Every week during Utah’s legislative session, The Salt Lake Tribune’s political reporters and columnists will chat about the hottest topics of the week. The following is a lightly edited transcript of their conversation.
Benjamin Wood (education reporter): Welcome to this week’s Trib Caucus slack chat, which will be convening weekly during the 2018 legislative session. But since that’s still days away, let’s talk about November’s election.
A Wisconsin State Senate seat flipped blue this week in a special election, adding to speculation that a Democrat wave is on its way to capsize the SS America.
Wisconsin is a little way’s away from Utah, but if there’s a national wave, does it reach the Intermountain West? @Gehrke, you covered the recount for 2016’s LaVar Christensen race (5-vote win, yes?) which seems like the likeliest pickup for Utah democrats. Should Utah Republicans be laying sandbags?
Michell Quist (editorial writer): Utah Republicans should always be laying sandbags. Just ask Eric Cantor.
Robert Gehrke (political columnist): I think there’s no question. If you look at the enthusiasm we’ve seen from voters — thousands turning out to a woman’s rally and a public lands rally — there is something building. And if you are winning seats by a small handful of votes, that is bound to make a difference.
Wood: @MQuist maybe the better question is how encouraged should Utah Democrats be? Are we seeing a lot of candidate filings?
Gehrke: Wisconsin was just the latest. Democrats have picked up 34!! seats in special elections since the Trump election.
Quist: But still, look at that map!
Wood: Yeah, lots of red on that map still.
Taylor Anderson (government reporter): But is it from a different shade of red in Utah or do Democrats come from out of nowhere and win seats outside the valley here?
Gehrke: That is the better question, probably. Politics is local and candidates matter. Democrats have lost some races they probably should have won in the past and right now their campaign infrastructure is lacking.
Wood: Lots of rhetorical questions here guys. Someone take a stand!
Lee Davidson (government reporter): Republicans don’t have much to worry about in Utah. As Rep. Brian King said recently in a mocking complaint, “I’m not the minority leader of the Utah House. I’m the super-minority leader.” Unfortunately, that’s the opposite of bringing the powers of superman.
Gehrke: I think if you look at some of the swing districts in Cottonwood Heights and West Valley, in particular, they SHOULD be primed for Dem pickups.
Wood: Someone, maybe @LeeDavidson, remind me, are Utah Republicans currently veto-proof in the Utah House and Senate?
Quist: I agree with @LeeDavidson. It won’t be a Dem wave in Utah. There just aren’t the numbers.
Wood: What’s one step down from a wave? A high tide? A heavy rain?
Gehrke: Oh, Lee is right. Dems will not be taking the majority. It won’t be a repeat of the Virginia election. But I would say gains as high as seven in the House would be possible. That’s significant.
Anderson: Maybe some seats in Salt Lake County and along the Front but not in south/east.
Wood: Seven seats would be significant. that would put House Dems in the 20s, yes? Out of...seriously someone help me with the numbers
Quist: You want NUMBERS? Come on Ben. We might see a shift to the middle-conservative viewpoint. But the Dem roster in Utah isn’t deep enough.
Wood: I WANT NUMBERS!
Anderson: Makeup last session in the House is 62-13. 24-5 in the Senate.
Wood: @Gehrke is there a year in recent memory where we saw a 7-seat swing in the Utah House for comparison
Davidson: Districts in WVC and Cottonwood Heights are virtually the only ones remotely competitive in Utah. Unfortunately, for Dems, Democrat Kathie Allen may have shot herself in foot yesterday in the Cottonwood Heights race by taking a slap at the religion of her opponent, Sen. Brian Zender. Doesn’t play well in Utah where you can’t throw a rock in any direction without hitting two churches.
Wood: So by @Gehrke’s estimate that would make it ~20 Dems and ~55 GOP in the House? The Legislature and the Governor aren’t the best of friends right now does a few extra Dem seats change that dynamic at all?
Gehrke: I believe in 2008 Dems made some substantial gains. I think it was five seats then, including knocking off Greg Curtis.
Quist: If 7 Dems win in Utah I think that would be a wave. I don’t think it will happen.
