry: You know, happening through the Republican Party, so it'll be narrowing all the way to that point.

Let's get to the legislative session for a moment, because there are a lot of bills as we finish the second week of the session.

I wanna get to two that are being discussed this very day.

So, even as we're filming this episode, legislators are working on some concurrence amendments to a couple of bills.

And, Senator, let's start with you on one dealing with bathrooms in particular.

I wanna get to House Bill 257.

We have a third substitute bill that's out, and the title of this is--Representative Birkeland--it's Sex Based Designations for Privacy, Anti-bullying, and Women's Opportunities.

Talk about that bill for just a moment as you worked on it and we'll have a chance to get through all the elements.

Jennifer Plumb: Sure, we actually just voted on this bill, heard it and voted on it yesterday on the Senate floor, and this bill in particular has been a really, I feel like, challenging piece of legislation to navigate for me and for many.

And it's part of the challenge for me is that when we talk about what we hope for, for our kiddos, for protections, for privacy, this is a space I'm deeply committed to.

You know, work as a pediatrician, and I see kids in pretty traumatic and not always their best times.

And I don't disagree that there should be privacy and safety within locker rooms, dressing rooms, changing rooms, all this sort of thing.

In fact, I have a piece of legislation that we haven't talked about yet, but we will.

But the challenge, again, and I know I've said challenge 52 times, I'm trying to find the best way to enunciate these words, is that we left a whole group of folks feeling very targeted and feeling very isolated and frankly feeling like they're not wanted, and that's our transgender youth.

And I know that the intent was to create a safety space for all, but it ultimately ended up feeling very targeting.

So, I continue to say I wanna work on these issues with folks, but it was like a whiplash tour for us in the Senate.

The substitute number two actually felt like we've made some progress in public spaces, that it was about behaviors, not about identities, and I will hold that that's what matters to me.

It's about the behaviors, it's about don't be lewd, don't endanger other people's safety and or comfort.

It doesn't matter how you identify, it matters how you behave.

And then the third substitute felt a bit to me like we took a step back from that.

So, it's going to be a challenge, and I think there's going to be some unintended consequences that we'll want to figure out how to work through.

We'll see what happens after concurrence today, I suppose.

We'll have the ultimate answer, but it was a really, really difficult space for me in particular and for our caucus in particular.

Jason Perry: Representative, talk about some of the changes that just occurred, because there's a little bit of reframing from one substitute to the next based on feedback and maybe some of these--the consequences, some intended, maybe some not.

Talk about what happened with what we're going to see right now has most likely chance of coming up.

Candice Pierucci: Well, I think the intent, and it's in the title that it's talking about, right?

It is creating safe places and creating a privacy plan in our K through 12 setting.

I chair Education, this has come up quite a bit as I talk to districts.

They don't have a set plan, they don't have a set policy, and my own district had said we'd love for the state to actually create a policy here because we are in a gray area.

And so, that's why I think it's important we have created a privacy plan and a process in place for students who want to use an alternative bathroom.

I think the definitions that came in on the definition of male and female, obviously, we're in the third substitute.

I'll say what is important to me about that, this bill though is the Title IX component, that we've codified the best parts of Title IX in making sure that men and women have equal access to athletic facilities.

And that goes for our K through 12 setting.

A lot of times girls are told you can play at 5 o'clock, the boys get the field at 7 o'clock, the prime time.

No more can you do that.

You need to alternate those.

I know growing up the girls would practice in the small gym, the boys would practice in the big gym.

And so, to me, codifying Title IX was a huge part of this bill, and I think a lot of the media is missing what is a lot of the meat in this.

Jason Perry: Go ahead, Robert.

Robert Gehrke: I think the significance of that is then if you have a complaint, you can take it to a state agency, which is a lot more efficient.

Candice Pierucci: Instead of waiting years for it to be reviewed by the federal agency.

Robert Gehrke: But I think the bill as a whole is unfortunate, and I agree with what Senator Plumb said about a population feeling targeted, because the sponsor of the bill, Senator McCay yesterday, couldn't come up with an example of this being an issue where a transgender person was in a bathroom.

He cited examples of sexual assaults that had occurred against children in bathrooms perpetrated by men.

