October surprises

By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli

There are two topics that dominate discussions every four years: October surprises and the Electoral College. We do not want to miss our chance to opine.

Columnist Karl Rove described the closeness of the presidential election by utilizing the famous “butterfly effect” posed by scientist Edward Lorenz. (“Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?”) We discuss what might make the difference in this extremely close race.

COWLEY: I didn’t expect to see back-to-back catastrophic hurricanes, but apparently, neither did FEMA. The federal government’s appallingly deficient response speaks to President Joe Biden’s and by proxy, Vice President Kamala Harris’, incompetence. Americans are suffering while Harris holds campaign rallies in North Carolina. These voters may see this as a deciding issue if they can even return to their homes to vote.

Donald Trump criticized Harris for avoiding media interviews. Now, she’s on a media blitz right as Trump backs out of 60 Minutes and cancels the second debate. Not only is this hypocritical, but he is also missing opportunities to court undecided voters.

An all-out war in the Middle East (or hopefully the avoidance of one) would undoubtedly have the biggest impact on the election.

PIGNANELLI: “We may not even recognize [the butterfly effect] happening until we’re looking in retrospect. Such is the state of our deeply polarized, closely divided nation.” – Karl Rove

Butterfly populations are decreasing due to various environmental and development factors. Yet, more rare than the actual insect is the so-called “butterfly effect” in politics. Tiny disturbances may impact a small category of voters but rarely change outcomes. Although the presidential election will be decided by less than 40,000 voters across seven battleground states, other elements will be involved to shift persuasion (i.e. voter turnout, major controversies, foreign affairs, etc.).

An October surprise in this presidential election will be a significant mistake made by a candidate rather than exposure of some controversy by a competing campaign. Both candidates have made statements or ignored specific tactics that may lead to a change with voters.

In the meantime, I recommend that readers worry more about repopulating their gardens with these beautiful creatures than about some slight political minutia.

Although presidential candidates are fighting for every vote, the Electoral College will decide the winner of the presidential contest. Is this institution antiquated with a realistic path to be abolished, or is it still needed?

COWLEY: The Electoral College is a constitutional compromise that gives smaller states proportional representation, like the allocation of congressional seats. Without it, predominantly Democrat urban centers would select who occupies the White House.

Attempts have been made to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote, including by Richard Nixon. Today it would overwhelmingly benefit Democrats. Utah, with a population half the size of New York City, would be wholly ignored.

All but two states use winner-take-all, where regardless of how close the popular vote is, all electors are awarded to the winner. If states followed Nebraska and Maine and allocated their electoral votes proportionally, it might open the door for three parties.

James Madison made the case for electors to exercise independent judgment rather than be committed. It’s an interesting argument that would make electors more well-known who now are probably more obscure than elected county surveyors (no offense, surveyors).

The race for 270 is wonky but has produced every president thus far. I don’t see that changing.

PIGNANELLI: The institution has evolved beyond recognition from the founders’ original intent of selected citizens deliberating in a thoughtful process — as described by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers 68. The existing “winner takes all” method is warping presidential elections as campaigns spend billions targeted on a few battleground states. However, status quo advocates like Renae contend a national presidential election is fraught with danger. A compromise is in order.

Maine and Nebraska provide two electors for the statewide winner, and the remaining electors are based on results in each congressional district. Because this substantially resolves current disadvantages, some politicos are advocating for a countrywide adoption. Electoralvotemap.com applied this system to contests since 2000 and concluded that margins would have varied but with similar ultimate results, except Mitt Romney would have won in 2012. Utah is among several states with minimal voting power in national elections. The Maine/Nebraska modification protects any small-state advantage while forcing candidates to moderate and focus attention on regions currently ignored.

Political onlookers are holding their breath for an October surprise in Utah. Will there be one?

COWLEY: The recent signature-gathering legislative audit provides ample fodder for Democrat Brian King and write-in candidate Phil Lyman. Using a tiny sample of Gov. Spencer Cox’s signatures submitted to be placed on the primary ballot, discrepancies in the validation rate were found. King and Lyman are unlikely to ignore this. The data from the audit is weak, but it’s hard to disagree with recommendations for increased transparency.

PIGNANELLI: Decades ago, as a candidate, I used October surprises against my opponents, and they returned the volleys. Now, mail balloting and pervasive social media diminish the effectiveness of most last-minute attacks. An unexpected major controversy external to campaigns would be the only impactful event.

