Jason Perry: On this episode of "The Hinckley Report," a landmark case on redistricting could have major impacts on Utah elections.

The longest government shutdown in history comes to an end.

And Utah's leaders respond to major issues in the state.

announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund and by donations to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Jason Perry: Hello, and welcome to the now Emmy Award winning "Hinckley Report."

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

Covering the week we have Kate Bradshaw, mayor-elect of Bountiful City; Spencer Stokes, founder and partner of Stoes Strategies; and Ben Winslow, reporter with Fox 13 News.

So glad to have you with us.

What a week in politics.

Ben Winslow: What a week.

The longest week.

Jason Perry: The longest week, particularly if you're reporting on it, particularly those people who are watching the politics.

But I wanna start with the government shutdown, Spencer.

If we can start with you, you've been involved in federal politics for a very long time as well.

Now the longest shutdown in our history, 43 days.

It used to be something you didn't talk about so much, but now it happens, you know, more often than you think.

Spencer Stokes: I won a bet, I was--I came closest to saying when it would reopen, and I calculated that based on Donald Trump wanting to break his last record.

So, you know, we broke the last record, but the government shutdown is never good for anybody.

It's never good for politics.

I don't think anybody wins in a government shutdown.

I think everybody loses, and so a lot of people are trying to assign, well, who are the winners and who are the losers, and I think in reality everybody was.

It's a loser for everybody, but a lot of people woke up the first morning of the government shutdown and said, "What's changed in my life?"

And that's never helpful for the agencies.

Jason Perry: So, Kate, that is a very interesting point, because even a lot of Utahns, as we did our polling, for quite a while in this shutdown not a lot of people were particularly affected.

But I am curious about the long term political impacts on this as you are talking to people that you represent and otherwise.

Who seems to be getting the sort of the benefit of this compromise?

Who is getting the recognition, like they brokered this deal?

Democrats, Republicans?

Kate Bradshaw: You know, I think it's an interesting mix.

On one hand, we're just starting to see the impacts of the thing the Democrats were holding out for, the impacts to healthcare and healthcare subsidies.

But they didn't hold out long enough to see that one really come full circle and start to really impact the cycle.

So, I think the Republicans probably come out slightly ahead because, you know, we're now back open.

The impacts were to smaller groups.

I don't want to minimize that those groups were deeply impacted.

Anyone who was a federal employee, a federal contractor, anyone who was flying in the last several weeks, and then people who were going without because of SNAP in particular and food stamps.

So, there were pockets that were really deeply hurt.

For many of us though, I think it, you know, life kind of went on.

And so, you have to wonder if it was worth the cost on the Democratic side.

Jason Perry: Break that down, Ben.

With all these great interviews, you've done such great reporting on this as well.

So, the Affordable Care Act, the subsidies for that were really what the Democrats were holding on to.

They didn't get that, so talk about that compromise and what that means.

It was a pretty long holdout for something else.

What did they get?

Ben Winslow: That's a good question, and I think we're going to have to see what they get and whether this spills over into next year with an election cycle and a very competitive election cycle.

Did they get what they wanted?

You get sort of not really even promises that you're going to get this healthcare funding dealt with.

You know, it's just kind of still hanging out there, other than you just finally broke the logjam.

So, this could have longer term repercussions, especially with premiums and things that people are paying going up.

Jason Perry: Ben, Kate mentioned the SNAP benefits, about 170,000 Utahns were--are getting those SNAP benefits.

Talk about that particular group too, because that money is coming back now.

The flight controllers, those kinds of things seem to be coming back online.

Ben Winslow: For people who are on SNAP, you have to feel for them, because this has been nothing but a boomerang.

What do you have every day?

What are you getting?

What are you not getting?

Are you getting benefits?

Are you not?

You know, are you getting this money?

Fortunately, at least according to the Department of Workforce Services, the latest words that we have from them is that the November payments will be going out right away, so people will not have to be necessarily going without.

You know, food banks took some hits too, especially, you know, the longer these things went on.

Federal employees who went without paychecks, I mean, this is impacting it.

You're living on borrowed money.

Yeah, you do get backpaid later, but you're still--it's the margins are thin for a lot of people.