That's already illegal, so this bill doesn't do anything to change that.

Now, I think we--what we've seen in the last three years is we've seen medical care restricted, we've seen sporting access restricted to transgender communities, now we're seeing bathroom access restricted while we've seen hate crimes skyrocketing.

And without an example of what we're supposed to--of this being an issue, it looks like politics, pure and simple.

Jason Perry: Robert, what is your take on that, sort of that reframing where it was about kind of the--to the person to now to the place, where it was about the people going to the bathrooms.

Now, a little more about the bathrooms.

Robert Gehrke: Well, but it is still about the people going to the bathrooms, and so behavior in bathrooms, lewd behavior in bathrooms, was illegal before.

And so, again, if we're gonna make a population feel targeted, we're doing a pretty good job of it.

And I think that's the wrong way to go.

These people, these people, this community, whether you like them or not, they're human beings and deserve dignity, and I think we're taking a big step backward on that front.

Candice Pierucci: And I would say that absolutely not.

It is still a focus on the actual behavior.

There's no penalty here if, say, a trans woman goes into whatever restroom they'd like, if they go into the bathroom, go to the bathroom, come out, there's no penalty here.

It's if there is a behavior that then happens, right?

That if there is, you can walk through it, lewd behavior, assault, it walks through those things.

So, I view the third as still focusing on behavior.

I know that there were some definitions added that help tighten the language, again.

But there are other pieces that were pulled out for rape centers and family domestic violence shelters because they didn't want to compromise federal funding and they wanted to keep working on that piece of the bill.

So, I think their sponsor showed that she really was willing to sit down at the table, and she's been working on this for over a year.

But this is something that I know I've heard from my district, that they have wanted guidance on in the K through 12 space on how to create a privacy plan and how to address these issues.

And I actually do think you have to have a compassionate approach for both individuals at the table.

What happened in my area was unfortunate, because it was one particular student who then all the parents called a school about and everyone knew who that student was who was using a different bathroom, and it created a lot of hatred towards that kiddo, which is not appropriate.

It would have been much better if they were able to sit down with the administration, create a privacy plan with their parents there, and have a safe opportunity for everyone involved.

Jennifer Plumb: Well, on the-- and the challenge with that, though, is that we've created this othering for that child, right?

So, that child is not allowed to use the same space as everyone else.

They have their other space that they're to go to.

Candice Pierucci: It's a unisex restroom, which a lot of people-- Jennifer Plumb: Sure, and yeah, and that's great in the schools where that exists, and I'm all for more unisex bathrooms across all of our facilities as we move forward.

I don't think there's-- Candice Pierucci: Which this bill also does.

Jennifer Plumb: Right, exactly, so I think what is now on us as community members, we've got the law coming into--well, we'll know for certain, but if this bill goes into law, it's going to be really incumbent on us as, as private citizens, to not allow this to turn into a reason to question people's identity, to be the the gender police.

Are you a woman, are you really a woman?

Are you a man, are you really a man?

And to not allow, I think, something that came out of the previous presidential administration of this kind of bullying tactic and targeting.

And I think, as private citizens, it's gonna be really something we have to say we're not gonna allow that to happen when it does.

Candice Pierucci: And I think everyone agrees we don't want bullying or attacking happening, right?

Jennifer Plumb: This is--that's not the intent of this bill in any way.

And I would encourage people to actually go read the bill.

Jason Perry: Well, one of the common themes right here a little bit we're hearing about is this privacy space.

Both of you have said something about that.

That seems to be something that we're still discussing too, whether or not the-- Jennifer Plumb: Yes, for me, yeah, for me, absolutely it is, because-- and I'll tell you, 23 years I've been a pediatrician, and I work in the emergency department where I see the crises.

What happens in locker rooms?

I don't think there's probably any one of us here or any one of the folks watching that would say I loved my time in locker rooms.

It was the most nurturing time for me to thrive.

I became my best self.

I don't think anyone feels that way.

It's a space where you feel insecure and you feel anxious and sometimes depressed, and it can be unfortunately targeted.

Candice Pierucci: Very vulnerable.

Jennifer Plumb: So vulnerable, and now with cell phones, that's only been amped up with kiddos not using their--they don't have developed brains.