We may see a wave of women candidates, and I hope women Republican candidates. The Utah GOP membership of women in office is embarrassing.
Wood: @MQuist what would the name of that wave be?
Quist: Wave of the Women???
Women Walk to the Capitol??
Ugh, these are awful.
Wood: That’s why I asked you to name it 🙂
Gehrke: We’ll call it the Tsu-mommy.
Quist: Yes @Gehrke!!
Wood: Zing!
Davidson: Fun stat: the last time Dems had a majority in Utah Senate was 1977 - same year that elderly Orrin Hatch started serving. The last time they had a majority in Utah House was 1965. The red tide has been rolling a long time here....
Wood: It is legitimately difficult for my young brain to even contemplate Dem control of a Utah legislative body.
Ok, let’s move away from how many seats. How does this mini-wave or women’s wave affect the other issues on the November 2018 ballot? I’m thinking our 6 (so far) initiatives.
Quist: I think the Legislature will try to make some changes to take the wind out of the initiatives, but won’t succeed in the long run. I don’t see any candidates affecting the success of the initiatives.
Wood: Which one’s specifically? I don’t imagine the Leg leading out on medical marijuana this year. Or taking their own districting ability away (or lessening it).
Gehrke: I think they fuel each other. I think anti-Trump progressives will be turning out anyway. The initiatives give them something to turn out for and I think that, in turn, boosts the Dem candidates. The question, in my mind, is how far that filters down to the unaffiliated voters.
Quist: I think they’ll try to lower signature thresholds in elections and perhaps fix the plurality problem.
I think they’ll do a little more on marijuana but still won’t approve medicinal, so won’t affect the initiative.
Wood: (Topic for another day: is plurality really a “problem”?)
Quist: I think they’ll tout education funding every day of the session to combat Our Schools Now.
Davidson: Leg leaders say they will try to short-circuit Our Schools Now and the Medicaid initiative with a variety of tax reform and using the windfall from federal tax reform. They also say they will do essentially nothing on medical marijuana.
If the Tsu-mommy, Trump-hating Republicans (there are some) and the Dems roll, I think Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams has a real shot at beating Mia Love. Her district is the only remotely competitive congressional district here.
Wood: YOU’RE JUMPING AHEAD LEE!
Gehrke: Lee is right about Love. I think the factor that could hold back any Dem wave in Utah, however, is Mitt Romney.
Davidson: GOP is acting like Democrats a bit lately, I supposed because someone in the state needs to. For example, trying to help the homeless in Operation Rio Grande. Brian King says he grabbed House Speaker Hughes by the arm and complained, “That’s my sandbox. Why are you playing in it?
Wood: @LeeDavidson those two have such a bromance. Their tete-a-tete hosting Doug Wright was adorable.
Wood: So @MQuist maybe some steps to deflate marijuana, Count My Vote, and Our Schools Now. But a leftish wave still helps redistricting, no?
Quist: I think the Supreme Court case will affect the redistricting initiative, so it’s hard to say on that one just yet.
Wood: Ooooooh, yeah. That could be huge
Quist: Yup.
Anderson: How so? If they rule partisan gerry unconstitutional then there’s less need for it?
Quist: Supreme Court could say political gerrymandering is OK. Or it could say it isn’t.
It’s also hard to point to Utah as having gerrymandering at all. In Wisconsin, there are more registered Dems and the Repubs won the Senate and House. That’s just not the case here. Again, numbers.
Gehrke: The AP study found that the boundaries in Utah have given Republicans, I believe, an extra 3.5 seats. Not a ton, but Utah has the 17th highest “efficiency gap” in the nation. That means the 17th highest number of voters whose votes don’t count.
Quist: I saw that, using the formula from Wisconsin, that they didn’t focus on during the Supreme Court argument. But it’s still a hard case to make because Republicans have such a huge majority.
Gehrke: I think I’m with Taylor. The initiative doesn’t hinge on whether political gerrymandering is constitutional. It’s whether we want it in Utah.
Wood: Good point. Even if SCOTUS says gerrymandering is bad, the initiative’s supporters will still want the 3rd-party drafting. So maybe SCOTUS is bigger nationally, but Utahns still need to decide who draws the maps?
