♪♪♪ 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," a major decision from the bench comes down on Utah's voucher program.

Supporters and opponents of the union referendum watch closely as signatures are verified.

And as season nine comes to a close, our expert panel weighs in on what the major stories of the summer will be.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ 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 Jay Evensen, opinion editor with the Deseret News; Representative Jennifer Dailey-Provost, a Democrat from Salt Lake City and Minority Whip in the Utah House; and Senator Mike McKell, a Republican from Spanish Fork and Majority Assistant Whip in the Utah Senate.

Thank you for being with us, the season finale, and there's a lot going on today.

We'll talk about what's happening in Utah now and maybe a little preview of what's coming for the summer.

I want to start with a court case, and start with you, Jay, if that's okay.

This is the Utah Fits All Scholarship.

We had a couple of sessions working on this particular bill.

This is a scholarship for students.

The students are at home, money from the state.

Let's talk about the history here just a little bit because it doesn't just start with this scholarship program itself.

Jay Evensen: Well, the supporters like to call it the Utah Fits All Scholarship, and that is the official name, but it really is a voucher program.

And it's very similar in some ways to a program that the legislature passed in 2007.

And if you go back that far and remember, and I was there covering it, the opponents of that bill formed a referendum.

They circulated petitions and got this on the ballot.

It was interesting to me because this was a very conservative program and one that a lot of states were doing, a lot of conservative states were doing.

Yet when it came to a vote of the people, the people rejected it quite handily, I think over 60%.

Jason Perry: Yeah, it was 62% to 38%.

Jay Evensen: And so, I--when this idea came up a couple of years ago, I asked Senate President Stuart Adams, do you think if we held a referendum today that it would be a different result?

And he said yes, he did.

And I think what they're counting on is that people during the pandemic were not happy with how public education was--you know, conducted itself and operated during that time.

I don't know if it's true that people would change their vote today, but that's what supporters of this bill believe.

Jason Perry: Let's break down a couple of these differences a little bit, Representative.

Let's talk about the ruling on this Utah Fits All Scholarship, and then we'll get back into this voucher program from 2007.

So the judge, this is Laura Scott, said essentially the argument was that the educational program was not free nor open to all, as the Constitution requires for income tax.

That's the idea, income tax is earmarked for education, and the argument, at least from this group, is that that violated that provision.

Jennifer Dailey-Provost: Right, and the group that you're referencing, of course, is UEA, who filed the lawsuit alleging or stating that the Fits All Scholarship or the voucher program is unconstitutional.

And I know that there is a lot of discord about about the arguments for her decision on that, but I think that it is-- it--you could say unequivocally that this does--this program does not create any kind of equitable situation for students, because I think that a lot of people would be really enraged if they knew in reality that vouchers are $8,000 per student.

That's almost twice what we pay per pupil in the public education system.

And so, to argue that this is creating an equitable playing field or equitable access for all students is a fallacy, and that is unconstitutional.

You cannot give preferential treatment to some students over others, particularly when they are saying, "We feel like we can circumvent the program that the state is constitutionally required to fund."

And so, I think that being able to draw that parallel and recognize that not only are you providing more resources for some students over others, but those who do attend school in the public school system, because the more students you have, the more you have economies of scale and spreading out some of those fixed costs like buildings and teachers and administrators, if you have fewer students who are funded at lower rates, then the actual quality of education continues to diminish, particularly when the legislature continues to pour more money into the voucher program.

Jason Perry: Senator, give us a comment on that as a senator, but also as an attorney as you look at this particular program itself.

Because even though it ruled unconstitutional, it was still allowed to continue while it's under review.

Mike McKell: I think it's interesting that she's allowing it to continue while it's under review.

I think her opinion is interesting as an attorney.

I think I'm concerned with the opinion.

It'll be interesting to see where it goes, the idea that these aren't education expenses I think is unique.

And I understand, I understand her argument in the opinion.

I don't agree with her opinion, I don't agree with her findings in this case, I think these are clearly educational expenses.

And just kind of back to what Jay said, I think it's changed since COVID, and I think there is--I think there are strong arguments for different needs in the public.

I think those needs are different today than they have been in the past.

And I think we're trying to meet those needs and, you know, ultimately it'll be interesting to follow this case, see what happens.

I think it will be appealed.

I predict that it'll be overturned.

It could--I could be wrong on that, but I think her analysis is flawed in that regard.

Jay Evensen: Interesting point, it's a very popular program.

