Special Session with Bryan Schott

Come one, come all to a beautiful

show.

It's gonna be awesome. Um, and some other

stuff.

Some other musical stuff.

Hello and welcome to special

session. I'm Bryan Schad, managing editor

of Utah Political Watch. This week

on the show, week number three at the Utah

legislature. Senate Republicans really don't like

people yelling at them. So they reverse course

on the union busting bill. The

legislature wants to double the funding for

Utah's private school voucher program.

Again. Should the rich pay more in

taxes? Well, one Democratic senator thinks

so. There are a couple of bills on the Hill that would rig

the courts in favor of lawmakers. I'll tell you about

those. And my guest this week is Kathy

Bailey of the Ute Utah League of Women Voters. She also

writes the great hits and misses column in Citi

Weekly. She's here to discuss some election

related bills that are making their way through the legislature.

Hint, she's not really happy about them.

If you want to stay on top of what's happening on

Utah's Capitol Hill, take a minute and sign up for my

newsletter for free at, uh, Utah

PoliticalWatch News. And if you'd like

to support my work covering Utah politics,

you can also become a paying subscriber for as little as

$5 a month. All right, get that pitch out of the

way. Let's get to this week's news.

Well, last week it looked like the Republican

controlled legislature was backing down in the fight

that they picked with Utah's labor unions. But

then negotiations over a compromise bill

fell apart and they rammed through the

original version of HB267,

which takes away the collective bargaining

rights for public union employees. That means

teachers, police officer officers and

firefighters. The bill does a number of things, but that's the main thrust.

And they did it despite massive

opposition from union members. Last week they

thought that they had an agreement with union

members and that's why they introduced a

fourth substitute version that kept the collective

bargaining rights in place. Instead, they were going

to require public labor unions to hold

a vote every few years to determine whether

or not their members wanted them to continue

negotiating on their behalf. And that was the stick breaking point

in that bill. I spoke with Jeff Worthington, who is the president

of the Utah AFL cio, right after

the Senate voted to pass the bill and send

it to the governor's desk. And this is what he told me about

that.

I'm going to tell you exactly what it was, Bryan. The

reason that the compromise fell through

was because of one issue, and that is

the voting procedure. Uh, this bill

Required unions on their

recertification. If you got a union that's got

2,000 members in it, the

recertification process required that

all 2,000 members in

that unit had to cast a vote on the

recertification. If they did not vote, it would

count as a no vote, and they had to reach a 50

plus 1%. And that's very hard to do with

our unions that are spread out across the state.

And, uh, so all we asked for was instead

of having that 100%

participation from a union, uh,

unit, that we just go by the democratic

way of voting and you go with the 50 plus

1% of all the people that cast a

vote. And they would not agree to that, even though that is

how they got elected.

During the floor debate on final passage, it was

clear that the Republicans in the Senate

were irked by the fact that union members continued

to yell at them even though they were in

negotiations over this bill. Uh, they

had hoped that the unions were going to

remain neutral, at least either support

or remain neutral to this compromised

version that they were dealing with, but that didn't happen.

Listen to Senator Calvin Musselman, and he's clearly

upset that he had the public yelling at

him for a decision he was going to make.

I trust in this process, and I trusted in this

process that what was

communicated to me was clear as to what was

coming. And it turns out that's exactly what

was what was communicated was accurate. That's what landed in the

subject. And it was also communicated

to me that there would be a neutral positions

based on the negotiations. And it appears that

that neutral position was held. But, uh, I think we're unclear what

neutral means because the stem of emails

and texts never stopped.

That's not neutral. And we have to

be able to negotiate in good faith up here

and be able to have words that actually have

meaning instead of empty.

And when neutral is completely empty, there's

a big problem. And maybe

the resolute, the way to solve that is

what's before us now, because I, I see no other

path forward. I thought we had a landing place. We

clearly did not.

Kind of sounds like someone got their tender feelings

hurt because they were getting yelled at by the public. So

what happens next? Well, the bill is on its way to Governor Spencer

Cox's desk, where he can either

sign it, veto it, or let it go into effect

without his signature. The bill did not pass with

veto proof majorities in either the House or the

Senate. So that is on the table right now.

