If you caught a time machine and roared into the 2008 Utah Legislature, or met with the congressional delegation or most city and town councils that year, you'd be struck by one clear fact:
While the faces may be different, in 10 years most of them will still be white and male. The pins in the politicians' lapels will be elephants. The telltale garment lines under their starched white shirts will mark them as faithful members of the LDS Church."Not much will change" in Utah's political makeup over the next decade, predicts Brigham Young University political scientist David Magleby. It's an assessment agreed with by a half dozen political experts interviewed by the Deseret News.
In fact, you may actually see some of the same faces in the elected Class of '08 - albeit a bit older and more wrinkled, Magleby believes.
"Orrin Hatch will be in the U.S. Senate as long as he wants to. (In 2008, Hatch will be 74 years old, not ancient by the current standards of the Senate.) Congressmen Jim Hansen and Chris Cannon, the same thing," said Magleby, who is writing a book about recent Utah and Mountain West politics and what's just over the horizon in the next century.
Of course, there will be some changes.
The Wasatch Front and Park City will become more urban and urbane.
Perhaps a few more minorities and women will be elected to the Utah House or Senate.
And Utah, if predictions hold true, will gain a fourth U.S. House seat after the 2000 Census.
"But Utah (and its elected officials) will remain overwhelmingly white, Republican and LDS," said Magleby. "At least into the near future."
And, actually, 10 years is not such a long time, politically speaking.
Just look at the past 10 years and see what has changed.
In 1988, GOP Gov. Norm Bangerter was fighting for his political life against popular Democrat Ted Wilson. A citizen-led tax protest movement was sweeping the state. It looked bad for the majority Republicans up and down the ticket.
Yet when the election was over, Bangerter was still governor, the Legislature was still overwhelmingly Republican, and Democrats held only one of Utah's U.S. House seats. The big change that year was that Merrill Cook had left the Republican Party to become an independent.
Now Cook is a Republican again and sitting in the U.S. House.
In Utah, it seems that the more some things change, the more they return to some kind of natural political order.
Will Democrats stay down?
Todd Taylor, a student of Utah politics in the 1980s and 1990s, reluctantly agrees with Magleby. Taylor is the executive director of the Utah Democratic Party. He's managed legislative campaigns, worked on strategy and planned a comeback for Democrats time and again.
"Will there be some change by 2008? In politics, sometimes a week is as good as a year. Who can tell what will happen in a decade? But overall, I don't see much change," said Taylor.
Both Magleby and Taylor, of course, are talking macro-politics. Certainly, some faces will come and go. Bright political newcomers will emerge, some will fall quickly by the wayside. Other sleepers - perhaps minor officeholders for years - will surface seemingly out of nowhere to win a high-profile seat.
If Utah's economy stays strong, voters will be happy and vote for incumbents - mostly Republicans. But even if the economy falters and taxes are raised - as was the case in 1988 - it will clearly take a big electorate shake-up to change the main political flow.
"What change there could be, I think, will be in our favor," said Taylor, whose job requires a certain amount of optimism. "The state, especially the Wasatch Front, is becoming more urban. And more urban usually means more Democratic."
Since the early 1980s, polls by Deseret News pollster Dan Jones show the state's political makeup has remained relatively constant:
- 40-44 percent say they are Republicans
- 20-22 percent say they are Democrats
- the rest are independents or minor party members.
So Democrats have quite a way to go before they come close to being the majority party again.
They last enjoyed that distinction in the early 1970s. But like much of the rest of the West, the late 1970s and early 1980s saw a fundamental shift - sealed when many Utahns embraced former President Ronald Reagan's conservatism.
Democrats lost their lone U.S. Senate seat in 1976. They lost control of the Utah House in 1976, control of the Senate in 1978. They lost the governorship in 1984. They haven't held a U.S. Senate seat, control in either body of the Legislature or the governorship since.