People don't have these cushy cash reserves like they used to.

Spencer Stokes: You find out quickly that states can manage these things better than the federal government.

And I think our state stepped up in a big way to try to soften the blow on the SNAP recipients, but the other thing you find out is the post office continued to run.

And is there a case to be made for air traffic controllers being handled by the aviation industry and price per tickets so that it's out of that, you know, boondoggle of what's going to happen in the next government shutdown?

So, I think states and agencies that can run based on the fees and the people paying, there may be--they may be making the case for us to look more at that.

Kate Bradshaw: You know, Jason, it was a weird thing to watch this happen.

Especially, you know, we're a local government and the state government, we really pride ourselves on being able to always balance budgets and find those compromises and move things forward.

If I had to identify one kind of bright spot in all of this, I was impressed by communities stepping forward with donations, donations to food banks, checking in on their neighbors who might be struggling with food assistance or federal employees, so many individual stories and then collective stories of people pitching in.

It's the only heartwarming part to an otherwise kind of just really disappointing continued showcase of just not being able to get this really basic thing done.

Jason Perry: Spencer, before we leave this one, you're a political strategist.

Talk about 2026.

We have elections coming.

You've got the midterms, sometimes you have swing on parties.

If you're advising these parties about how to take advantage of either side of this, where do you go?

Spencer Stokes: Well, the president's party never does well in the midterm.

I do think there was a--the political pundits overcredited what happened on election night.

There were no surprises on election night this year.

All the blue states did blue things.

You know, California did new maps.

You know, Virginia, really a growing blue state.

New York, so there's--I don't think there's a lot to be learned on that front.

I will tell you where I think if you dig down into this a little deeper, I think there was an effort on Democrat--the Democratic Party in Utah to run their nonpartisan races as Democrats versus Republicans.

And in the areas where they were swing districts, a lot of mayors lost in Democrat areas because the party ran actively and the Republican Party did not do that, because they're nonpartisan.

So, if I were to say if there's anything to look at, it's that.

It was in the middle of the government shutdown, and you could make hay over that, and that worked in some of these races.

Jason Perry: Go ahead, Kate.

Kate Bradshaw: As you say, you know, as a municipal candidate and a candidate that was up this cycle--.

Spencer Stokes: Unopposed, let's go ahead and add that.

Kate Bradshaw: Thank you.

It was an interesting phenomenon to see, particularly the Democratic Party.

There were a few areas where the Republican Party wanted to kind of try and match efforts, but I have never seen that level of interest from the parties in municipal cycles in Utah, very different.

Spencer Stokes: Are municipal elections ripe to be partisan now?

Kate Bradshaw: I hope they're not, frankly.

I think the issues we work on in local government aren't partisan.

Spencer Stokes: I think you can see the legislature talk about that.

Should municipal races be partisan?

Kate Bradshaw: It's possible that they could talk about it.

I've always have thought that it's weird that we have some different dates in the two cycles.

You know, why get people used to certain dates in an odd year versus an even year?

I think we should talk about that.

I personally am a registered Republican, but I haven't found that that's really a big part of my service in Bountiful.

Jason Perry: Let's talk about something that also has political ramifications, Ben, redistricting.

Wow, you've been following it so closely.

I don't think you've been sleeping.

Talk about what just happened, the redistricting court case.

Give us an update.

Ben Winslow: So, the judge chose a map, and she kind of took everybody by surprise by choosing plaintiff's Map 1.

We used to have pizza-donut, was the big debate.

Well, we have donut now.

We got rid of pizza.

You now have a district that is pretty much centered.

Salt Lake County, little bits of Salt Lake County in southern part are kicked into other districts because there's no way to avoid splitting Salt Lake County because of the population, but that's what we have.

You now have what the judge's ruling says is that this is the more competitive and aligns with the tenets of voter approved Proposition 4.

And so, this is the map that everybody is now going to be running under, barring any kind of an emergency intervention by the Utah Supreme Court.

And at this point, the legislature has not sought an emergency stay, so it looks like this is the map that is going to be there.

It is, again, by the ruling, more competitive.

Democrats are really excited about this.

They are jumping in all over right now, already very early declaring themselves as candidates for this district that does look like it will be extremely competitive for Democrats, more so than the other districts that have been-- that are in this same map.