There was a massive demonstration by union Members on

Friday at the Capitol who were urging him to veto

the bill. The Utah Education association, which is

the state's largest teachers union, they're urging Cox to

veto the bill. So you wonder if this public pressure is going to

be enough for Cox to pick a fight with

lawmakers over this, or if this is a fight that he even wants to

pick. Given the vote in both the House and the Senate, it would

probably be very difficult for the

legislature to override a veto. The governor has

10 days from when the bill was sent to his

desk. That would be the Sunday after Valentine's Day. So he has to

take action on it before the end of the session. We could see a

veto showdown up at the Capitol if the

governor listens to the union members who are

opposed to this and decides to use his veto stand.

Speaking of Utah's private school voucher program,

Republican lawmakers want to double how much

money is going into it. Again, the Utah

fits all scholarship, which gives parents

who no longer want to participate in

Public School $8,000 of, uh,

taxpayer money to use for private school

tuition or for homeschooling

expenses, with very little oversight over where

that money is going. There was a great story in the Salt Lake Tribune

this week that some kids, some parents,

families who had taken this scholarship money

were back in public school and.

But so are they going to take the money back? Do they have to pay

the money back? Who knows? But, uh, so

there's very little oversight over what happens

with this money. So anyway, the first year

that they passed it, they funded it to the tune of,

uh, $42.5 million. Last year,

they nearly doubled that to 82 million, even though

the program had not gone into effect yet. They cited

overwhelming response and support. No

one had received it yet. That was a little bit of legislative jiu

jitsu to get more money for it. Well,

here we go again. Now, Senate Majority leader Kurt Cullimore

wants another 80 million. So that would take it

up to $162

million. You double it, and then you

double it again. And if this appropriation is

approved, you would now have the program

being four times as large as it was

when they first proposed it. Cullimore says that they

funded 10,000 kids last year. There's

27,000 kids who applied.

And so they want to be able to, uh,

expand this. But $80 million is

a really, really big ask, because,

remember, that money comes out of funding

that could go to Utah's public

schools. So if they add another $80 million to it, that's

$162

million of ongoing money every

year that could go to

public education. On top of that,

lawmakers want to cut taxes. They've set

aside another $160

million to drop income tax

rates or whatever they're going to do for it. But they're most likely going to drop

the income tax rate by 0.1%,

which just so happens to cost $162

million. So it's not hard to do that math. So

that's $320 million every single year.

That could be going into public education, higher education

and some social services that

a private school vouchers program, and into

more tax cuts that, oh, by the way, as

I've explained before, happened to benefit the

more wealthy Utahns. People at the higher end of the

income scale, they eat up the lion's

share of whatever money is used to pay for those tax

cuts. And then those at the

lower income scales, if they even see

any sort of a relief, it's probably just

a few bucks a month. Now lawmakers will say, but we've cut taxes

over the last four years. And so if you add all that up, it's

probably a couple, uh, close to $100 a

month. Well, it's not that much. But people at the lower end of the income

scale, they are not seeing as much money as

the wealthiest Utahns. So that's

where this money comes from. And that's where it would be

going if they were to double the Utah fits

All scholarship, which is already funded to the tune of $82 million

a year every single year. If they double that to

160 million and then they cut taxes to the tune of

160 million, that's $320

million that could be going towards

other parts of the budget, public education and so on.

Now, don't forget the Utah Fitzhaller Scholarship

is being challenged in court by the Utah Education

association, who is claiming that

it violates the state's constitution because

lawmakers have never adequately funded

Utah's education system. Remember, we're at the

bottom or close to the bottom, we're in the bottom three

every single year of states in terms of

how per student we are behind

states like Idaho and Mississippi. You know,

I mean, when you're at the bottom, I think the most recent numbers had us either

50th or 51st, including Washington,

D.C. in per pupil spending. So

remember that when lawmakers take this

money and put it to other things than public education, because

that's how they're paying for it.

This idea is not going to go anywhere. But it is

interesting. Democratic Senator Nate Bluein

from Salt Lake city has proposed SB

244. That would raise

taxes on the wealthiest Utahns.