Opinion: Finally. Civility is returningThe Salt Lake City tax increase, messages from local church leaders and VP debate signal a return to civic discourse

By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli

The current political climate is characterized as acrimonious and unhealthy. But last week, Utahns’ hope for decency was realized. We are happy to explain.

The Salt Lake City sales tax increase to fund the sports entertainment district passed, teeing up what many expected to be a significant referendum fight. Remarkably, vested parties reached an accord, preventing what would have been a neighbor-versus-neighbor battle. Why is this important?

Cowley: I’ve been involved in fighting a dozen referendums, and this would have been the most contentious and vitriolic fight we have seen yet. It speaks volumes of both sides’ character and commitment to the community that they were able to come to an agreement. I’m rarely one to support a tax increase, but this outcome is good for our capital city and state.

Mostly, I’m glad that my hockey-loving husband will be taking me to games downtown rather than dragging me to outer darkness (aka past 900 South).

Pignanelli: “The best fights are the ones we avoid.” – Jackie Chan

Salt Lake City residents dodged internecine warfare, as emotions were running high on both sides and each possessed legitimate concerns. Losing major-league sports to the suburbs would be devastating to the city. However, fears of an endangered Abravanel Hall and other cultural aspects were also meritorious.

Regardless of residence, Utahns cared much about the outcome of this controversy. I remember when Abravanel Hall opened in 1979 and how the entire state rejoiced. This fabulous building — the home of the Utah Symphony — has been a source of pride ever since. This heritage was acknowledged as a critical component of resolution.

Instead of an inflammatory tirade, Utahns will witness accommodation and a win-win for everyone. Gratitude abounds for the Utah Way.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held its biannual general conference last weekend. In the Saturday session, church leaders urged cessation of toxic rhetoric and hateful messages. Why were these statements important?

Cowley: A survey indicated that 1 in 3 Gen Z employees lie about their political beliefs in the workplace in fear of conflict. When I tell someone I work in politics, I learn to smile as they try to hide their disapproval. It’s said that you should never discuss politics or religion in polite company, but I disagree. Public policy is important, as is the free exchange of ideas. We should talk about it more, not less, but with respect to opposing views.

In general conference, President Dallin H. Oaks said, “Sharp differences on issues of public policy often result in actions of hostility, even hatred.” He reminded us of Christ’s words, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God,” and concluded with, “As we pursue our preferred policies in public actions, let us qualify for his blessings by using the language and methods of peacemakers.” To that, I say, “AMEN!”

Pignanelli: Although a Gentile, I have listened to significant portions of every general conference for over 40 years. The gems of wisdom delivered last week reaffirm my dedication to observing the semiannual event.

Utah enjoys a well-deserved reputation for cordiality. But recently, I have been saddened by constant unnecessary, inflammatory language from some local leaders. Thus, I am grateful for the conference’s admonitions.

The reference to Jesus Christ was especially critical. Regardless of one’s belief, it is undeniable that the Gospels describe a Jewish preacher with strong opinions and strict demands for his followers. Yet everyone he encountered was treated with dignity and respect, even those wishing him harm.

What is often forgotten is that the Nazarene carpenter accomplished all this against the brutality of the Roman Empire. Jesus’ 2,000-year-old lessons remain relevant today. Business, political and community leaders can be ambitious and goal-oriented but also practice the Golden Rule.

Cowley: Vice presidential debates, and frankly, the nominees themselves, matter little in the grand scheme of elections, but here’s what voters can glean:

I was pleasantly surprised by how cordial the candidates were to one another, especially Vance, Trump’s attack dog. Walz also seemed surprised by his opponent’s softening, perhaps causing his flustered performance. It wasn’t a great look juxtaposed to Vance’s polished and compassionate responses. Walz doesn’t have higher political ambition, yet Vance’s political career is unlikely to stop after this election. The debate was an opportunity to showcase what 12 years of Vance in the White House might look like.

Walz repeatedly referred to himself as “the old guy,” but he is only one year older than Harris. When age seems to be at the top of many voters’ minds, perhaps he should avoid that refrain.

The bias of liberal media is exposed when pundits say Vance won by a nose. He won by ten lengths.

Pignanelli: At least 50 million Americans and thousands of Utahns were treated to an event reflective of high-profile quality political matches years ago. This is how presidential debates once were — and should be — conducted.