There are about 20,000 applicants for this, and also it's tied into a teacher raise, which could be bottled up if this is found unconstitutional.

Jason Perry: Absolutely right, while it's working through the court system, just one more comment on this from the legislator's perspective, please give us, because there is an opportunity for you all still to weigh in, to address.

What are you hearing about this?

Mike McKell: Let me just say on the teacher salary portion.

It is interesting, Jay, that that's tied into it.

That's something that I think is out there on the surface.

But I think we're going to take care of our teachers.

I don't think there's a risk that that money is going to be bottled up.

I think that's going to be a priority for the legislature as we meet.

It was almost a $6,000 bonus in the past for those teachers, and I don't see anybody on Capitol Hill talking about taking that away or stripping that away.

I think that'll be something--I don't--I--yeah, I don't want there to be fear with teachers.

I think we'll protect that and make sure that that salary increase stays.

I think we wanted them to have that salary.

It's important to us, it's a priority, and I don't think that's gonna go away.

I hope not, and just one senator's opinion.

Jennifer Dailey-Provost: And I would echo that hope.

Senator McKell is right that we certainly want to do everything we can to keep our teachers whole.

It is really frustrating though that that pay raise was tied to the voucher program to start with, and that was always kind of a poison pill for anybody that opposed the voucher program when the bill was first introduced a couple of, you know, three years ago.

And so, I hope that Senator McKell and all of my legislative colleagues in both chambers on both sides of the aisle can stay committed to making sure that our teachers deserve the pay that they are given.

Every time we can increase teacher pay, that's definitely a good thing.

But I remain a little skeptical about the motive because of the, you know, the fact that that teacher pay was tied to passing that bill to start with.

There was no reason the two had to be tied together.

Jay Evensen: Estimates say about 80% of the people who received these scholarships are home schooling.

I'm not sure that was envisioned back in 2007 when we were first discussing vouchers.

Jason Perry: It was largely private schools.

Jay Evensen: Yes, it was largely private schools, not home schooling.

Jason Perry: Let's get into another piece of legislation that is in the news.

Can we talk about unions for just a moment?

The referendum is underway on the bill that was passed by the legislature, and Senator McKell, let's start with you for a moment.

They needed 100--over 140,000 signatures--they got a lot more, a lot more--8% of the registered voters in 15 of 29 Senate districts, and as of the airing of the show, there are enough signatures in 11 of the 29 Senate districts.

Talk about that for just a moment, because what happens after these are verified is the interesting question.

Mike McKell: Yeah, and I'd say huge congratulations to the groups gathering signatures.

I think they did an excellent job.

I saw a signature gatherer.

I was at the at the racetrack in Ogden.

I'm from Spanish Fork, and there was a young man there gathering signatures.

He was respectful, he gathered signatures, and I think they need to be congratulated.

I think they did a good job.

The estimate I heard is the signature amount is actually even higher, closer to 340,000 signatures.

I think they're going to be successful in the end.

But, you know, you--the referendum process is in the Constitution.

I think it's important to recognize that.

I think it's important to recognize that that is a check on the legislature, and for me looking at this issue, I think the starting point is they did a good job.

It's not across the finish line.

It will still go to the ballot.

Because of their margins, I think it will be difficult to pull it off of the ballot.

I know there will be an effort to stop that actually being added to the ballot.

I think it'll be difficult.

I think they did it.

I mean, the starting point is I think they did a good job.

Jason Perry: Representative, your thoughts.

Jennifer Dailey-Provost: Well, I'm really grateful to my friends and colleagues and, you know, around the state who worked so hard.

I personally gathered signatures for this referendum, because I was very vocal about opposing the bill to start with.

I am a union member, and I'm very, very proud of the work that my union does on behalf of me as an--as a teacher.

I think that, you know, there has been a lot of heartburn about a lot of the barriers that have been implemented in order to get ballot initiatives passed or referendums passed.

The thresholds have increased, the, you know, the keeping-- adding the the number of Senate districts in which, you know, ballot initiatives had to be passed.

And that was, you know, specifically to, I don't know, water down the--what was perceived to be Salt Lake County having over, you know, too much sway as far as population density and the number of signatures.

And one of the challenges in gathering signatures were all these disclaimers that we had to give to people before they signed, and that was, you know, making clear that they could remove their signature from the ballot.