Quist: But the entire commission is advisory!!! No teeth.
Wood: Would lawmakers really reject the maps of a voter-created commission?
Davidson: Yes, they would reject maps in a heartbeat if they don’t like them.
Quist: Well, it would be hard, political suicide, some would say. But they’ve done stuff like that before and they’re still alive. The Legislature will always decide who draws the maps until we change the Constitution.
Anderson: I think @MQuist is right that it takes some steam out if Supreme Court rules partisan gerry unconstitutional. Voters are already having a tough time understanding that initiative. They might think the case is closed if court rules that way.
Quist: To @TAnderson’s point, the fact that there are 6 initiatives will doom most of them.
Gehrke: The My Voice Counts initiative will not make it onto the ballot. I’m not sure the Medicaid expansion one will either.
Quist: My Voice Counts initiative won’t make it out of clipboards at convention.
Wood: Zing!
Does the number of initiatives doom them though? Five of the 6 have a sort of moderate-bent. I did a HIGHLY unscientific twitter poll and people said they were going to vote for most or all of them (it was before the bizarro-CMV started)
Quist: @BWood But your twitter followers are hyper-involved. That’s the nature of Twitter. I think it’ll be like when there are multiple constitutional amendments, people will just vote no on all of them.
Wood: It just seems to me that you’re likely to either support all of the main five, or oppose all of them. Also, shoutout to my twitter followers. Best people in the world!
Quist: Which one are you excluding, Medicaid? (Besides My Voice Counts or whatever it is.)
Wood: Excluding My Voice Counts
Quist: I thought that one brought us to 7.
Anderson: We’re at six until the next one comes along
Wood: Lol, the fact that we literally can’t keep track of how many there are...
Quist: Right????? That’s the problem. And we’re “in the news.”
Gehrke: Isn’t it great that the people trying to save the convention are out trying to round up signatures to get on the ballot though? Mmmmm ... delicious irony.
Wood: Ok, Mia Love/Ben McAdams time. Predictions, go!
Davidson: With the help of the Haitian vote, Love wins a close race. McAdams carries votes from those few other (expletive deleted) countries that Trump dislikes.
Anderson: There are a lot of Trump high-wires for Love to walk before that election, but obviously McAdams already has a chance in the race.
Wood: Love has definitely been in a position to capitalize on some recent headlines.
Gehrke: My thoughts on Love-McAdams ... When I thought Orrin was going to run again, I thought McAdams had a really good shot at taking that one. The Blue Wave and initiative support that we mentioned would spike the moderate-Republican and Democratic turnout and the general dislike for Hatch would depress GOP turnout. Now that Hatch is out and Romney is in, the calculus changes.
Wood: Is Romney the anti-wave? The Reef!
Gehrke: I think he is. I think he gives Republicans someone to go vote for. If it was Hatch, it would have been easier to stay home.
Quist: Romney to the rescue (of Republicans) again.
Davidson: Romney running might help Democrats in down-ticket races. People may not be excited to vote in the Senate race figuring (correctly) that Romney will win easily. It could help initiatives if their true-believer supporters vote, and others simply skip.
Wood: @MQuist what say you to @LeeDavidson’s theory? Romney is an already-won so why bother voting?
Gehrke: That’s my gut. If I could argue against myself here, I’m not sure the data bears that out. If memory serves, I’m not sure that his run in 2012 really helped Republicans down-ticket, particularly in the Matheson-Love race.
Wood: Good point. Last time Romney was on the ballot in Utah, A Democrat won CD4
Quist: But he wasn’t a Utahn then.
Wood: Pre-Twitter official
Anderson: I haven’t been in Utah long, but I don’t see the Romney as a motivating factor that blocks a D wave theory panning out.
Quist: It depends on who his opponent will be Jenny Wilson?
Wood: I mean, it’s essentially guaranteed to be Jenny Wilson, no?
Quist: She does have people running against her. (But yes.)
Gehrke: I’m with Michelle on this one, actually. He was a presidential candidate in 2012 and made, what, two or three trips to Utah. As a Senate candidate, he will be in a lot more places and, if Love is smart, she won’t leave his side. That proximity makes it easier to ride those coattails.
