Opinion: Legislative dust finally settles
Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed six bills and allowed two others to become effective without his signature. While some of his objections were technical, others reflected policy positions. He is requesting a special session to reform some bills he signed. Meanwhile, lawmakers will determine the appetite for veto overrides. What are the ramifications of Cox's exercise of gubernatorial powers?
Cowley: Cox's vetoes signal his willingness to challenge the Republican-dominated Legislature, yet his special session request reflects collaboration with legislative counterparts.
The governor is keenly aware of opportunities to fulfill his pre-session promises to provide (or in this case, protect) tax relief for seniors.
One of the most debated decisions of where to expend ink was the pride flag bill. Cox allowed it to go into law without his signature, citing that even if he used his red pen, the Legislature would assuredly override it. This nuanced approach will likely result in Cox facing pressure to better define where he stands on the issue.
In a move rarely undertaken by any executive branch, Cox declined to expand his power and vetoed SB296, which would have allowed him to choose the chief justice, preserving judicial autonomy.
Pignanelli: 'They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.' — Jeb Bush
Years ago, I conversed with a veteran lawmaker about the governor vetoing bills. He opined that lawmakers, including him, would erupt with anger at such insolence. However, the astute politician also observed that the governor's office is a muscle that needs exercise, and rejecting legislation maintains strength. He believed the executive pushback built parameters for future lawmaking, even if overridden.
Cox's vetoes (and bills passed without signature) reaffirm his place in formulating tax and election policies.
SB296 would have given Cox the ability to select the chief justice. There was a compromise by the courts and Utah bar (which this firm is honored to represent) to be neutral on this bill in exchange for dismissal of HB512, an aggressive restructuring of the judicial retention process. Thus, Cox's veto of the bill raised eyebrows.
As Cox expressed to lawmakers, the courts (including the bar) did not request this action. However, this wrinkle in the agreement may propel an override or a potential future reexamination of judicial retention. Perhaps Cox's strategy is to assert a more decisive role in actions regarding the judicial branch.
Political observers and the governor have increasingly warned about the number of bills introduced and passed every legislative session. In 2025, 962 bills and resolutions were introduced (surpassing the 2024 record of 942), and an almost record-breaking number passed. Is this an issue, and will it ever be resolved?
Cowley: The public sees the astronomical volume of legislation coupled with headlines of perceived insignificant or even humorously unnecessary bills, and wonder if elected officials are squandering time and resources. As an insider, I can attest that weighty issues are addressed — tax reductions, educational freedom, etc. — but superfluous bills are a distraction. It's hard to argue that Utah would come to a screeching halt if all 582 bills didn't pass.
There isn't a good solution other than encouraging legislators to focus on quality rather than quantity. Limiting the number of bills will only make each longer and more complex, akin to federal spending bills. Only those plagued with political obsession disease or severe insomnia read every word, thus minimizing public scrutiny.
One way to curtail voluminous legislation is for the governor to more liberally use veto authority.
Pignanelli: Decades ago, an arrogant legislator sponsored 20 bills and was chastised by fellow lawmakers and the media for burdening the system. Of course, I was that obnoxious politician who angrily claimed a constitutional prerogative to represent my constituents. So, I cannot join others in the complaint chorus.
Despite the increasing bill flow, I am amazed that the system functions well. Still, modifications are needed to utilize interim sessions better for analyzing complex issues. Lawmakers with bills in similar subject areas should be encouraged to combine efforts. But again, I'm not pointing fingers.
Sundance Film Festival announces that after 40 years in Utah, they will move to Boulder, Colorado, in 2027. Was this a political or economic decision?
Cowley: Utah has more to offer than just free money. Outdoor Retailers threatened to leave over political differences. They even tried leveraging lawmakers for more incentive money and threw a tantrum when they didn't get their ransom, but eventually came back. I'll miss stargazing, but will sleep fine knowing our tax dollars aren't treated like Halloween candy.