Taylor believes President Clinton's "New Democrat" is taking hold in America. While that may be good news nationally, Clinton's continued unpopularity in Utah - especially after recent sex scandals, not to mention creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument 18 - means some other national Democratic figure will have to sell New Democrats here. And with Vice President Al Gore's campaign finance problems, it probably won't be Gore either, said Taylor.
2000 is a critical year
"The critical date for us is not 2008. It is 2000. That decides redistricting."
After the 2000 Census, new district lines will be drawn for the 75 Utah House and 29 Senate districts. And, whether Utah gets a fourth U.S. House seat or not - and Taylor is not as sure as others that it will - all U.S. House district lines will be redrawn. The Legislature draws the lines, the governor signs or vetoes the redistricting bill.
"But - having gone through the 1991 redistricting - I don't see even a lot of change (in the makeup of the Legislature or congressional delegation) there. We (Democrats) weren't killed by redistricting. After some examination, I'm convinced we were killed in 1992, 1994 and 1996 by the multi-millionaire Republican candidates," said Taylor.
Democrats were completely outspent by Joe Cannon, Bob Bennett, Enid Greene, Merrill Cook and Chris Cannon in those election years.
The Democratic bright spots, said Taylor, are Salt Lake, Summit and Weber counties.
State demographers predict rapid and continued growth along the Wasatch Front and Summit and Wasatch counties over the next 10 years.
"The county (Salt Lake) is basically 48 percent Democratic, 52 percent Republican in its voting. And I think we'll swing back and take some Democratic seats" in county offices and in state House and Senate seats located in the county, Taylor said. "Every election in the county - 2nd Congressional District on down - is up for grabs if we have good candidates. If there is political change in the county, I think it goes our way."
But while it's nice to control a county commission or creep up toward a majority in the Utah House or Senate, the big prizes - U.S. Senate, governorship and U.S. House - seem almost unreachable for Democrats in Utah.
"We can win a statewide race (besides Attorney General Jan Graham's office)," said Taylor. "But timing has to be right, and we have to have charismatic, well-funded candidates. I look to Bill Orton, Steve Snow, Doug Anderson (all white moderate Mormons) to be (candidates) at some time."
But 1998 may not be that year. Democrats are having a hard time finding someone to run against Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. If they don't, it would be the first time since 1914, when U.S. senators were first popularly elected, that Democrats didn't field a candidate in a U.S. Senate race in Utah.
There is one other aspect of Utah's political crystal ball that's unclear, said Taylor.
"While I don't anticipate it, a run for the presidency, even the vice presidency, by Orrin Hatch or Mike Leavitt could really be an opening for us in down-ticket races. Such a big race draws so much money out of a state."
Will minorities help?
Taylor also has small hopes that minorities can help Democratic candidates here.
Utah is one of the whitest states in the nation. While the number of minorities, especially the Hispanic community, is growing, so are the number of whites. Utah's population will grow, but by far most of that growth comes through births, not immigration.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that by 2008, Hispanics will make up about 7 percent of the total Utah population. The bureau does not break down those projections further than by county. But still, 7 percent or 8 percent of Salt Lake County's population being Hispanic doesn't ensure a viable political bloc for that ethnic group.
One has to get down to the size of Utah House districts or Salt Lake City Council districts - and have a significant number of Hispanics in those districts - before a political force can be accumulated.
State Sen. Pete Suazo, D-Salt Lake, was first elected to the Utah House in 1992, to the state Senate in 1996. Suazo said Hispanics are a growing political force, especially in Salt Lake neighborhoods of Rose Park and Glendale.
But state legislative researchers who worked on the 1991 redistricting plans and are already collecting preliminary data for the 2001 redistricting say there are so few minorities in the state that no matter where they live, they won't make up more than 50 percent of any state House or Senate district. Fifty percent is the historical and legal threshold for the forming of so-called "minority districts."