Local races to watch as candidates sprint to the finish

Election Day is a month away, and most focus is on national, gubernatorial and federal races. Yet, throughout the state, candidates are waging neighborhood battles for votes for county and legislative offices. Here is a peek at some of these contests now catching the attention of political observers.

Salt Lake County mayoral contest

Jenny Wilson, a former at-large county council member, was appointed mayor upon Ben McAdams’ election to Congress and won a full term in 2020 with 52%. This popular member of a Utah legacy political family is running for a second full term and is an articulate politician who understands retail politics.

Her opponent is Erin Rider, a well-respected attorney. Rider lost to Chris Stewart in the 2022 Republican primary. She must have something going for her, as Stewart, among many other Republicans, endorsed her.

Salt Lake County Council (countywide)

Long-time Councilmember Jim Bradley is retiring. Seeking to fill his position are Republican Rachelle Morris and Democrat Natalie Pinkney. This is a very spirited race. Morris worked at Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan and is partner at a Utah venture fund. Pinkney is a member of the South Salt Lake City Council and founder of a book and publishing company.

Legislative

Analyzing legislative contests is a favorite pastime for many political operatives, as these races reveal trends, movements and issues that are not always apparent in the major contests. These hotly contested local races, especially in swing districts, are truly revealing of undercurrents and shifting political forces. Here are a few legislative elections we are watching closely:

House District 23: Democrat Brian King, who held this Salt Lake City seat for 16 years, is running for governor. Although Hoang Nguyen (D) is favored to prevail against Republican Scott Romney, some politicos believe this could be close.

House District 10: This one is a rematch between veteran and physician Rosemary Lesser (D) and Jill Koford (R). Koford lost to Lesser in 2022 by 500 votes.

House District 27: Incumbent Anthony Loubet is being challenged by Dawn Stevenson (D). This is historically a swing seat on the west side of Salt Lake County.

House District 30: Former State Representative Fred Cox is back in the fray with another run. Since leaving office, Cox was one of the original sponsors of the 2019 Utah Tax Referendum. He is facing West Valley City Councilmember Jake Fitisemanu (D) for a seat that has flipped from red to blue several times in recent history.

House District 26: Newcomer businessman and GOP activist Matt MacPherson (R) is running to defend his swing seat against challenger Jeanetta Williams. Matt won his seat in a special election when Quinn Kotter resigned after only one session. Williams is a well-known leader of the local NAACP.

House District 33: Incumbent Republican Steve Eliason has successfully defended his swing seat in Sandy since 2010. He is being challenged by Democrat Jason Barber.

State Senate 12: Two women, who have both served in the House of Representatives, are facing off: current lawmaker Judy Weeks-Rohner (R) and incumbent Karen Kwan (D).

State Senate 15: Career teacher incumbent Kathleen Riebe (D) is challenged by Scott Cuthbertson (R), President & CEO of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah.

Coattails

Political observers are debating whether the presidential race or the gubernatorial and federal contests will have any coattails for local candidates. As noted in previous columns, local Democrats faced a serious drag with Joe Biden leading the ballot. The summer pivot to Kamala Harris alleviates some of this burden, especially because Donald Trump will have limited coattails.

What about those constitutional amendments?

Most politicos expected a lively contest over Constitutional Amendments A and D, which could have impacted voter turnout. However, through concluded (D) and likely (A) judicial determinations of noncompliance with certain requirements, these propositions will appear on Utah ballots, but votes will not be tallied. That leaves us with less controversial Amendments B and C.

Amendment B increases the disbursement cap from SITLA to schools. The reasons are a bit wonky, but the bottom line is that this fund is intended to manage Utah lands for the long-term financial benefit of schoolchildren and puts more money into classrooms today.

View Comments

Amendment C enshrines in the state constitution that every county shall have an elected sheriff. You may be asking yourself, “Isn’t that what happens now?” Indeed it is.

Other notable races and ballot propositions

It’s a tough year to be an incumbent state school board member. Many lost their reelection, either in convention or the primary. Among those who remain standing, Carol Lear, Molly Hart, and Matt Hymas are facing challengers Diane Livingston, John Arthur, and Deborah Gatrell, respectively, in the general election. Randy Boothe is unopposed.

Local governments and citizens can place items on the ballot, one of which caught our eye: the Ogden Valley Incorporation question. Residents will vote if they want to form a new city from a large portion of unincorporated Ogden Valley. Supporters say it will bring local control, while critics say it could raise taxes.

