State Rep. Steve Urquhart's announcement this week that he is dropping his challenge to U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch is no big surprise.
The surprise would have been if Urquhart, R-St. George, had actually gone through with it all the way to at least the state GOP convention next spring.
Hatch, R-Utah, has the immense power of the incumbency.
He has $1.9 million in cash in his campaign account and could probably raise three times that.
Urquhart had $3,600 in his account.
As expected, rumors are flying as to exactly why Urquhart got out of the race. (The candidate filing deadline is not until March, so any number of Republicans could still file against Hatch.)
One rumor says that GOP leaders talked to Urquhart, explained he couldn't win, that his criticism of Hatch (he is too old, lacks energy, is not focused on Utah issues and doesn't take care of his constituency) will only serve to embarrass Hatch and give the ultimate Democratic opponent more ammunition against Hatch — who will probably win anyway.
One rumor is that influential Republicans will help Urquhart not only win re-election to his St. George district (he's a popular guy, as best as I can tell, the district is heavily Republican and Urquhart should hold it easily with or without state GOP help), but will help him win the speakership in a few years as current Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, moves on.
I have to laugh at the last promise — if, indeed, it was made.
I've watched legislative leadership elections for 25 years and there is no way to figure them out. Rarely do candidates for Senate president or House speaker really know where they stand with their party colleagues.
There are great stories about leadership races. Here are a few:
One House GOP representative thought he had the race locked up. I would check with him each week as the leadership election neared (they are most often held right after the general legislative elections — first Tuesday in November, even-numbered years).
He needed something like 28 votes (a majority of the House GOP caucus). He was a good politician as well as a good guy and I believed he was being straight with me. He started out with something like 41 votes. Each week the number dwindled a bit. At one point he told me that several veteran House members — in safe seats and sure of re-election — wanted promises from him that they could be chairman of this or that bill or budget committee. (Speakers and their top lieutenants pick the chairmen and vice chairmen.chairs and vice chairs.)
I remember he told me: "I wouldn't make the deals, it wouldn't be right to trade votes like that."
There were two doors to the old GOP caucus room just off the House Chambers. As this guy stood at one door the evening of the leadership votes (always held in closed caucuses with secret ballots), he thought he still had two or three votes to spare to win. But then he saw, down at the other door, his main speakership challenger talking to some of the GOP representatives who wanted certain chairmanships. "I knew I was in trouble." He lost by several votes.
Two years later he ran for speaker again — the current speaker retiring from the House. Again, he didn't make any chairmanship promises. He won with about 29 votes, a few more than a majority. But so many of his colleagues later told him that they voted for him, he said: "I had to write 35 thank-you notes for 29 votes."
Several years ago then-Speaker Marty Stephens was considering running for an unprecedented third, two-year term as speaker. Stephens was planning on running for governor in 2004 and running from the speakership would add clout to that candidacy. But there had never been a three-term speaker and Stephens wondered if he could win that leadership post again. A group of his GOP colleagues in the House signed a letter saying he should run for speaker again — a number that was several more than a majority of the caucus. Even accounting for retirements and possible re-election losses, Stephens still counted a clear majority.
So he ran.
And the first ballot was a tie, a second ballot Stephens won by one vote.
In short, any promise of help by non-GOP House members means nothing in a leadership race — they don't have a vote and the votes are secret, so GOP big shots have no way of extracting punishment from an errant House member. Who crossed the bigshots and voted for the "wrong" guy?
Even promises made to your face by a fellow GOP House colleague mean little — for some say they will vote for you and then vote for the other guy, as history clearly shows.
Who knows if Urquhart's brief challenge to Hatch helped or hurt him within the general Utah Republican Party or with his own legislators (many of whom had already publicly supported his challenge.).
It may end up as a brief shot across Hatch's huge dreadnought's bow. Or a sign of real problems for Hatch within the ever-conservative-growing Utah GOP.
Deseret Morning News political editor Bob Bernick Jr. may be reached by e-mail at bbjr@desnews.com