That doesn't mean that minorities, especially vocal minorities, won't have any political impact. And the smaller a state House or city council district is geographically, the greater the impact.
For example, Salt Lake City has seven City Council districts. There are eight state House districts that cover parts of the city, six whose boundaries are completely within city limits.
Suazo, one of two Hispanics (both Democrats) in the Legislature, sees minority influence in Salt Lake City politics growing considerably over the next decade.
"I can say for certainty that the number of Hispanics in my area has grown greatly in the past three or four years. Not only people from Mexico but from South America also," Suazo said.
"Partly people are coming here because the economy in their homeland is not good, not like here. Some come because of the LDS missionaries and their (conversion) to the LDS faith.
"It's true some may not vote when they get here (because they do not yet have American citizenship). But that is changing and will change as they intermarry with U.S. citizens . . . and become citizens on their own.
"By 2008, Hispanics will be a political force, at least in some City Council seats - like on the west side of Salt Lake City. I think (Hispanics) could hold three (of seven) city districts. They will hold seats (in city councils) in Tooele, West Valley, Midvale and - yes - Park City," where recent media reports show a growing tension between poorer Hispanics and the traditionally wealthier white residents in the upscale, booming tourist town.
Suazo also believes the increasing numbers of Polynesians in Utah will have a political impact on the state.
A need for fundamental change?
When you're on top of the political world, do you worry about falling off?
Yes, a bit, admits Republican Party chairman Rob Bishop, a former speaker of the Utah House whose full-time job is teaching AP history at Box Elder High School. His part-time work is lobbying the Utah Legislature.
Bishop believes the faces of major officeholders will change over the next 10 years "but the basic conservatism of Utahns and those in the Mountain West won't."
The big change, he believes, will come in how the Republican and Democratic parties themselves operate.
If the parties don't become more involved in how candidates are elected, from fund raising to recruiting to education and election, then "they won't exist - not as we know them - there will be no need for parties."
Today, a non-wealthy candidate may need some party help to run for governor, U.S. Senate or House. But the wealthy first-time candidates, or the incumbents who command contributions from special-interest political action committees in-state and out, don't need the party much at all.
In fact, sometimes the party - with its ideological platforms or controlling special interests - is a hindrance in appealing to a broad range of Utahns.
Political parties, at their hearts, exist to get good candidates elected, believes Bishop. If they can't effectively weed out bad candidates and aren't a player in giving someone a victory the first week in November, what good are they? he asks.
Toward that end, Bishop and other GOP leaders will, over the next several years, make attempts to drastically change intraparty candidate nominations.
For now, the idea of party registration seems dead - although it could raise its head again at any time.
Campaign finance reform
Changing how candidates raise their money could have long-range impacts on who gets elected.
But while campaign reform is a hot topic in Washington, D.C., as Congress investigates Democrats' 1996 fund-raising, it isn't hitting home in Utah.
This state has some of the most lax campaign finance laws in the nation.
Candidates for state and local offices can raise as much money as they want, from whomever they want, and spend the money on whatever they wish. They can even give campaign funds to themselves, although they have to declare the money as income on their personal tax returns.
State candidates, and most local county and city candidates, too, have to disclose who contributes to their campaigns and how the money is spent. On a state level, political action committees that support or oppose candidates and political issue committees who support or oppose ballot propositions must register with the state and file financial disclosure forms. But PACs and PICs also can raise and spend money as they see fit.
While a number of campaign reform bills have been introduced in the Legislature in recent years - most trying to place some limit on political contributions - all have failed.
The Salt Lake City Council, in the wake of Mayor Deedee Corradini's troubles with soliciting more than $230,000 from prominent Utahns to keep her out of bankruptcy, is on the verge of adopting a voluntary campaign spending ordinance.
But it is doubtful that any campaign reform - outside of public financing of campaigns and strict spending limits imposed on those who accept public financing - will stop the huge rise in cost of campaigns.