Instead of paying the current rate, which is

4.55%, the bill

would raise taxes on wealthier Utahns to

5.55%. And that would be for

anybody who's earning a million dollars a year

or more. So this is literally raising

taxes on the rich to fund things like

public education and

some social services. Now Bluein's bill does

take that one million dollar threshold and it would adjust it up or

down based on the inflation rate, but

that's pretty much the baseline. And if this were

to pass, it raised about $200 million

a year for those

constitutionally required sources, public

education, higher education and social

services. So that would be enough to actually fund the Utah FIT

scholarship at the level that they're hoping to. If they were

to raise taxes on those making a million DOL or

more to the tune of about $200 million. Well, the

160 million ongoing that they want to put

towards this private school vouchers program, that would be

a wash. Right. Well anyway, this bill's not going

to go anywhere. Uh, I would be surprised if it even made

it out of the rules Committee and got to a committee hearing.

But if it gets to a committee hearing, it is doa.

There's no way that the Republicans in the legislature

are going to support this. They've been on a tax cutting

spree in recent years, slashing taxes by nearly a

billion dollars over the last four years. They're going to again

this year. So do not expect them to

suddenly reverse course and take

this bill up and give it any sort of serious

consideration.

Legislative Republicans are pretty much

mad at everybody. They're mad at the teachers

union. That's why they passed the union busting bill. They're

also mad at the judiciary in the state

because they keep getting ruled against in

these lawsuits. And uh, we already know about the

gerrymandering lawsuit. And then are the

lawsuits by the teachers union challenging

the Utah fits all scholarship, which is really

just a private school vouchers program. They're also

extremely mad that a judge

blocked a near total ban on

abortion. That was the trigger law that

Utah had in place just in case Roe v. Wade

was overturned by the courts. That happened. And so this trigger

law went into effect and a judge

ruled that it was goes against Utah's

constitution. Last August, the Utah Supreme Court blocked the

state's trigger ban from going into Effect

didn't overturn the law, but they blocked it from

being implemented while the lawsuit from Planned

Parenthood plays out in the lower

courts. And that upset the

legislature. So there are a couple of bills out there

that would impact not only this case, but future

cases, and both of them come from Senator Brady

Brammer. Let's talk about

SB204. First, what that bill

says, if a court rules, a law passed by the

legislature is unconstitutional,

then the plaintiffs would have to prove,

quote, by clear and convincing evidence

that the law is unconstitutional. And if they can't do that, then

the law remains in effect while the court cases

play out. So that's a really high bar for

the plaintiffs in any case challenging a state

law to keep it from going into effect. Uh,

basic, it weights the scales in favor of the

state. Then he has SB203,

which would impact these kinds of lawsuits

going forward. That bill would limit who has the

right to sue in Utah's courts.

Organizations can sue on behalf of their

members, but they can't sue unless that organization itself has

also been harmed by the law. And associations and

outside parties cannot sue on behalf of someone.

Hypothetically, Utah Planned Parenthood could

not sue on behalf of someone else.

That person would have to bring the lawsuit themselves. So

that really limits who will be able to

sue in Utah's courts. It does

carve out a big exemption for the legislature,

where if they feel that they have a compelling interest,

they can go ahead and file a suit. But it makes

it harder for you, me, outside

organizations other than the Republican

controlled legislature or the Republican

Attorney General of the state to file suit in Utah's

courts.

There's another bill up on the Hill that I would like to flag

for you. It's HB380 from

Representative Ken IV. And we all know Ken Ivory,

his hobby horse for the last

however long he's been up there, has been pushing

back against the federal government. He used to be with a group called the

American Lands Council, and as part of his work with that

organization, he would go to other

governments trying to, uh, convince them

or teach them how to challenge

federal ownership of public lands. And

that work actually drew an ethics complaint against him.

There was one local, uh, official in

Colorado who heard his presentation and called, called him a snake

oil salesman. Anyway, that's been sort of, uh,

Ivory's raison d'etre since he's

been up on the Hill. Well, he's got this new bill,

HB380, that is a state

sovereignty bill that would directly

challenge the Supremacy Clause. In the

Constitution, which says that federal law

takes precedent over state law.