And what that actually did was enabled me to have a conversation with people one on one and say this is, you know, this is your right to have your name removed from the ballot, and it--there--and you need to know that there's also a constitutional right for people to call you and try to convince you to remove your name from the ballot.

And I think that that in practice actually made people signing these signature packets more engaged, more informed about the process.

And I know that there's a concerted effort underway to diminish the number of signatures by having people remove their names, but I think that it's not going to be successful, because we have had such an intentional conversation and people are very passionate.

People who signed were knowledgeable, informed, and passionate about this.

Mike McKell: And I'm just going to weigh in and just kind of agree with the representative: I think the margin is huge.

I think it was bigger, I think it was bigger than a lot of people expected.

I think it'll be difficult to pull it off the ballot because the margin was so good.

And, you know, I hope the legislature's paying attention.

I know I am, I think my colleagues are.

I think there's stakeholders that we are--that we do need to work with and we do need to address this issue.

I'm somebody who voted for that policy.

I think the policy was right.

But I also recognize the Constitution has a right to referendum and to follow this process, and there are a lot of folks that disagree with the policy that I voted for, so I think we need to be aware of that and make sure that we're working with our stakeholders on this issue.

Jennifer Dailey-Provost: It'll be interesting to see if it actually does end up on the ballot, because we had a referendum on the tax bills several years ago, and the legislature came in and repealed that law before it went on the ballot because that does affect how things turn out in an election, and that's something we need to pay--stay present to.

Jay Evensen: We did some polling in partnership with the Hinckley Institute.

Jason Perry: Deseret News did, yes.

Jay Evensen: Yes, Deseret News did on this issue and found that 38% of the people oppose the bill, 34% support it, and there's a huge--the rest of them are undecided.

So, if you're trying to project if it gets on the ballot whether it will pass, I think it's going to be very close.

Jason Perry: What do you make of that?

Because a lot of signatures here from people who are close to this issue, but that when we polled on it, it's just interesting that there wasn't a huge disparity between the do you support or don't support?

Jay Evensen: Yeah, it's really remarkable in 30 days to collect over 320,000 signatures.

I mean that's incredible.

So, I think the elevator pitch, the short message is a really good one and easy one for people to understand.

Do you think public employees should be allowed to collectively bargain the same way that private employees do?

But when it comes down, there's a lot of advertising now from Americans for Prosperity against that idea.

And so I think people are a little bit more serious when they go into the--when they mark their ballots than they are when they're signing a petition in a grocery store parking lot.

That's the only thing I can think of.

Jason Perry: Hey, Senator, to Representative's comment.

I'm--I was curious about is this a campaign issue?

Is this something that people are thinking about when they're voting next time, not just about this issue, but about the people and how they voted on it?

Mike McKell: Let me jump in on that.

Yeah, I mean, it certainly could be a campaign issue.

But one thing we know, I studied political science, I know most of us here have studied political science, the party of the president typically gets hit a little harder during midterms.

And 2026, I think it's fair, it's fair to say if you just look at history itself and you look at politics in general, the party of the sitting president usually takes a hit, and you'll see that in some of the congressional races.

I think this is going to add to that issue, but kind of to Jay's point from the polling, I don't think it's clear where the public is at.

I think it's split.

I don't think overall this will be the big campaign issue.

I do think in 2026, you know, I don't want to change the subject because I think this is important, but I think we're gonna look at the economy, I think we're gonna look at the stock market, I think we're gonna look at the impact of tariffs.

And unless we can change the dialogue, it could be a difficult reelection cycle, at least for congressional members in the Republican Party.

Jay Evensen: '26 will be a referendum on Donald Trump and on his first term, and it will be the last election where he's really an issue.

When you talk about referendums and initiatives and their effect on the elections, everyone looks at 2018, and there were some coattails there.

That was the marijuana issue which got a lot of people out to the ballot who are out to the, you know, voting who normally wouldn't do that.

I don't know that this has the same effect on people as that issue did.

Jason Perry: As we get to these hard issues, a little bit about this process is who's leading the parties.

I want to talk about that just a moment, because the Democrats, the Republicans, and also our independent groups right now are talking about who's going to lead them.

Let's talk about that for just a moment.

On the Democrat side we've got several people, including former representative Brian King running for party chair of the Democrats.

Jennifer Dailey-Provost: For the state party, that's correct.

I think it's broadly understood that former representative King has the largest name recognition in the party.

He's working hard.