As with many rocky relationships, time apart might help Sundance see what a good thing they had with Park City. It may also open new opportunities utilizing the 'greatest snow on Earth,' like the X Games.
Pignanelli: Our firm represented Sundance for several years, and they were aware of local political dynamics. Their decision was a financial consideration, as Colorado offered an incentive larger than Utah's proposal. The impact will be less than predicted. The festival is a lively event, but unique visitor attendance is dropping. A future return is likely, as Salt Lake City is more user-friendly.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
16 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Afternoon Briefing: Lake Zurich priest placed on leave for the third time
Good afternoon, Chicago. Texas House Democrats began returning to their state today after spending two weeks in the Chicago area and other parts of the country to prevent the Republican majority in their legislature from passing a new gerrymandered congressional map aimed at eliminating five Democratic seats. Yesterday, Texas state Rep. James Talarico received almost a familiar welcome as he delivered a rare politician-led sermon to the congregation at the historic Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side, once the home church for Barack Obama. Considered a rising political star even before he joined his fellow Democrats in the quorum-breaking walkout, Talarico spoke to hundreds of congregants in both religious and political terms, something the lawmaker and seminary student doesn't shy from doing. Here's what else is happening today. And remember, for the latest breaking news in Chicago, visit and sign up to get our alerts on all your devices. Subscribe to more newsletters | Asking Eric | Horoscopes | Puzzles & Games | Today in History There is another allegation that in the mid-1990s, during his years on staff at Maryville Academy, the Rev. David Ryan sexually abused a child. Read more here. More top news stories: Eleanor Gorski, CEO of the Chicago Architecture Center, said these hotels in historic buildings are attractive because they are often in a part of town that is fully built out, easily accessible by public transportation and near other amenities. Read more here. More top business stories: It was the most points the Bears have scored in an exhibition game since 1999 and just the second preseason shutout by the defense this century, with the other coming in the 2015 finale (a 24-0 win over the Cleveland Browns). Read more here. More top sports stories: In town recently to promote his new movie 'Nobody 2,' Bob Odenkirk, who produced and stars in the film, talked about his dramatic turn to grittier roles, first in FX's 'Fargo' series and then as the scheming Saul Goodman in 'Breaking Bad' and 'Better Call Saul.' Read more here. More top Eat. Watch. Do. stories: Island communities off the coast of North Carolina are bracing for flooding ahead of the year's first Atlantic hurricane, Hurricane Erin. Read more here. More top stories from around the world:
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Democrat: DC ‘not the safest place in the world'
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said Sunday that Washington, D.C., is 'not the safest place in the world' amid President Trump's crackdown on crime in the District and pushback from Democrats over the president's actions. 'Both of my children live in Washington, D.C. You know it's not — it's not the safest place in the world,' Smith told NewsNation's Chris Stirewalt on 'The Hill Sunday.' 'And also some of the policies the Democrats advanced around crime over the course of the last 10 or 15 years very clearly did not work. There was not enough transparency and not enough accountability,' he added. Last week, Trump announced he was taking federal control of D.C.'s police department and deploying the National Guard in the city to combat crime. Since then, he has received heavy pushback on his law enforcement moves from Democrats and District residents. On Monday, Mississippi became the fourth Republican -led state to unveil plans to dispatch National Guard troops to D.C. to boost Trump's crackdown on crime in the District. 'I've approved the deployment of approximately 200 Mississippi National Guard Soldiers to Washington, D.C., to support President Trump's effort to return law and order to our nation's capital,' Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) said on the social platform X. Smith said last Tuesday it was 'pretty clear' Trump ''wants his own domestic police force.' 'Look, this president is trampling on basic freedoms of the American people to a degree we — I don't think we've ever seen,' Smith said on CNN. 'You see that with what the ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents are doing, in terms of picking people up off the streets with no evidence, no due process, locking people up.' 'This is happening all across the country,' the Evergreen State Democrat added. 'Look, it's pretty clear the president wants his own domestic police force, and step by step, he's trying to create it, and we should be deeply alarmed by that, regardless of how you feel about crime in Washington, D.C., or any other city.'