He says in this bill that the ninth and

tenth amendments to the Constitution would give

Utah jurisdiction over all the governing

matters within its borders, unless

that authority is specifically given to the

federal government in the U.S. constitution.

And if there's a conflict, if the federal government

says we actually have authority on that, then it would

be on the federal government. It's

their responsibility to prove

that the Constitution gives it authority in that

matter. So what are some of the things in Ivory's bill that

he says the state should have complete

authority over? The federal government has no business telling

Utah how to run these things. Well, that would be

education, natural resources, water

rights, agriculture and energy

resources, all of those things, which again

would fly right in the face of the supremacy clause in

the Constitution. There's one other part of this bill that I

thought was really interesting. The bill also

expands the scope and the authority

of the Utah Federalism Commission, which

Ivory is currently the co chair of. Currently

that commission is basically in an advisory

role. They've been tasked with a few things,

chiefly studying federal laws to determine if they

violate the principle of federalism, which is the 10th

amendment. When you hear people talking about states rights, they're

talking about the 10th Amendment. And so that this

commission, uh, which really has no authority, that's what they

do. They look at the federal laws, they determine whether or

not they violate the 10th amendment. Under this

proposed bill from Ivory, the Federalism Commission,

which, which again he is the co chair

of, uh, would have much more authority

because if there was ever a conflict between the

federal government and the state over those

powers that Utah claims they have unfettered

authority in and the federal government has no business with, if ever

there's a conflict, then the Federalism

Commission would be tasked with

negotiating with the federal government, working with the federal

government to come up with a solution.

So essentially he says that the state should

have unfettered authority, the state should be

unchallenged, should have no federal input

on a number of areas within the state borders.

And if the federal government ever challenges

it, well, he would be co chair of the commission

that was responsible for negotiating with the

feds. And isn't that

convenient? This bill is just

the latest in a push by the

legislature to, to do away

with federal authority in the state. Last year, you

remember SB 57 from Senator Scott

Sandel, that created a process where the

legislature could just flat out ignore federal

laws and regulations if they deem them

to be unconstitutional. Earlier this

year, uh, last month, the U.S.

supreme Court turned away the state's lawsuit

seeking control of about 18 and a half million acres of federal land

in the state. State lawyers for the state

argued at the time that it's unconstitutional for the

federal government to retain ownership of that land

without specifying what it should be used for. So

Ken Ivory, he essentially wants to do away with the

Supremacy Clause while at the same time

giving a body that he just happens to be the

co chairman of a greater authority to

help regulate those things. So I just wanted to flag that for you

because it's just one of those

serendipitous things that make you go, hmm,

Hm.

And joining me today on the program is Kathy Beeley. She is

with the Utah League of Women Voters and

also writes the excellent Hits and misses

column in Citi Weekly. Kathy, thank you

so much for taking a few minutes out of your day.

Um, let's talk a little bit about what you're seeing up

at the legislature. There's so much

going on and I know that you have, uh, been and

talking and testifying and talking to

lawmakers about a lot of the election related bills. What

are some of the things that you're seeing? Just give me sort of an

overall scope for people who aren't paying as much

attention as you and I are.

Certainly we have a legislative action

corps up there every day

monitoring, um, uh, all

of the committees that we have positions

for. Obviously Elections are

number one. Um, we are

extremely concerned about HB

300 and HB 330.

Those are the two most recent ones to have come out

of House Government

ops. Um, I have been

trying mightily to

contact all of the, uh, places

that Representative Burton has

mentioned, um, that show

polls that show people,

citizens want more security

in their voting. Um, all of

the information that we have ever gotten is that

our citizens absolutely adore voting by

mail. Um, I was, I

guess, a little nonplussed by

Representative Perucci,

um, being rather patronizing to

us saying that, oh, you will still have

vote by mail. You can vote by mail at

your little desk or the,

you know, at your breakfast. Um,

but then you just have to bring the mail

into the clerk's office with

voter id, that ID

and voting in person makes it

extremely difficult for many people, not

just the elderly, not just the disabled,

for everybody.