Quist: I think Love is smart. Dave Hansen certainly is.
Wood: I think we need to start winding this up. Does anyone care about State School Board elections? (In regards to this conversation, obvi, as the school board is a very important body and one of the *most* *important* *beats* at this newspaper).
Gehrke: Ben, why don’t you tell us about state school board elections. 😜
Wood: Well, since you asked... 🙂
Quist: I’m interested to see what the appellate court says about partisan school board elections in Utah.
Wood: I wanted to ask you about that decision @MQuist. Does the lower court’s ruling hold water in your opinion?
Quist: Actually, I haven’t read it yet, so probably shouldn’t opine.
Wood: I only bring up school board because it was *supposed* to be partisan this year, which would have been wavy. But now it’s nonpartisan again. So...any thoughts?
Davidson: Dems care about partisan school board elections. They will fight any move for them in the Leg -- as if it matters with their small numbers.
Quist: I agree they’ll fight tooth and nail. I think it’s fine that it’s non-partisan while the case finishes up - it kind of gives the Dems a small win in a very depressing (for them) political environment.
Wood: Interestingly, to me anyway, the current school board is the most Democratic of any I’ve covered in the ~7 years I’ve been on this beat.
Gehrke: I think the partisan school board races would have the biggest impact on the state school board, not so much on the local boards ... am I wrong about that, Ben?
Wood: Correct. There was some talk about making them ALL partisan but it died pretty quick. Local district boards will likely stay nonpartisan.
Davidson: I was just looking a donations by Utah House members. I noticed some Dem contributions to “nonpartisan” city council members who won in WVC for example. I think they won because the GOP folk there didn’t know they were Democrats at heart...
Wood: But, going full circle, in a year of a potential wave election, is a secret Democrat in a nonpartisan race still the party’s bread-and-butter?
Gehrke: Well, I think the Democrats’ fear is well-founded, that if there’s an R after a candidate’s name, that candidate is more likely to win, even in a wave year.
Wood: Final question: Who is the next Utah House speaker? Brad Wilson is the heir apparent, no? Even with a couple (potential) Dem pickups in the house?
Anderson: I’m too new to say - let’s ask Gehrke’s magic 8-ball
Wood: “Reply hazy try again”
Quist: If Becky isn’t in leadership I’m going to cry. Excuse me — Rep. Edwards.
Wood: Tsu-mommy?
Quist: Because that’s what women do. They cry.
Wood: [comment withheld]
Do we know for a fact she’s running again?
Quist: I guess we don’t know for sure. There won’t be leadership shake-ups at the beginning of the session?
Wood: Not until session 2019
Update: Rep. Becky Edwards, R-North Salt Lake, is NOT running for re-election. Sorry @MQuist
Gehrke: Wilson is likely the guy. Francis Gibson is the other contender. It’s possible if there are some GOP losses in SLCo and maybe up north Gibson could have a shot. But it seems unlikely.
Over on the Senate side, I think it’s going to be Stuart Adams and Curt Bramble, and Adams is likely to be the next Senate president.
Wood: That fascinates me, if I can go down a tangent. Wilson is the loosener of liquor laws, Adams is the tightener.
Quist: Senate — Henderson!! If they’re smart.
Wood: “If they’re smart” [comment withheld]
Quist: I’m an opinion writer....
Wood: Yeah, you don’t have to withhold anything.
Gehrke: It was crazy to me that she lost her last leadership race. It speaks to the mentality in the GOP Senate caucus.
Anderson: Bramble seems to wants it, but that could be too divisive given his sponsorship of SB54.
Wood: Bramble has a lot of pull in the chamber though. And SB54 squabbling might be done and dead in November
Anderson: Could be another topic in itself
Wood: #truth
Gehrke: SB54 isn’t as unpopular in the Senate as it is in the House. I don’t think it’s a liability.
Wood: Ok guys, final comments!
Gehrke: I think Bramble’s biggest liability is that he’s Curt Bramble. Also probably his greatest asset.
Quist: Long live 2018!
