How the Utah GOP convention will decide the fate of party unity
Utah Republican Party delegates will decide Saturday if the state GOP will launch a war against elected officials, election outcomes and the primary process.
The local party volunteers will vote on an amendment that would change party rules to expel candidates who use signatures to get on the ballot.
They will also vote on how the next party chair should advance the decade-old project to remove the signature option completely.
For many of the 4,000 state delegates, the race for party chair between incumbent Rob Axson and former lawmaker Phil Lyman signifies much more than the typical partisan spat.
It represents a fundamental disagreement about whether the state's trajectory demands radical disruption of the status quo or continued collaboration with leaders across the Republican Party spectrum.
Both candidates have expressed support for President Donald Trump while touting their MAGA bonafides but offer different visions for the best strategy to keep Utah red.
Mediating party member disagreements, partnering with the Legislature and launching record-breaking fundraising and get-out-the-vote operations have been the hallmarks of Axson's two years in office that he promises to repeat if reelected.
Alleging unsubstantiated corruption, rooting out the influence of so-called RINOs and rejecting compromise defined Lyman's recent gubernatorial campaign which he has morphed into a bid for chair as he prepares to run for governor again in 2028.
Hanging over Saturday's vote is Trump's endorsement of Axson which has been framed by some as a vindication of Axson's leadership and by others as proof of establishment subterfuge.
Regardless of who they support, the delegates who spoke with the Deseret News agree that the outcome of the party chair election will shape the future of the Utah Republican Party for the next two years and the character of Utah conservatism beyond that.
Since 2014, Republicans have fought over the passage of SB54.
The infamous law was — according to the policymakers involved — an effort to prevent the elimination of Utah's unique caucus convention system.
It combined the convention candidate nomination process with a signature-gathering path to qualify for primary elections in order to stave off a ballot initiative that threatened to take primaries out of party hands completely.
Multiple GOP chairs have since sought to repeal the law through legislative action and legal challenges, arguing that it violates the party's right of association and enables big-money candidates.
Axson and Lyman both want to return candidate selection to party insiders. But delegates view the two prospective chairs as diverging on what they are willing to do to make this happen.
'The selection process is at the heart of this chairman's race,' said Don Guymon, the chair of the Davis County Republican Party. 'Who's best (positioned) to see if we can repeal SB54 is probably one of the central questions of the election.'
While Axson has said that legislators must reverse the policy which courts have upheld on several occasions, Lyman has said he will do whatever it takes to block the path of candidates who gather signatures.
On Tuesday, Lyman said he would fight back against policies the GOP disagrees with, including the dual-pathway primary system, through 'nullification,' a theory that argues that an authority can ignore laws it deems to be unconstitutional.
'The GOP is the 800-pound gorilla in the room but we refuse to flex our muscle,' Lyman said. 'I'm done with the notion that we are weak.'
Following the chair election, delegates are scheduled to vote on a proposed amendment to the GOP party constitution that would revoke the party membership for one year of any candidate who pursues signature qualification.
Taylor Morgan, executive director of Count My Vote, the group partially responsible for the state's signature primary path, told the Deseret News the party has tried SB54 workarounds like this before to no avail.
'It's a shameful and desperate attempt to prop up the party's failing caucuses and conventions,' Morgan said. 'Count My Vote remains committed to our mission and is prepared to take action to ensure that all Utah voters will continue to have a voice in our elections.'
If the party moves forward with these limitations on signature gathering it could spell the end of its official party status in general elections and the end of the convention nominating process, according to Stan Lockhart, former GOP chair from 2007-2009.
SB54 outlines that for a party to officially nominate someone to the general election it must allow candidates to qualify for a primary through both party conventions and gathering signatures.
Lockhart recognizes that Lyman's 'more militant' style resonates with some delegates. But he said it is much easier to claim something is unconstitutional during a campaign than it is to actually go against court rulings.
'You can win the battle and lose the war,' Lockhart said. 'If you go down the Phil Lyman route, I believe that will trigger a new initiative, then the Republican Party has to bet on the fact that the voters are going to want less of a say in elections, not more of a say, in order to keep the caucus convention system.'