Will Latter-day Saints and youth decide our next president?

By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli

We review how the incredibly tight presidential race is raising awareness of these important citizens.

Kamala Harris’ campaign launched a “Latter-day Saint Advisory Committee” in Arizona. Donald Trump recently stopped in Utah for a fundraiser. Both are courting members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could this bloc of traditionally conservative voters make a difference in the election?

Cowley: The two most famous Latter-day Saints in political history are Mitt Romney and Harry Reid, yet the only thing they had in common is where they worshipped … and perhaps a Diet Coke addiction. It is hard to code members of the church as hardline Republicans. Broadly, they oppose abortion but show compassion for immigration. They sing “Love One Another” and are turned off by Trump’s mean tweets. The modern party realignment is occurring among Latter-day Saint voters.

This election will be determined by slim margins in swing states like Arizona, which has a sizable Latter-day Saint population. Both campaigns are smart to not ignore this important voting bloc.

Pignanelli: “An advantage can be tiny, though in this election, tiny is not nothing.” —Dan Balz, Washington Post

Ah. The perennial quadrennial question of how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (especially outside of Utah) will vote in a presidential election.

Normally, even if they voted as a bloc, church members in other states would have minimal impact. But 2024 is different. Over 400,000 adherents live in Arizona, approximately 6% of the population. Natesilver.net documents a statistical tie (48.1% Trump, 47.3% Harris) in the Grand Canyon state. Thus, Latter-day Saints could have a meaningful impact.

As a lifelong Utahn, I frequently observe differences in how local members differ in their approaches towards cultural, social and political issues than the faithful outside the state. Yet, they all share a common commitment to strong families, religious liberties, compassion and efficient governance. Candidates using this appeal would have a receptive audience amongst this group.

Typically, Latter-day Saints prefer Republicans. But again, 2024 is different. Trump won Utah but with the lowest percentage of the red states. There is no love for progressive Democrats either. Therefore, opportunities exist to persuade either side. Further, a focus on Latter-day Saints in the swing states will attract not only them but likely other active religious voters who share similar values.

The attention from both campaigns is a well-deserved recognition.

Research shows there is a massive gender gap in how Gen Z identifies politically, more divergent than any previous generation. What accounts for this divide and how will it impact elections now and in the future?

Cowley: After two decades of wussification, masculinity is having a renaissance, and the Trump/Vance ticket is taking advantage of it. Gen Z men listen to bro-style podcasts, where Trump is a frequent guest.

Abortion is a driving issue for young women, and Harris has made it a central tenet of her campaign. Her strongest appeal to Gen Z female voters is that she’s not Trump.

There is a growing cynicism of young voters, regardless of gender. Their distrust of government is having a chilling effect on their political engagement. It is in vogue for them to say they don’t follow politics, but a true flex would be getting informed, becoming involved and voting.

It’s clear both candidates are aggressively campaigning for the gender they think will win them the election. It is only a matter of time till we learn which is truly the superior sex — at least when it comes to voter turnout.

Pignanelli: A recent survey conducted by Social Sphere/Business Insider of voters under 30 in swing states revealed 59% of women preferred Harris compared to only 38% of men. Careless messaging in both campaigns is driving this division. Further, this group is participating at historically higher rates. Strategic attention is merited.

A study from last year documented that younger Latter-day Saint voters are increasingly identifying as less conservative and more independent than their parents. Is this dynamic real, and what does it mean for the upcoming elections?

Cowley: Young adults today are facing challenges their parents and predecessors did not. Social media pressures, declining self-image, mental health struggles and liberal indoctrination at many universities, and the entertainment industry is continually creating more jaw-dropping and sensational content while fanning the flames of contention. All of these things are impacting the erosion of traditional values and the development of political philosophies.

When Hollywood pushes a liberal agenda, it is not cool to be conservative. Young members of the faith are not immune from these pressures. We will see if that trend persists when they start paying more taxes, but for now, these young adults are being inundated with a radicalization of society and rebellion against their parents’ principles.

Pignanelli: Whether originating from the left or right, extreme, harsh rhetoric accompanied by disrespect to others is unsettling to the faithful — particularly those under 40 years. Data from various sources illustrate the centrist trend but does not guarantee automatic gains for Democrats. The left must adjust messaging to capture these roaming voters.