They're young, not using their common sense, taking photos of one another, distributing Those.

I would like this privacy dialogue to continue, because I think we all care about that privacy piece, and I think we all care about that for all of our kiddos, so I would like that to keep going forward.

Jason Perry: We'll watch that one today and for the coming weeks.

Robert, let's get to the-- another one that sort of--that came out in the first two weeks.

It had a lot of conversation, a lot of time in committee and a few different substitutes also.

This is the bill dealing with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Katy Hall, the representative, is the house sponsor.

It's called Equal Opportunity Initiatives.

Talk about what's happened in sort of the process now, because it's changed a little bit as well.

But that one seems to be about ready to be passed.

Robert Gehrke: It's evolving as well, yeah.

It's--it does look like it'll pass today, and from what we've heard, the governor is likely to sign it.

It's something he talked about in the past.

Basically, what it would do is it would restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at K-12 and public universities and government entities.

And so, the notion being that everybody should have the same opportunities and that nobody should have unfair advantages.

There are some unintended consequences.

One of them that was raised recently was about what it would mean for scholarships for indigenous communities that have been designated or earmarked for those people.

The sponsors say this is going to open opportunities to everybody, other people who might be at risk not based on their race or other factors.

But, you know, there--Senator Escamilla also made a point yesterday during the debate that the data shows that there are populations that are not given the same opportunities and achieving to the same levels even though these programs are in place.

And her point being, if you--if we withdraw these programs, those disparities are just going to get worse.

Candice Pierucci: So, I'm chair education, so we sat through a very robust discussion.

I've reviewed this bill.

I would say those opportunities are still available for those students, because we're taking the $10.4 million that was sitting in DEI offices across the state and redirecting it into student success centers, and so there will still be opportunities available to have that help for a first generation student for someone who needs that assistance navigating through the process, we'll have student success centers.

The bill prohibits discriminatory practices, that's the crux of the bill.

And it boils down to in the K through 12 setting we've applied this, but also in higher education, that our institutions of learning, which you are intimately involved with, are focused on academic excellence and preparing students for the workforce and entering it, and that is the primary crux of their mission.

And that's what we're trying to get our tax dollars that are funding these institutions back on is preparing a workforce and academic excellence as opposed to us getting off into the weeds in other areas that may not be the primary mission of it.

I will say too, I have double checked, because last night this came up about the waivers for our Native American students, and absolutely, the MOU that is with the University of Utah is still intact and still in place and lines 301 to 305 highlight that in the bill that there is nothing that's going to impact that, and that applies to not just the U tribe, but other tribes that have that agreement, so they'll still be able to access that waiver at the University of Utah.

Robert Gehrke: At the University of Utah, yes.

The the other universities that have given earmarked scholarships, though, are-- Candice Pierucci: If they have an MOU in place prior to this bill, then yes, but if not, no.

Robert Gehrke: Right.

Jason Perry: I wanna get to a couple--go ahead.

Candice Pierucci: And can I add one more thing?

It also--you can still give scholarships, again, like I said, for first generation student, for a family owned business, you can give scholarships for, you know, low income students.

You could go across the board.

We're just saying you now cannot target gender and race as the sole reason.

But there are lots of things that you can still do to help these students.

And again, we'll still have student success centers where students can go to get the assistance they need.

Jason Perry: Which includes privately funded scholarships.

Candice Pierucci: Absolutely.

Jennifer Plumb: I just feel like there was a lot of nuance missing from the bill, and that's perhaps as someone, you know, I teach in higher ed in the med school, and I think that we in the health spaces in particular missed the opportunity to say we do need to include dialogues about sex and race about some things, we need to teach about sex and race in some things.

When we hire, we need to think about sex and race.

And so, for me, looking at it, again, it's a little bit back to the same conversation we had before on the previous bill is that we've left a whole lot of folks feeling targeted, and I want us to be careful about that.

But I also want us to say if I'm hiring a coordinator for a sickle cell anemia center, I wanna be able to ask, tell me about your experience and interactions working with the African American community.

Tell me about your comfort.

I want that right person.

Candice Pierucci: And the last version of the bill does that, it did a carve out for health, because during COVID we saw there were some communities that were disproportionately impacted.