Lyman and his wing of the party view SB54 as a symptom of a much broader problem that they believe has brought the state to the precipice of permanently losing what makes it great.
At the center of this diagnosis is what Lyman has called 'the establishment,' or the cast of elected officials he claims have allowed 'liberal' policies on immigration, spending, elections and DEI to infiltrate the state.
Lyman did not respond to multiple requests for an interview.
Sophie Anderson, a state delegate from Davis County and one of Lyman's most dedicated supporters, said everything about the race for chair comes down to the establishment vs. anti-establishment dichotomy.
'That's what this race is about,' Anderson said. 'Do we want the status quo establishment candidate? Or do we want the anti-establishment breaking through the barriers that will eventually revive our party in Phil Lyman?'
Even Axson's endorsement from Trump — which precipitated endorsements from convention favorites Sen. Mike Lee, Rep. Burgess Owens and state lawmakers — is simply evidence that 'the establishment is terrified of a Phil Lyman GOP chairmanship,' according to Anderson.
But Axson, having spent his career working for Lee and advocating for conservative policies as an activist, said it was 'laughable to be called 'establishment.''
The contentious nature of the chair election is representative of 'undercurrents that have been there for a long time' in the party, according to Axson, but he said the healthy debate ends as soon as delegates resort to 'name calling.'
Axson said his endorsement from Trump, which came amid several state chair and congressional endorsements, showed that the president recognized his track record of blowing past party fundraising records and sending money and volunteers to help Trump and other candidates win elections in Arizona and Nevada.
'I think it goes to show the power of being collaborative as a team to try to get past the finish line,' Axson said. 'My focus is for the Utah Republican Party to win by elevating and growing its strength and relevance to benefit our state for years to come. This is not a placeholder as I run for other office.'
Don Willie, founder of the political consulting firm Epicenter Strategies, said Utah's senior senator 'obviously ... played a critical role' in Axson's endorsement from Trump.
Willie, who has worked closely with GOP national committeeman Brad Bonham for years, said the endorsement will have a 'big impact' on delegates because it bursts the assumption that Lyman is the default 'MAGA candidate' and highlights Axson's relationship with national players.
Michelle Tanner, a state delegate and St. George city councilwoman, said the endorsement speaks to Axson's broad support from the grassroots on up to the White House.
But more than that, Tanner said, it shows he can build lasting coalitions with an actual resume of party victories that benefit the party as a whole, not just one faction.
'We can't truly have the best things rise to the top if we can't feel comfortable having that open dialogue and knowing that we have a leader of our party who is not out there burning bridges but is out there learning how to build more bridges,' Tanner said. 'We want our movement to be growing, not dwindling down to a select few narrow viewpoints.'
Alexis Ence, a member of the GOP's governing body, the State Central Committee, said both Axson and Lyman are both authentic conservatives. The distinction comes down to the role of a leader.
Despite his personal views, a football coach's job is to resolve problems behind the scenes and not to 'trash players publicly' because that 'damages the whole team,' Ence said.
Carolina Herrin, a state delegate with multiple other positions within the party, said Axson has followed through with his promise of 'putting Utah on the map.'
Herrin supports Axson for reelection because she thinks the party should maintain this momentum which she fears would be lost under a chair with Lyman's approach to party politics.
'We need someone who is able to work at all levels with every type of individual and not pick and choose who they feel is more conservative than others,' Herrin said.
Mackey Smith, a central committee member and the former chair for Utah Young Republicans, said he has heard from many delegates who supported Lyman for governor but do not want him elected as chair.
While Lyman's rhetoric is in line with what many delegates are hungry for, Smith said, there is a recognition that to bring about desired changes the chair needs a working relationship with the Legislature like Axson has.
Yemi Arunsi, a state delegate and former Davis County chair, said Axson has gone the extra mile in providing support for local parties and candidates.
Arunsi called Axson's endorsement from Trump a 'game changer' for the party that reveals how Utah's influence has grown within the national GOP under Axson.