Yeah. And we've seen in the past that vote by

mail, um, has been extremely

popular here in the state and that it

also, um, uh, has boosted

turnout. Uh, the first big election we had

with it, I mean it was implemented in 2018. But the

first big election was the pandemic year in 2020 and

we saw big turnout and it's just led

to higher turnout. Now, uh, probably we should do a little bit

of um, uh, background information.

HB300 from Representative Jefferson

Burton. Um, it basically

ends the universal vote by mail. In ut you

can get your ballot in the mail, but then you have

to go and physically drop it off so you

can show id. And you were mentioning that he has been

mentioning some poll numbers. I'm with you on that. I can't

find any of the uh, poll numbers that

he's talking about. Um, but

he has been presenting these poll numbers saying

people want more security, especially here

in the state in their elections.

And so that's gonna be a

radical change to how people vote.

Um, and then you mentioned HB, uh, 332. And you and

I have both been on this one for

varying reasons. Um, but this one,

the main part that you're interested in is that it withdraws the

state from the ERIC multi state system. Can you

talk, talk a little bit about that?

Yes. Um, we've had eric,

um, along with I think seven

other states for maybe ten years.

Um, what they do, make sure

that uh, all of your voting information

is coordinated. So if someone moves

out of state, one, um, state will know

that the other state something has happened.

It's all about record keeping.

Unfortunately.

Um, one of the representatives

mischaracterized a

Colorado event.

In Colorado, I believe, there were 30,000

non citizens who voted. Um,

our Utah representative blamed

this on Eric. It was actually

not Eric's fault. It was uh,

just uh, a matter of the wrong

information in, wrong information

out.

Right. And this was actually just information about

voting was sent to 30,000 non citizens. They didn't actually

cast ballots in Colorado.

Much like our dead people have not actually voted here

in Utah. Utah.

Yeah. And that's what they're hanging a lot of this on. Um, is

there was a legislative audit about election

security, um, or uh, uh, the

election processes. And they found

that two people in Salt Lake City who are

deceased may have cast ballots

in the 2023 municipal election. That's currently

under investigation. Uh, but they also found that

people, uh, people who

voted in person, uh, they couldn't

reconcile those numbers with the actual

voter ro. So there's always room

for improvement. But it seems like they're

um, using uh, these audit

results to really go after something

that people see as a convenience.

And a lot of this we can trace it right

back to Donald Trump's false claims of a stolen election in

2020. And those have persisted

and sort of metastasized into what we're seeing

now.

Yes. So we heard several of, uh, the

representatives talk about their

choice. They were choosing integrity

over convenience. This is really

not a matter of integrity. Uh, we

have a very firm and

good system of voting here. And it's really

not that much of a convenience either. It's just

easier. It makes voting more.

We have a very safe, um, and an

important MAD ELD system. And

you don't have to drop it in the mail. Let's say if you don't

trust the usps, just take it to

a ballot box.

Right. And that's another thing they've been talking about because there were a number

of voters in Iron county who got

bit during, um, uh, the

primary election last year because they waited until the last

minute to drop their ballots in the

mailbox and because of some changes made

by the US Postal Service because those ballots went to Las

Vegas and didn't get the proper postage stamp, so

they weren't counted. Um, and there was a lot of

hand wringing about that. But what this is gonna do, I

mean, it's also gonna be a problem

for rural areas because now people are going to have

to go and go to a ballot box that has to

be staffed. There has to be someone there to check your ID for you to

drop it off. Um, or you're gonna

have to go on election day or go to an actual

voting center. So this is gonna be an extra burden on people who live

in the, of the state.

Absolutely. So because, uh,

Representative Burton referenced all those polls, I

have been trying to get more information about them

and I've been talking to the Sutherland Institute.

The Sutherland Institute actually has some

excellent, uh, documents and

research. Um, and it all

supports mailed ballots the way that we have them

now. In fact, Derek Monson, uh,

said in one of the um,

major research papers that they

did, uh, that getting rid of voting

by mail as we have it would be like

a Pyrrhic victory, that we burn down the

system in order to make progress.