Summer is ending, but the political heat simmers

By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli

Summer will soon be over, but the political heat remains high. Another controversial court decision, political debates and a high-profile endorsement require discussion of the impact on local politics.

In response to a Utah Supreme Court ruling, the Legislature held a special session to propose Constitutional Amendment D, which would restore their ability to alter citizen initiatives. District Judge Dianna Gibson declared it void because the Legislature failed to “accurately communicate the ‘subject matter’ of the proposed amendment to voters and to publish the text of the amendment in a newspaper in each county two months before the election.” Are the upcoming elections impacted?

Cowley: I would not bet the farm that the appeal to the Supreme Court succeeds. The same judges who made the original ruling restricting the legislature’s ability to change initiatives will not rule in favor of the legislature this go-around. Apparently, none of the ballot amendments met the constitutional requirement to publish in newspapers at least 60 days before the election. All could be void.

Using the Gibson decision, the UEA is already making moves to invalidate the language of Amendment A regarding earmarked funds for education. There is a significant likelihood that at least two measures on Utah ballots, regardless of how many votes are cast, will not be counted. This issue will make Utah political history.

Pignanelli: “I learned no detail was too small. It was all about the details.” — Brad Grey

Utah is competing very well with the national arena for an unprecedented (aka strange) election season. The Supreme Court’s historic ruling metastasized strong emotions regarding initiatives emanating from many community leaders across the political spectrum. Supporters and opponents of Amendment D were gearing up for a huge battle — then Gibson’s order was issued.

Until the Supreme Court rules on Gibson’s decision (likely upheld), the initiative controversy is frozen. However, as Renae notes, the problem regarding newspaper publication is impacting other constitutional measures. Opponents to Amendment A (restructuring public education funding) are considering action, as might others concerned with Amendments B and C.

Constitutional minutia of our founding 1895 document may be an unexpected campaign topic for legislators in the final days of the election. Strange indeed.

Utahns watched or heard about the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump and the gubernatorial debate between Gov. Spencer Cox, Rep. Brian King and Robert Latham. How will the debates impact local politics?

Cowley: I was texting one of my political gal pals this week, and we share the same unpopular opinion: Undecided voters in a presidential race are a myth. Most voters have already made up their minds, even if they don’t love the options in front of them. Political pundits call them double haters, those who aren’t enthusiastic about either candidate and will either vote based upon party or not vote at all. Polls show the presidential debate did not have a meaningful impact on voters’ preferences.

What was apparent in both debates is that Republican candidates are letting their opponents get under their skin. My advice: Stick to your winning issues.

Pignanelli: The primary purpose of a candidate in a debate is to establish the presence of leadership and a basic grasp of issues. Harris’ strategy included separating herself from President Joe Biden, promoting future plans and attacking Trump. She followed the plan and prevailed. Trump could have easily caused problems by continually asking why her plans were not accomplished in the last three years and targeting deviations from prior progressive stances. But he was too busy racing down the rabbit holes she created. Her perceived debate victory will help local Democrats shrug off the Biden drag.

The interesting element of the gubernatorial debate was the Libertarian Latham. A third party qualifying to be on the debate stage is a rare dynamic in local politics and posits many theories of electoral changes. The three candidates offered divisive but intelligent exchanges, the desired outcome of debates.

Popular singer Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris. Will this have any impact in the presidential and local races?

Cowley: Are we living in a simulation, or is this actually a cat-centered political cycle? Childless cat ladies, claims of immigrants eating cats and an endorsement from the world’s most famous cat owner.

Swifties are infamous for their loyalty to Ms. Swift. Heck, they affectionately refer to her as “Mother.” More than 400,000 people clicked on the Vote.gov link in her post endorsing Harris. The truth is, clicks don’t equal votes; just ask Sen. Bernie Sanders. Swifties skew quite young and have very low voter turnout scores. Taylor’s endorsement was lackluster compared to her previous statements against Trump.

Hey, did you know Taylor Swift is actually from Pennsylvania, perhaps the most important battleground state? Yeah, it still won’t matter. Multiple surveys document that celebrity endorsements rarely impact elections.

Pignanelli: I am old enough to remember when “Swiftie” described an energetic person. Although I respect Swift’s artistic and entrepreneurial talents, her sanction will not move the needle — especially in the battleground states. But we all commend her political engagement.

What would it take to win this presidential election?