Spencer Stokes: And that'll be fun to watch.

I'll just be honest, as a Republican who has to--you know, deals with this all the time, it will be fun to watch the Democrats fight amongst each other, because they haven't really had to do that.

It was all who's going to be the sacrificial lamb in these districts in the past?

But now they're actually going to--this is a winnable seat, and--but, you know, you get down to the question, should a non-elected person be doing maps?

I don't think anybody disagrees that these are partisan issues.

Drawing maps are partisan.

They're partisan everywhere.

They're partisan in Texas, in New York, and in California.

And what we've just had happen as a non-elected person decide they were going to choose the map, one single person.

Ben Winslow: But that's the point of Prop 4 though, was to make it nonpartisan.

Spencer Stokes: Understood, Prop 4 is the first citizen initiative direct piece of legislation that has not been-- that they've sued on.

So, you know, they've had other--we've had marijuana, we've had the credit unions many years ago took a direct piece of legislation, and the legislature either threw it out or altered it significantly through negotiation.

But you'll notice the Better Boundaries was not the group that sued.

Another separate group went out and formed, a couple of different interest groups in the state, but it wasn't Better Boundaries because they had been the ones that negotiated with the legislature.

Now, was it a--was it a, you know, a put up thing, a straw man for this, for Better Boundaries probably.

But nevertheless, this is the first time that people's representatives didn't win out on direct initiatives coming, and they went directly to the courts.

Kate Bradshaw: So Jason, it's really a battle that we're discussing between two different articles of our state constitution.

Jason Perry: Yeah, let's get into that.

Kate Bradshaw: Yeah, Article 6 and Article 9.

So, different powers are enumerated in each of those articles, and 6, that's where you have this rights that are reserved to the people to also reform government.

9 is where the legislature derives its power to redraw maps, and so that is kind of the heart of this question on Proposition 4.

Do the people exercise Article 6 when Proposition 4 passed, and, you know, how does that stand up and compete with the legislative powers that exist?

The legislature and legislative leadership clearly feel strongly about their powers under 9, but they're both enumerated.

They're both important, and so now the, you know, separate but equal judicial branch is playing a role.

Ben Winslow: And it's going to continue, because the Utah Supreme Court still has to consider the overarching case.

The map has been decided.

Sure, that's in place, but this idea of the right to alter and reform your government versus the constitutional authority of the legislature to draw boundaries, that's going to have to go back.

That's still appealable, that is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

They're going to have to settle this again.

They've already once before upheld the right to alter and reform government in this lawsuit, which started this all over again.

That was a few years ago.

So, this is not done by any means.

Spencer Stokes: When it comes to Articles 6 and 9, my view is always when the issue is more complex, let's allow the people's representatives to negotiate and deal with that in a more deep dive.

I don't think the general public is--they're brilliant, obviously.

They elect all those representatives, so we can't say that they're not brilliant.

But the fact of the matter is when a person comes to your door and asks you to sign something, you're not getting all the data, you're not getting all the facts, and legislators do.

They think about these things, they research them, they have a staff that tells them, gives them data.

But the person at the doorstep and when they go to the polls, it's all just about name ID and about, you know, the best campaign ad.

Jason Perry: I want to get into a couple of the responses from the legislature to to all these points.

But Kate, I want to read what the response was from the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, because it does get into these constitutional questions.

It warms my heart when you're quoting the Utah Constitution, but that is at the heart of it, and this comment that they said kind of gets to where their position is on it, so maybe break this down for us.

I just want to read it to you because this was the swift response to the court ruling.

This is Stuart Adams and Speaker Schultz.

They said, "This isn't how government should work.

Our system depends on transparency, accountability, and respect for the roles defined in our Constitution.

Judges are meant to uphold the law as written, not rewrite it to serve political ends.

Nothing in Utah's Constitution gives the courts authority to impose maps designed by private groups.

Redistricting is not a courtroom exercise; it is a constitutional duty entrusted to the Legislature, the body directly elected and accountable to Utahns.

When that process is overridden, it weakens the voice of every Utahn."