He certainly understands having served in the legislature for I think 16 years, certainly understands the minutia of, you know, speaking to people about the party platform and, you know, as you know, the Democratic Party in Utah is a super minority.

There are a lot of conversations to have with people about not, you know, voting straight party ticket or to look at, you know, candidates based on merit and not necessarily the letter that's after their name.

And that's, you know, that's a conversation that we need to have, and we also need to be aware that, as, you know, as somebody who's seeking election to lead the party this year, that's going into it.

It seems like it's far away, but redistricting is just a handful of years away, and that's a huge role that a party chair coming in right now will need to start preparing for.

Jason Perry: Republican side, Rob Axson running for reelection, and Phil Lyman running for the party chair also.

Mike McKell: Yeah, and I think it's an interesting race, and I think it's going to be a close race.

I look at the--you know, I've been pretty critical of Phil Lyman out in the public, but I will say that Phil has ran a very successful campaign.

He ran a campaign that was better than I would have expected.

I think logistics and on the ground, I think he did a pretty good job.

I think it's gonna be a closer race than people expect.

I think the last couple of years there's been a lot of contention in the Republican Party, and I think that's been a difficult task for Rob Axson as the chair to deal with that.

I think we had a lot of struggles during the-- our caucuses.

I think the presidential preference vote was, you know, 9% turnout.

I think that was difficult, and you know, ultimately I don't know where it's gonna break out.

If I had to handicap it today, a lot of these delegates are the same.

These are the same delegates that voted for Phil Lyman, 68% in the convention, and if I'm just looking at the numbers and the support that Phil Lyman received in the convention, I think it's gonna be a tough race for Rob Axson to overcome.

I think there's a lot of support for Phil out there, and, you know, you've got a race for kind of the party.

I look at somebody like Phil, I think he's gonna--I, as a Republican, I hope that we can be a big tent, I hope we can draw a lot of folks in.

I think he's gonna campaign to a different--to an isolated wing of the party, to a smaller wing of the party, and ultimately I think having more Republicans involved is better, but I think it's gonna be an interesting race.

Jason Perry: As a student of political science too, Jay, it's interesting, because some of these issues that are sort of within the Republican Party, including something like SB54, that may be a prime issue again.

Jay Evensen: Well, Phil Lyman's been very outspoken about wanting to get rid of this-- SB54 is the two track system of getting on the ballot, so you can win through the delegate vote at the convention or you can get enough signatures on a petition to get on the ballot.

And a lot of party faithful and people who really strongly believe in the caucus convention system do not like this idea of getting on through a petition.

But that came about as a compromise several years ago because of an effort called Count My Vote which tried to get an initiative on the ballot and looked as if they were going to be successful in order to just do away with the caucus convention system.

So, if Phil Lyman gets his way, it'll be interesting to see if that effort starts anew and changes things drastically.

Jason Perry: One more thing on this too, because the Utah United Party and the Forward parties, Representative, we can talk about this for just a moment, because these two groups are going to be merging and Michelle Quist is looking like she is likely to be the head of that third party.

Jennifer Dailey-Provost: Well, I think it's really interesting.

And, you know, I think it's really also indicative of the fact that in the last decade people are increasingly feeling disenfranchised from, you know, from their party as rhetoric reaches levels that, you know, we've not seen in, you know, in our lifetimes.

There is always--there will always be people who don't feel like they align with one party or another, and the sentiment that if you were to vote for a third party that you're, you know, you're wasting your vote.

And I think that the goal of Michelle Quist and all of the, you know, the folks that really just want to establish a different option, that's a conversation that they're gonna have to work hard to overcome.

You know, while they--while I think that they wanna just offer candidates who are more moderate, and I certainly applaud that, I wish we had a lot more moderate people in the--in government, overcoming that sentiment that, you know, if you don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican that your vote is wasted is going to be, I think it's going to have to be central to their platform and their work.

Jay Evensen: Got to start winning some races though.

If they did, it'd be very interesting to see how they change.

Mike McKell: That's what I was gonna say to Jay's point.

They've got to win races.

I know this last election cycle there was a lot of talk about these polls where they were gonna beat Todd Weiler, Senator Weiler, they were gonna beat Senator Harper, and they weren't even close.

And we've seen this effort before.

I remember Senator Bennett's son got really involved, and these efforts in the past, they've mostly fizzled out.

And I completely agree with Jay, to really be relevant, they're gonna have to win some races, and they haven't shown an ability to do that thus far.