By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli

Presidential politics is increasingly dominating discussions among political insiders. Although our deadline was before the historic debate, we reviewed topics in those conversations.

Despite being the oldest Republican nominee in our nation’s history, a recent Deseret News/Harris X poll shows 60% of Utahns are not concerned with former President Donald Trump’s age (78). Why are voters not troubled by the possibility of a geriatric president?

Cowley: This survey is less about age and more about how one ages. Trump’s voice is raspier and he rambles more, but compared to the cognitive decline America witnessed from President Joe Biden, Trump is far more mentally fit.

In his interview with Theo Von, Trump shared his personal testimony for sobriety. He’s an avid golfer and stays active for someone his age. These things contribute to the physical and mental fitness required for holding the highest office.

Voters seem to believe that when it comes to Trump, “age ain’t nothin’ but a number.”

Pignanelli: “You can’t help getting older, but you don’t have to get old.”— George Burns

Born in the Eisenhower administration, I was initially warmed by the survey results. However, those respondents also supported a maximum age limit of 65 years for officeholders. (Ouch!)

Such contradictions in public opinion are prevalent in politics. Utahns are surrounded by political, religious and community leaders of advanced age who exhibit energy, judgment and relevancy. Voters will simultaneously detail hypothetical concerns but support older leaders not succumbing to natural declination. They see Trump — regardless of opinions — exuding strength and bearing daily.

Thus, we oldsters can avoid critiques by maintaining vitality. Otherwise, Renae and her generation will send me out to pasture.

Polling methodology is one of the most hotly debated campaign roles in our industry, and like meteorology, it can only be proven correct after it is too late. Some pollsters are showing a change in the presidential political tides while also adjusting their methodology. Should Utahns believe these early political prognostications?

Cowley: My pollster pals insist their craft is more accurate than ever before. It remains an ever-evolving science.

Recently The New York Times/Siena poll adjusted its methodology. If a respondent said they supported Trump and then hung up (often accompanied with an expletive), it wouldn’t be counted, since they didn’t complete the full interview. That led to skewed results against Trump, even if only by a point or two. They have since adjusted their methodology.

Nate Silver, a prominent pollster, is a canary in the coal mine. He was the first to signal a slowing and even decline in Harris’ election forecast. “Forecast” is just pollster mumbo-jumbo for how they apply statistical nerdiness to predict the election outcome, not just how people feel this week. I trust Silver because his commitment is to mathematical accuracy, not to party bosses. More polls, including The New York Times, are starting to show similar findings — they are onto something.

Pignanelli: Manufacturers and retailers possess a pulse on their success, as reflected in consumer purchases. Political operatives attempt to retrieve the same information through polling. But 21st century lifestyles reject the traditional sampling, thereby explaining incorrect predictions of presidential elections since 2016. Cellphones, internet interactions and weighting of demographic groups help garner trends. But caution is urged because in today’s world of social media and 15-minute news cycles, voters’ reactions can change while completing a ballot.

If we were consulting either presidential campaign, what advice would we impart?

Cowley: Team Harris should fire the “Hamilton” (the musical) version of Aaron Burr as their consultant. “Talk less, smile more” is a short-sighted strategy that may have earned her an early lead but is not a long-term winning strategy. Playing the generic candidate only gets you so far. Voters deserve to hear from Harris directly about her policies — to use my favorite idiom, straight from the horse’s mouth.

Team Trump should heed the wisdom of one of my most valued political advisers: “It’s politics, it’s not personal.” Trump should stop talking about Harris as a person: her laugh, her family and, for the love of all that is holy, her heritage. He should focus on the failures of the Biden/Harris administration, especially the border crisis under her direct leadership, as well as the significant ambiguity of her policy positions.

Pignanelli: The winner of this election will be the campaign committing the fewest errors.

Everyone in Trumpland is screaming the same advice. Do not use 2016 campaign tactics in 2024. Harris is not Hillary Clinton. Play to your strengths as the nervousness about Harris’ prior progressive stances lingers. Talk about only those (especially immigration, Medicare expansion, etc.) in comparison to the strong economy under your administration. Avoid personal insults. Discipline will equal positive outcomes.

Harris deftly pivoted from Biden with a joyous aura, yet crucial slices of persuadable voters want to learn more about her. But they have no affection for the hard-left-wing progressive dogma that has infected the party, and she must distant herself from these fringe purists. Americans do not want a president fostering ideological police scrutinizing their words for unintentional mistakes. They are suspicious of expansive government programs and prefer effective governance. Again, discipline matters.