And that is exactly what they're doing.

I think that that's a very good point. I was in

a hearing with you when they were talking

about. I was covering a hearing, hearing up on the Hill

when they were talking about, um, one of

Lincoln Fillmore's bills. This first one would

be, uh, requiring people who run

Citizens Initiative to determine, uh,

the fiscal impact and then determine how they're going to fund it either

through a tax Increase,

uh, or by cutting some program. And yet they have to

specify which program it was. And you said something that

I thought was really interesting, and I think it goes to this, uh,

effort, uh, to try to get information from the

lawmakers. You, um, said to them, we're

here. We want to talk to you about these things.

And that really struck me because it seems like

they're only talking to people who give them

positive feedback, and they really don't want to hear from

detractors. Am I characterizing that correctly?

Yes, you are. And I believe it was

Senator, um, McKay who said that all

of his constituents dislike

the initiative process.

Really?

Okay, yeah, exactly. I know

several of his constituents, and they actually

love the initiative process. What he's

talking about, I think, is that

the initiative probably did not

pass in his district, but

the initiative did pass. Uh, and just

because you don't like one initiative doesn't

mean you don't like all the process.

The process is very good. It is in

the constitution of Utah saying

that the people have co equal

power to create

laws, particularly when the

legislature does not listen to

us.

That was an argument that we heard back in following

2018, when the three citizens initiatives

passed. There was the medical cannabis, the Medicaid expansion,

uh, and the gerrymandering one. Um, and one of the

things we kept hearing from lawmakers as they were making

drastic changes to those initiatives is it didn't

pass in my area. And so I'm just doing what my

constituents want. Donald Trump didn't win Salt Lake

county. So does that mean that he didn't win the state

or he's not the president of Salt Lake County?

That's not how it works. But that is such

a juvenile and simplistic argument.

But it's one of the ones that they use a lot lot

in order to justify these sorts of

things that they pick and choose, whichever

data they want to look at to

support the position that we know that they're going

to take.

Yeah, I think this is really unfortunate, and I think what's

happened this session is that the

legislators are so mad at

us for suing them. And

I'm sorry that we had to go that far, but yes, we

did. Um, as I said earlier, and

as you heard, we are willing to talk to them,

but they need to talk to us, not just me.

They need to talk to all of their constituents. They need

to listen to both sides. This is not just

a red state. We are Utah.

Are you able to get meetings with lawmakers who

you met with Speaker Schultz or President

Adams at all during this session?

No, I have not. It's been. It's difficult

while we're in the middle of a lawsuit, too.

I mean, have you asked to talk to them?

I haven't asked, Schultz. No, I haven't.

Okay. Okay. I mean, uh, um,

because I look at people, I look at

some of these right wing

organizations that are very small but have

a lot of influence, and they're able to get meetings with

anybody they want. Um, you know, I see

that, um, uh, you look at Utah Parents United,

they're constantly meeting with

legislative leadership and

groups like that. And that's gotta

be infuriating for you because you also

have some things that you want to present to lawmakers,

but you can't get in their office or even, um,

get the time of day from them.

Well, we did go to Washington, D.C. last year, and

we tried to talk to all of our, our congressional, uh,

delegation. Um, the only in person

meeting we actually got with a

representative was with John Curtis,

and that was when he was in the House.

Everyone else, they did allow

us to come in and talk to their chiefs of

staff. So that is something.

Um, right now, as I said, it's just a

difficult time with us in the middle of a lawsuit

to be talking to them. Our attorneys are working, worried.

I'm sure their attorneys are worried. They know what we

think.

And perhaps that was an unfair question. But I

appreciate your perspective. Um,

I think as someone who covers politics,

uh, in, uh, the state, I think the number one thing

I keep hearing from people are questions about the

gerrymandering lawsuit. And there was a big hearing. Um,

was, uh, it two Fridays ago? Yeah, it

was two weeks ago. Um, and the judge is

taken under advisement. Um, do you

have any sense on when we might

hear, uh, uh, some

news out of that?

Well, this is Judge Diana Johnson,

and she asked excellent

questions.

I think it was Gibbs. Gibson.