And so, it does a directive to the Department of Health in Utah and says you've got a year, let's review these programs, see what we need to see-- Jennifer Plumb: See where the disparities are.

Candice Pierucci: But it does not to pull that in, so it actually is a nuanced approach.

It's being painted with a really broad brush, but with--you go through the bill, the last version, there was a lot of thought put into it, because you're right, there are different disparities that exist, and especially within the medical community, trying to acknowledge those.

And that's what the sponsor did.

So, that's something that we'll see next year a follow up to, but we did try and make sure that we were very nuanced in that approach.

Robert Gehrke: And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are also changes made that allow them to look at, you know, disparities in criminal justice penalties.

Like, for example, I mean, if it's funded by federal agencies, yes, that was already in there.

But if it's these--it clarified that they can study those in an academic way and look at disparities in criminal justice system, which I think is an important fix that they made.

Jason Perry: I wanna get to a couple more bills, but I wanna talk about the budget for just a second, because this is gonna be an interesting week.

For those watching, today is the last day for people to submit their request for appropriation.

So, we get the big long list, and there are a lot of them, a lot of requests out there.

And the legislature, you all just passed the base budget bills.

This was a $28 billion base budget that you've already passed in the first two weeks of the session.

That's about 96% of everything you'll be giving out.

Representative, talk for a moment about why we do these budgets up front, the base budgets, and leave the rest for what comes at the end of the session.

Candice Pierucci: There is a reason we're the best managed state in the country, and we still have the highest approval--excuse me, I'd like to think we have the highest approval rating.

No, that we have the highest credit rating and that we have a balanced budget and that we have to, at the end of the day, make sure all of our needs are met and still not go into debt for it, right?

And do so responsibly.

And so, what we do, though, is we have a base budget, so the things that we know we're gonna have to pay for.

So, if you think of it from a household budget, it's your mortgage, it's your groceries for your kiddos, right?

And preschool expense, or whatever you wanna call your home budget, that you have to pay those expenses.

And then you have beyond that.

That's what we go in and look at additional revenues for.

We do this, though, so that if something gets incredibly political during the session, we don't leave the session with an unfunded budget, right?

So, we have our base budget items right out of the gate that are taken care of, and I think that's important as we move forward.

Jennifer Plumb: Well, I don't think a lot of--I didn't realize before I was elected that the legislature's only real job is the budget, right?

We get to do the other things, but nothing else is mandated, and we work on other issues that we think are important, but this budget, that's what we're there for, yeah, is to make sure that the state keeps the lights on, keeps the things done that need to be done.

And that was a learning curve for me as, you know, as a relatively new legislator.

That's our true job.

Jason Perry: We, of course, you work on a budget right now, then you get revenue, the consensus revenue numbers later, so we know what the actual tax receipts are that they have for the state.

But we're already talking, Robert, in our legislature, particularly through Senator Chris Wilson, about a potential income tax reduction.

We're going to see that.

If so, what are you hearing about how you offset that?

And the idea was this, it would go from 4.65% to 4.55%.

Robert Gehrke: Yeah, 1/10 of a percent.

It would be about $160 million, and I think the 5th, 6th year in a row that they've cut taxes.

I mean, the income tax has fallen from 5% down to, like you mentioned, 4.45%, and so in an election year, there's nothing better, right?

These guys all want to go out there and run for re-election on that topic.

The question then becomes, what are we not spending?

What are we not funding?

Are we going to not fund education?

I mean, the base budget funds the growth and inflation and education already.

They set that up.

But are there other things--have we funded everything else in government to the levels that the public thinks it should be?

And to put it in a little bit of perspective too, the $160 million is I think roughly about $6 a household per year, varies depending on the level of income and the family size, yeah.

So, it's not going to be a huge boon, I think, for families or taxpayers.

But, you know, from an election standpoint, I think it looks pretty good.

And, you know, and they do say that this has helped Utah remain competitive with other states around the country.

Jason Perry: This is gonna have to be the last comment.

We'll watch this closely.

A lot of bills still to come.

A lot to talk about in "The Hinckley Report."

Thank you for your insight, 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.

♪♪♪