Kate Bradshaw: So clearly, in this quote from both of our top two legislative leaders, they're leaning in hard to that Article 9 and the powers that they are given and feeling like it has been inappropriately taken from them and that the courts have played an inappropriate role.

And they are clearly upset and they have made, you know, many comments beyond just that about what they intend to do, and so we expect to see some of those appeals and things like that.

The challenge--and of course, this was a process that was really tricky for your average person to follow.

I know in his reporting, Ben spent many, many hours listening to those hearings.

I decided I would wade through the 91 pages of Judge Gibson's order, which I found fascinating.

But it's not something that maybe the average person is going to dive into.

And so they have, I think, a point on the transparency and the truncated nature of what was ordered and how fast it had to go through.

You know, I think maybe they have also forgotten Article 6 though, and that there are those powers that are left to the people, and they did exercise them.

And so, it is still to play out.

Spencer Stokes: They believe those powers are that they elect them.

You know, they believe that those--that the people do have a say in this, and the say they had was electing their representative.

And that they've sent those people--I tell people all the time, if you wanna know what the district looks like that voted for a person, they look just like the person they voted for.

I mean, the Democrat representatives and senators look like the districts that they represent.

So, I believe the legislature is saying, look, the powers that are--that belong to the people are electing us, and we have a right to do that.

Ben Winslow: But the root cause of the proposition was that they believed that--and voters approved it--that they didn't believe they were being represented, that the legislature was exercising institutional arrogance, if you will, and that they weren't listening, they weren't doing this, and that's why they wanted it in the first place.

And it was in the same election cycle as cannabis and Medicaid expansion.

Spencer Stokes: And it passed in four counties in the state, and all the rest of the counties it did not pass in.

And so, the argument always was by legislators and, you know, state senators said, "Well, it didn't pass in my district.

It didn't pass in my district."

And so, you have what's happening throughout the country.

The urban areas are getting bluer, and the more rural, middle America areas are getting more red, and that's what you see here in the state of Utah.

Jason Perry: I want to get to the political ramifications too, but just to follow up on your last point there too, because the idea that you're kind of describing in the constitution is these are coequal powers, power of the people through the initiative referendum process, the legislature through their legislative process, with these two lenses that you just had.

But where do you see this going, then?

If you could just put it in your crystal ball just a little bit, Kate, because that question has not exactly been completely answered.

Kate Bradshaw: The question has not been answered, and Spencer is very right to point this out.

I believe that there are three separate but equal branches given different authorities and powers.

The legislature, I believe, thinks that there are three branches of government, and perhaps their powers are bigger and more significant because of their elective process.

The only way we're going to solve this is through a Supreme Court decision.

And it may be a state Supreme Court decision or it may go all the way up to the US Supreme Court, and that will, of course, continue this little tension about whether these branches are separate but equal or separate and slightly unequal.

Jason Perry: Okay, let's get to the political ramifications.

Ben, can you talk about this for a moment?

Because this new district, which at the very minimum is purple, might lean blue, this new First Congressional District that this still is called number 1 going forward that has some nationwide implications and also local implications.

Ben Winslow: Right, we're dealing with the balance of the House, and this is a free for all right now.

I think at this point over the last week it would be more easy to keep a list of Democrats who are not running than those who are.

You're seeing some big names jumping in already.

Ben McAdams, Kathleen Riebe, you know, there's a longer list of people who are considering it.

Nate Blouin, Caroline Gleich, Misty Snow.

You know, this could turn into a wild ride.

As Spencer pointed out, you know, the Democrats are gonna get an experience of what the Republicans experience all the time.

And so, this is pretty wild to see.

Spencer Stokes: It sets the Republicans into a topsy-turvy mode as well, because now you have four--you have four Republicans, and you have three Republican seats or lean Republican, and you have one that leans Democrat.

So, who's going to run in which district?

And that's a big question.

I mean, you know.

Jason Perry: How does this get resolved?

Spencer Stokes: Well, Blake Moore's base has been up north, you know, predominantly.

Celeste Maloy's base has been down south, predominantly.

So, this really, now you've got to start asking, is somebody gonna--is somebody going to retire?

Is--are we going to have two people running against each other that are sitting members of Congress?

It really is creating some interesting political dynamics for the sitting delegation.