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Everyone loses in a redistricting war
Gerrymandering, a wonky topic previously discussed mainly among AP history students and political scientists, has recently dominated national news headlines. In the fight for control of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, governors of several states are opting to hijack the decennial process for partisan advantage, rather than letting voters decide directly who should represent them in Congress. Election analyst and redistricting expert Dave Wasserman recently referred to what's happening as the 'gerrymandering apocalypse.' CNN referred to it as a 'battle royale.' And Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) said, 'we are at war.' It's easy to point fingers at Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and say 'he started it!' Abbott acquiesced to President Trump's suggestion that the state take up redistricting mid-cycle and draw five additional Republican seats — a seemingly desperate attempt to avoid the ' midterm curse, ' where the incumbent president's party typically loses House seats in a midterm election. But the Archduke Ferdinand in the war on redistricting isn't Texas, it's actually Ohio. There's a famous adage relevant here: 'So goes Ohio, so goes the nation.' And over the past two redistricting cycles, Ohio has gone down a very gerrymandered path that the nation now seems to be following. In matters that extend beyond Ohio and gerrymandering, it is imperative that we pay attention to what is going on in statehouses around the country, ' laboratories of autocracy ' as they are often rightly called, for a glimpse into the corruption that awaits our national politics. Ohio has some of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation. Its state legislature and Republican-dominated redistricting committee gerrymandered maps through a series of secret backroom deals, disregard of multiple court orders, and a deliberate strategy of confusing voters to sabotage attempted reform. They even tried to impeach the Republican chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court for ruling their rigged maps unconstitutional. But while state politicians were gerrymandering Ohio, unfortunately, few people were paying attention. Despite repeatedly breaking the rules, there was no accountability for the elected officials who took part in the scheme. To the contrary, most who participated were rewarded with electoral districts they were guaranteed to win, and a veto-proof majority in the state legislature. This has allowed Republicans in the state to pass unpopular laws that aren't supported by most voters. Take, for example, Ohio's Heartbeat Law, which outlawed abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Poll after poll showed that a majority — nearly 60 percent — of Ohioans supported abortion rights, with only 32 percent opposed and 10 percent undecided. These numbers have held relatively steady over several years. However, the 2019 legislative vote passing the bill seemed to reflect the inverse; the Ohio House passed the measure 56-40 and the Ohio Senate 18-12. Although average voters around the country weren't paying attention to what was happening in the Buckeye State, political operatives were. What happened in Ohio is now serving as a playbook for what we are seeing in states like Texas, Missouri and Florida. The governors and state legislatures of these states have indicated that they are willing to cheat to win. The Trump administration has demonstrated its willingness to ignore court orders it does not like. And, if they continue to do so, we will likely have a Congress that continues to pass legislation that is unpopular with voters. Politics is often like physics, in that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Democrats have indicated they are willing to fight back by gerrymandering blue states such as California and New York. Some have praised them for this effort, with one Democratic consultant stating: 'There's anger among Democrats, and they wonder why their elected leaders aren't doing everything they can to fight back. … Kathy Hochul is out there saying, 'I'll do everything I can to fight back — including gerrymandering the s–t out of New York.'' But as the redistricting wars escalate, it is also a reminder that, as in any war, no one actually wins. Regardless of which party controls Congress after the 2026 midterms, voters in both red and blue states will be disenfranchised, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's ' one man, one vote ' edict . Both Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states will be without any genuine form of representation. And even those who have a congressman of their preferred party affiliation will likely be represented by a more extremist candidate whose policy positions aren't reflective of the people in that district. As noted by The Associated Press, 'gerrymandering, once a feared accusation, has now become a battle cry.' If there's any lesson we can take away from the fight, it's that the lines we need to redraw aren't those separating congressional districts, but the ones we are willing to cross to ensure our side wins at all costs.