This growth, according to Arunsi, is attributed to an approach that welcomes a diverse group of Republicans.
'Whomever it is in the leadership position, if that individual is not ready to to bring the party together, then I think we will start seeing an exit of Republicans that support the party,' Arunsi said.
On Saturday, party delegates will hear remarks from Axson and Lyman, as well as candidates for GOP secretary, before a leadership vote.
Delegates will meet at the Utah Valley University's UCCU Center where there will also be a U.S. Senate panel with Lee and Sen. John Curtis, and a U.S. House panel with Owens and Reps. Blake Moore, Celeste Maloy and Mike Kennedy.
Additionally, there will be a statewide officials panel with Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Attorney General Derek Brown, Auditor Tina Cannon, Treasurer Marlo Oaks, Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Elon is going to get decimated:' How Trump's feud with the world's richest man might end
'Elon is going to get decimated:' How Trump's feud with the world's richest man might end Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. WASHINGTON — If history is any guide, and there is a lot of history, the explosive new falling out between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is not going to end well for the former White House advisor and world's richest man. The political battlefield is littered with the scorched remains of some of Trump's previous allies who picked a fight with him or were on the receiving end of one. Lawyer Michael Cohen. Political advisor Steve Bannon. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. John Bolton, John Kelly and Chris Christie, to name just a few. 'If what happened to me is any indication of how they handle these matters, then Elon is going to get decimated,' said Cohen, the former long-term Trump lawyer and fixer who once said he'd 'take a bullet' for his boss. Musk, he said, "just doesn't understand how to fight this type of political guerilla warfare." 'They're going to take his money, they're going to shutter his businesses and they're going to either incarcerate or deport him,' Cohen said of what he thinks Musk will suffer at the hands of Trump and his administration. 'He's probably got the White House working overtime already, as we speak, figuring out how to close his whole damn thing down.' Cohen had perhaps the most spectacular blow up, until now, with Trump. He served time in prison after Trump threw him under the bus by denying any knowledge of pre-election payments Cohen made to a porn actress to keep her alleged tryst with Trump quiet before the 2016 election. More: President Trump threatens Elon Musk's billions in government contracts as alliance craters Cohen felt so betrayed by Trump that he titled his memoir 'Disloyal,' but the Trump administration tried to block its publication. Cohen ultimately fought back, becoming a star witness for the government in the state 'hush money' case and helped get Trump convicted by a Manhattan jury. Some suffered similar legal attacks and other slings and arrows, including Trump taunts and his trademark nasty nicknames. Trump vilified others, casting them into the political wilderness with his MAGA base. When Sessions recused himself from the Justice Department's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Trump savaged him, calling his appointment a 'mistake' and lobbing other epithets. Sessions resigned under pressure in 2018. When he tried to resurrect his political career by running for his old Senate seat in Alabama, Trump endorsed his opponent, who won the GOP primary. After firing Tillerson, Trump called the former ExxonMobil chief lazy and 'dumb as a rock.' Trump still taunts Christie, an early supporter and 2016 transition chief, especially about his weight. Trump also had a falling out with Bannon, who was instrumental in delivering his presidential victory in 2016 and then joined the White House as special advisor. 'Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency,' Trump said in 2018, a year after Bannon's ouster from the White House. 'When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.' Trump's Justice Department even indicted Bannon in 2020 for fraud, though the President pardoned him before leaving office. One of Trump's biggest feuds was with Bolton, whom he fired as his national security advisor in 2019. Trump used every means possible to prevent his book, 'The Room Where it Happened,' from being published, Bolton told USA TODAY on Thursday. That included having the U.S. government sue his publisher on the false premise that Bolton violated a nondisclosure agreement and was leaking classified information, Bolton said. Bolton said Musk is unlike most others who have crossed swords with Trump in that he has unlimited amounts of money and control of a powerful social media platform in X to help shape the narrative. Musk also has billions in government contracts that even a vindictive Trump will have a hard time killing, as he threatened to do on Thursday, without significant legal challenges. Even so, Bolton said, "It's going to end up like most mud fights do, with both of them worse off. The question is how much worse the country is going to be off."
