The Legislature conducted a significant special session on Tuesday night. They continued the fight against the congressional map imposed upon them by Judge Gibson and repealed a public unions bill that was likely to be jettisoned by a successful referendum effort. These important political activities were an effort to retake lost ground and require comment from your favorite columnists.
In the special session, the Legislature pushed back the filing deadline for congressional candidates (and no other offices) from January to March. Why this maneuver? What will this mean in the larger redistricting battle and for other candidates on the ballot?
Cowley: Bifurcating filing deadlines will be confusing for clerks and candidates but buys time for the higher court to rule while not running afoul of election deadlines. Your humble authors have been discussing this alternative for months. Though not directly involved, we appreciate the Legislature heeding our wisdom, at least in part.
Changing the requirement from 7,000 signatures gathered within a district to 7,000 gathered anywhere statewide is intended to accommodate the possibility of shifting district boundaries, but in practice, it creates the unintended consequence that candidates will be more likely to ignore rural Utah and focus costly signature-gathering efforts in populous areas along the Wasatch Front.
Pignanelli: “Redistricting has been highly contentious throughout American history … and has fostered cynicism and acrimony between the parties.” — Bipartisan Policy Center
The renowned statistician Nate Silver recently analyzed all the possible changes to the congressional maps (i.e. Texas, California, North Carolina, etc.) and concluded that the GOP retains the House majority in the November elections by half of a seat. Such predictions explain the intensity from national and local Republicans in this matter. They are not going to give one to the Democrats without a fight.
The 45-day legislative session is the most critical time every year for Utah’s public policies. Consequently, part-time lawmakers should not be burdened with challengers until after adjournment. All the deadlines should be in March.
A new survey from the Sutherland Institute shows Utahns overwhelmingly want elected officials to determine election map boundaries, with a majority of respondents additionally supporting some type of independent advisory committee to oversee that effort. Are the Legislature’s actions reflective of voter sentiments?
Cowley: The preference of voters reflected in this survey is precisely what the Legislature implemented when they altered the Better Boundaries initiative in 2018. They authorized an independent advisory commission that could make suggestions and offer insights to elected officials finalizing election maps. It was this action that special interest groups sued the state over, plunging Utah into this legal entanglement. After all this time, chaos, millions of dollars spent on attorney fees, political posturing and turf battles, it should be recognized that the Legislature got it right from the get-go.
Judge Gibson called the Legislature’s map “an extreme partisan outlier.” However, the map she picked is far more egregiously gerrymandered and actually promotes political extremism on both sides of the aisle, with a D+24 district and the other three being R+43, R+45 and R+55. This chasm of partisanship doesn’t promote competitiveness; it rewards candidates who pander to the fringes of their party.
Shoutout to my friend and political operative Taylor Morgan for his insight and commentary on Plaintiff Map 1.
Pignanelli: The methodologically sound poll by Y2 Analytics indicates 71% of Utahns want the accountability of elected officials when determining any boundaries. The survey finds that 85% of respondents who believe the Legislature has a role in the process also want the influence of a commission to assist in their deliberations. Only 8% support a judge drawing boundaries.
The common sense of Utahns is evident in this information and should not be ignored by officials of either party … or branch of government.
(Note: We have a professional relationship with Y2 Analytics and we’re proud of it.)
What did the Legislature gain by repealing the referred union bill?
Cowley: Virtually nothing. Some legislators may think that repeal alone will save them from a tough reelection, but that ship has sailed. First, Amendment D and the initiative to repeal Better Boundaries will likely be on the ballot, which could drive turnout for Democrats. Moreover, unions will spin the narrative that the Legislature capitulated after organized labor gathered an impressive number of signatures and use this momentum to influence swing legislative races. Without getting any meaningful concessions from unions in this “compromise,” it just makes unions a more formidable adversary in the future.
We also opined on the likelihood of repeal back in June, so let’s chalk that up to two wins for our political crystal ball.
Pignanelli: Renae, perhaps overabundantly, reminds readers of our predictions on these matters. But I will join the fun. We also stated that the union bill was problematic. There was no recent strike or unpopular action by public employees and therefore, any voter momentum was minimal. Conversely, firefighters, police officers and schoolteachers are popular in the community, as evidenced by the referendum results. Thus, lawmakers decided that it was not worth picking a fight that no one wanted. This proves the old axiom: Discretion is the better part of valor.