It’s all about the message

By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli

Messaging is a critical aspect at any level of politics, campaigns and public policy. Politicos have a treat this week as we will see how professionals deal with three unexpected but impactful events at the national and local level.

The Democratic National Party is holding their nominating convention in Chicago. They have unusual challenges ahead of them, including how to deal with an unpopular departing incumbent president, publicized protests and shaping the ticket without having had the benefit of the primary season. How can Utahns judge success?

Pignanelli: ”There are some unmistakable parallels between the 1968 convention and the one this week in Chicago.” — Julie Bosman and Robert Chiarito, New York Times

As an oldster, I recall events that are textbook entries for others, including the convention 56 years ago. Protests against American foreign policy that originated on college campuses bled into the proceedings. The incumbent president confronted his unpopularity within the party and declined the nomination. That year had seen two assassinations, an economy burdened with inflation and an abounding fear of crime. Republican nominee Richard Nixon, who served as vice president, had lost a prior election. His path to success was luring Democrats wary of new cultural aspects of their party into supporting him.

This convention will be considered a success if it captures the support of blue- and white-collar Democrats currently attracted to Trump (like they were with Nixon). This old guy reaffirms that whoever learns from history wins in November.

Cowley: If I was advising the Kamala Harris campaign, I’d say, “Why fix what’s not broken?” Avoiding the media, unscripted moments and any specifics on her policy positions has helped her in the polls. Being “Chameleon Kamala” is far safer than answering tough questions, but what is good for the campaign is not what is good for the nation.

Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney on likability, but Romney led on trust. Romney was respected, but Obama was liked. Kamala’s team is taking that lesson to heart.

Expect Kamala to receive another bump in the polls, as most candidates do post-convention. Then, both candidates must face the music in debates.

The Legislature will hold a special session Wednesday in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling. Lawmakers are placing a constitutional question on the ballot in the November election to reaffirm that the Legislature and county and local government can enact, amend or repeal laws even if passed by initiative. There is already grumbling and mobilization among various factions. How can lawmakers and grassroots activists message this endeavor?

Pignanelli: As a legislator, I worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continually defeat legislation establishing English as the official and sole language in Utah. Frustrated with these enlightened responses, right-wing organizations successfully passed an initiative in 2000 accomplishing their unnecessary and insulting objective. In 2021, two young lawmakers (Sen. Kirk Cullimore and Rep. Michael Schultz) dramatically neutered this odious law breeding problems and blemishing the good nature of the state. The recent Supreme Court ruling would have blocked such a worthy endeavor.

Lawmakers must reach out beyond traditional Republican ranks and inform independent and center-left Utahns that removing the legislative ability to amend initiatives will risk right-wing special interest groups stomping into Utah to push measures targeted against immigrants, public and higher education, and existing statutes that protect citizens.

Cowley: The most terrifying phrase in the English language is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Proponents of the ballot question face a tough challenge explaining why voters should trust the Legislature over citizen-led initiatives. The reality is, these initiatives are rarely citizen-led and are the product of special interests and out-of-state money to the tune of millions of dollars. According to the court ruling, the only way to change a law impacted by initiative is to run another initiative. That doesn’t jive with the whole checks and balances thing.

The real question facing voters is not whether initiatives should exist, because they will continue under the same rules as before — if this passes. Voters will decide if initiatives should be forever-laws or if they should be subject to legislative scrutiny year after year.

My advice to the Legislature: Focus on Utah>California and the mountains of outsider money.

Democratic candidate Brian King just posted a video where he and write-in Republican candidate Phil Lyman essentially make a joint appearance to criticize Spencer Cox. Is there any potential for electoral success behind this strange but interesting tactic?

Pignanelli: Democrat gubernatorial candidates average 30% in the elections. But if Lyman attracts many disgruntled conservatives, Cox’s expected margin could drop. These two challengers are demonstrating unprecedented tenacity and creativity, which requires a similar response.

Cowley: This political stunt will be as impactful on the election outcome as a fly on a horse’s rump. These two fringe candidates, who are in fact distantly related, share more than a family tree; they share a disdain for Cox. As a campaign operative, I commend both campaigns for the clever tactic to keep their names in the media, but that’s all it does. Cox should stay the course and not boost their name ID by responding to petty digs. If you’re responding, you’re losing.