Jason Perry: Let's get into some other interesting polling questions, I'll start with you on this one, because we did this poll with the Deseret News.

We're talking about--let's talk about Canada and Greenland for a minute, okay?

Jason Perry: So, this is-- Mike McKell: Really?

Jason Perry: Yeah, we're gonna talk about it.

The results are interesting.

Should--do Utahns support or oppose Canada becoming the 51st state?

Wow, 68% oppose, 32% support.

Jay Evensen: Yeah, it's interesting, because you break that down by party, and I--and it's more--over 50% of Republicans as well who oppose that.

So, it's interesting, and then we asked another question about whether we should pressure Canada, and it was an even--I think it was an even higher percentage that opposed that.

Jason Perry: So, it was interesting.

So, Senator, talk about this for a second.

It was like 68% said it would create unnecessary pressure on Canada, 84% said, this just of Utahns, the US should not apply pressure on Canada to become a state.

It seems like Utah is pretty good on this one.

Mike McKell: Let me just tell you, that 68% oppose, I am firmly in that, I'm firmly in that camp.

Canada is an incredible ally to the United States, and we need to treat them with respect, and we need to treat them as if they are an ally.

I'm certainly in that number, and I think this is just an issue that's unnecessary.

I think it's an unnecessary distraction right now, and we need to find ways to make North America the strongest, you know, the, the strongest spot on the globe.

And I think working with Mexico, working with Canada is something we should be doing.

So, just chalk me up for a firm member of that 68%.

Jason Perry: Okay, well, is it the same thing on Greenland?

Because it was 42% support, 58% opposed becoming a territory of the US.

Just quickly on this one.

Jennifer Dailey-Provost: Yeah, I think that this is such an interesting distraction from really important things that we need to deal with in the world, and I still can't really understand why we're having this conversation.

I've been to Iceland, I've never been to Greenland, but I've read about Greenland, and I don't know that that would be necessarily be in our best economic interest.

But yeah, I just can't help but feel like it's probably a distraction from other things.

Jason Perry: We'll leave that one for now then, because I do want to get to something that's going to come up this summer with a lot of history and it's gonna become, you know, controversial yet again.

I want to talk about public lands, Jay.

Will you give us a little bit of a primer of what might be coming?

Because the Trump administration is reconsider--is considering shrinking six national monuments, and once again we're talking about Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.

We're going to hear a lot about that this summer.

Talk about it, please.

Jay Evensen: Yes, and this is kind of becoming a yo-yo sort of thing.

The Trump administration shrunk those monuments in Trump's first term.

President Biden came in and he expanded them again.

And now President Trump is talking about making them smaller.

All this to me says we need to change the way we do this.

And this goes back to the Antiquities Act of 1906 when Theodore Roosevelt was president, and there were-- there was a problem of people stealing artifacts from ancient Native American sites and that type of thing.

So, the act gives the president the power to create a monument without needing Congress to agree.

And that has worked more or less for over 100 years, but I think now we're seeing how that can be taken advantage of.

And there are some efforts in Congress to say, oh, if the president makes that kind of a declaration, Congress has to act within a certain amount of time to ratify that, otherwise it will go away.

I think you're gonna see more momentum for that type of thing.

We just can't keep expanding and contracting our national monuments.

Jason Perry: Senator, talk about what that means as it expands and contracts.

There's economic interests, there's the state interests, and our legislature has weighed in on this in the past.

Mike McKell: And we need consistency as a state, and I liked the fact that Jay talked about it going back to 1906, the Antiquities Act.

I think it's important to recognize why we have the Antiquities Act, and it was to protect antiquities.

And I think there have been some pretty obvious abuses of the Antiquities Act for political purposes.

I remember when the Grand Staircase was designated--a candidate for president who is an incumbent dedicated that monument from the Grand Canyon on the opposite side in Arizona to get--to gain support in Arizona.

It was inappropriate, but we need consistency not only for local communities, state, but industry.

We have resources that we need.

There are resources that we need to extract here in the United States of America.

We can't rely on all of--all these foreign countries to bring in those resources.

I think it's a national security issue, so it needs to be resolved.

And unfortunately when you meet with folks in Congress on the East Coast, I don't think they realize the gravity of the issue.

And I appreciate our congressional delegation, they constantly talk about it.

Jason Perry: I'm so sad that this is gonna have to be the last comment-- it goes too quickly, I know.

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 season.

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.

♪♪♪