Jason Perry: Go ahead, Kate.

Kate Bradshaw: Spencer is exactly right.

I think I find that fascinating.

I think the big winner, if there is a winner out of the new maps, is that Blake Moore's district is largely intact.

So, you know, the conventional wisdom is he's probably safe.

He stays and he runs in what is--what used to be 1 and is now numbered as 2.

But, you know, 3 and 4 have changed significantly.

You know, 3 is geographically huge, and very, very difficult to travel and drive in because it touches both, you know, the eastern and the western sides of the state.

And it does move these traditional bases from some of these current numbers.

Spencer Stokes: One of the things that the elected representatives have always kind of taken into account is the members of the House and Senate in the state, can a member that represents a district get home at night?

Can they go visit different parts of their district and still get home?

I mean, that district number 3 is massive.

It's just a massive land area, and so this is something that-- this is something that courts don't think through.

Because how do we give better representation to the citizens of the state?

Is it driving 12 hours to get to an area of your district to represent them?

I mean, to get from St.

George up to the northeast corner of the state, it's not a straight path, so it is something that the legislature does take into account.

In the olden days, the legislature took into account, we want all of our members of our delegation to have representation of Salt Lake County so that the media will cover them when they're doing something.

These are things that are complex issues, and a judge is not the right person to decide those complex issues.

Jason Perry: Ben, put all this in context too, because you made an interesting comment before about sometimes these initiatives, things that drive turnout, and I'm curious what might happen in this new CD1, as they call it, which is essentially all Salt Lake County, as you said, because there are implications for the people who jump in that race.

But if you have some initiatives on the ballot and you have several Democrats running, it has the capacity of impacting local races as well, members of our House and Senate here in the state.

Ben Winslow: Right, this is going to definitely--right now it's purple to maybe blue, if you're looking at it that way, and you do wonder what is conventions going to look like?

And this is for all races, really, not just the congressional race.

You know, are you going to see more hyper partisanship both on the left and the right, really, because you know you're going to have more rural districts now and you are going to have a much more urban focused district.

And, you know, in order to advance at a convention, are you going to have to swing further left or swing further right?

You know, and does that trickle down into these legislative seats even further down in these partisan races?

That is to be determined.

I think we're gonna have to watch and wait and just grab your popcorn.

Kate Bradshaw: You know, Jason, there's a couple races further down the ticket in Salt Lake County that could definitely be impacted.

They've been swing seats but won by Republicans.

You know, Representative Jim Dunnigan, Representative Steve Eliason, Senator Wayne Harper, those have been tough races, and if you are driving a certain, you know, turnout at the top of the ticket in a general, what do their races look like?

And so, if I were further down the ticket running in Salt Lake County, this would be a map I would be pouring over and studying.

Jason Perry: Really quickly, Ben, conversations about impeachments.

Ben Winslow: TBD, really.

Representative Matt MacPherson almost immediately after the ruling posted on Twitter or X now that he had opened a bill file.

I asked the speaker about that, and the speaker kind of left it at we'll see.

So, really, it's unclear if they will proceed with an impeachment of the judge for her ruling.

Spencer Stokes: Or you could just wait until she's up for retention election and run a campaign against her.

Jason Perry: Yeah, so that that's possible too.

We get--we have, like, maybe 40 seconds left, Kate.

Talk about that a little bit too, because that was an instant response.

Bill file said it was open almost immediately, but it seems like the legislature might have the courts in mind this next session.

Kate Bradshaw: I think the judiciary will probably have a difficult session, whether it's some policy changes or budgets or appropriations.

The legislature has clearly signaled unhappiness broadly with that branch of government.

I think Spencer's idea is probably one that, you know, the flash, the immediate frustration with what happened resulted in Representative MacPherson's statements and his bill file.

I think what Spencer has suggested on retention is a much more likely scenario.

Spencer Stokes: And think about what happens if the balance of power in the United States House of Representatives shifts.

This battle was started long before the Texas and California one.

But if this shifts based on this judge, for sure you'll see a retention election campaign.

Jason Perry: It's gonna have to be our last comment.

Thank you for your insights, and thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

This show is also available as a podcast.

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund and by donations to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