What the Utah Supreme Court’s step into politics means for the state

By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli

The Utah Supreme Court is the sleepy third branch of government and is rarely the topic of political discussions. That changed when the state’s top five jurists handed down controversial rulings. We discuss some of their impacts.

The court ruled that the state legislature inappropriately violated Utahns’ rights by altering the “Better Boundaries” initiative with a law that nullified key provisions. The court also ordered that future legislative changes to initiatives must be “narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.” What does this mean for future initiatives?

Cowley: In rodeo, nobody notices judges until they disqualify a cowboy — then, they are almost always booed. The court just delivered a rodeo-judge ruling.

Utah does not want to be California, which is governed by initiatives. There are 11 qualified for their ballot this fall. Initiatives are expensive and require a sophisticated campaign effort. Some start with well-meaning citizens, but behind every ballot initiative are big donors and professional campaign experts. Strategist Karl Rove pioneered the use of initiatives as a tactic to increase 2004 Republican turnout. Democrats are doing the same with abortion initiatives on the ballot in Arizona and Florida.

The legislative process is deliberative where changes to policy can be proposed. Initiatives don’t allow for compromise once ballot language is certified. The court ruling created a new super-set of laws that can then only be amended by another initiative. The legislature should not fear initiatives, but it is unrealistic to think they will never need adjustments.

Grassroots activists are encouraging a special session to put this issue on the ballot. The legislature needs to strike the right balance of honoring citizens’ right to initiative and the reality that times change and laws must change along with it. Rightly so, voters will have the final say on this.

Pignanelli: “Politics cuts both ways. Every time you make a choice, it has unintended consequences.” — Stone Gossard

As someone who was engaged with promoting and defeating initiatives, I believe this constitutional right can serve good public policy. The mere threat of it has spurred legislative action. But the approach does not enjoy the advantages of the legislative process.

In 2018, three initiatives were on the ballot: Medicaid expansion, medical marijuana and the redistricting commission. All were altered by the Legislature within months of passage. Special interest groups placed language into the first two propositions that posed considerable negative consequences to the state. Fortunately, lawmakers mitigated these dangers.

National special interest organizations — right and left — once feared sponsoring initiatives in Utah because of the prior legislative prerogative. The court’s ruling will restore that temptation. We learned from congressional antics that alterations in legislative processes impact both sides of the political spectrum. So those cheering today may be crying tomorrow.

The court delivered one heckuva wake-up call.

This week, the court heard arguments over whether late ballots in the 2nd Congressional District should be counted. Jenkins did not prevail, but what does this argument mean for future elections?

Cowley: Jenkins has vastly different margins in counties with disputed ballots (28% in Beaver, 58% in Washington). Even if these ballots were counted, it’s unlikely it would reverse the election outcome. This postal faux pas will spur renewed appeals to return to in-person voting; however, voting by mail is here to stay.

Clerks have discretion to release the cure list (ballots that need additional verification). I have personally called voters from a cure list and it impacted the outcome of that election. Yes, my candidate won. I can’t understand why, when election security is a concern for many, that the clerk would err on the side of less transparency. The legislature should make the cure list a public record, increase drop box locations and provide information to voters about postmarking. Every legal vote should count.

Pignanelli: An old procrastinator, I always mail my ballot the morning before Election Day with confidence it will be timely postmarked but probably not counted for several days. This rational belief is shared by many Utahns. Thus, citizens were shocked to learn that many ballots collected in Utah are processed in Nevada. Lawmakers may respond to this dilemma.

Since Jenkins did not prevail, this will apply intense pressure on future campaigns to push supporters to the mailboxes long before Election Day. But this requires bending the current trend of voters holding on to their ballots until the deadlines.

Will the court’s unusual step into politics have ramifications at the legislature or in elections?

Cowley: If a question is placed on the ballot this fall, it will be on par with the Biden/Harris swap in terms of political intrigue and truncated timelines. The legislature will have to make the case for why amending the initiative process is in the best interest of voters. Special interest groups will also be quickly organizing campaign efforts to oppose anything that undermines the court’s ruling.

Pignanelli: Judicial appointments are likely to become an election issue for legislative candidates. The legislature may consider other measures. Also, Utah has avoided the contentious judicial retention elections witnessed in other states. Those days are over.