Gibson. I'm sorry, misspoke.

It's okay.

And, yeah, she asked very good questions of

both sides. Um, she is well aware

that this is a time sensitive issue,

and she said she would like to get it out

soon. So I thought, gee, we should run

some sort of a poll or, you know,

get people betting on this. Um, I

said she should have it out within

a week, and somebody else said, oh, it'll be

six months. So that's.

I have no idea. Soon.

Yeah. Well, as I've been learning,

um, the justice process

moves very slow, and it's a painful pace of its own

choosing. Exactly. Um, are there

any other bills Besides these election related ones that

you're concerned about or you're keeping an eye on. I know

that there are bills about changing the way that

voter um, data is kept. Um, there's one this

afternoon, Representative Trevor Lee's bill, uh,

would take away the ability for voters to classify

uh, their records as private and uh,

would make them all public. Unless there

are some certain cases. Uh, are there any other bills that

you're paying attention?

Well, of course we have positions on

gun, gun safety, we have

positions on public lands.

Public lands are a big issue for us.

Um, I'm a little

surprised at all of these sovereignty bills that

are coming through. Um, you

know we're Utah, we're not uh, a

nation, but uh, you know, this is a

new world we live in. So.

Yeah, uh, it's, it's and it's,

it's only going to accelerate because uh, the Donald

Trump's in the White House.

I will say too that we're trying to figure out what

is in this new uh, grandma bill,

the one that uh, talks about

the State Records Committee.

It really uh, it also. There's, Is that, is that

the, the bill by, by Harper. Is that the Harper bill?

Yes, yes.

There's a media part in there that really cracks

down on who can

get records, uh, from the media. It's really

gonna hurt. Internet based, um, uh,

any media outlet that's only Internet based, uh,

is not going to be eligible for an

expedited response. Um,

that to me is extremely concerning.

Yeah, there's a lot in it. We haven't been able to go

through the whole thing, but I think it's uh, for

c. Citizens. I mean fees are

always a problem. Um, I'm sure you've been through

that.

Yep.

Um, just getting access

to public records. We, our league

believes in um, transparency.

And then there's the news that Senator Mike McCall is thinking

about just uh, getting rid of the State Records Committee

and uh, having an administrative judge look at

all of these things.

Yeah.

And judges, I'm guessing administrative judges are

political appointments, so. Which

would be all sorts of fun. Kathy B. Bely, Utah League of

Women Voters and the author of the Hits and Misses column

in City Weekly. Thank you so much for your time.

Thanks Bryan. We appreciate you.

And that's it for this week's show. I'd like to thank you again

for taking time out of your day to listen. If you have

not subscribed to this podcast yet, you can do that

wherever you get your podcasts and if you like

it enough, maybe leave a rating and review. Wherever you

get your podcast, that helps their

algorithm suggest the show to new

listeners, and that just helps us grow our audience.

One more thanks to my guest, Kathy Beeley of the

Utah League of Women Voters, and the author of

the Hits and Misses column in City Weekly.

If there's a topic you'd like me to tackle or a guest that you'd

like to hear from, reach out and let me know. My email

is on the website, Utah Political Watch

News. You can also find me on social media.

I'm on bluesky, threads, Facebook,

Instagram, all of those platforms.

If you haven't yet, take a moment and sign up for my

newsletter for free at Utah PoliticalWatch

News. You'll get all of my coverage of the

2025 Utah Legislature in your

inventory box. And you can

also become a, uh, paying subscriber if you feel so

inclined. Because this kind of work, podcasts

journalism, the stories that I write, they take time,

they take resources, and I can't do it for

free. If you feel like you can swing it for

as little as $5 a month, you can help support

this critical work of holding our elected

officials accountable. That's at my website, Utah Political

One Watch News. I'd appreciate it if you could take

that extra step. I completely understand that not, uh,

everybody can afford a paid subscription

right now, but if you can, well, I would be

thankful and other readers would be as well,

because it just, just helps support what I see as really,

really important work right now. Special Session

with Bryan Schott is written and produced by

me, Bryan Schott. Thank you so much for listening. Listening.

We will talk to you again next week.