Prop 4 repeal hangs by a thread, Sen. Curtis sponsors sports prediction market betting ban

Time now for Inside Utah Politics with Lindsay Ayers.

Welcome in, so glad you're here today, so glad you're finding us on news for Utah Plus.

That is our free TV streaming app.

If you've got Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Roku, or a newer Samsung device, just search in your

little search bar up there news for Utah Plus.

That is the gang sign of what you look up news for Utah Plus.

Joining me today, Taylor Morgan, Leah Murray.

Hi guys.

Hello.

Where are we?

Tell the people who you are and what you do.

Taylor.

Taylor Morgan, partner at Morgan May Public Affairs.

We do PR, political consulting, lobbying, all that fun stuff.

Any political messaging you're seeing?

Not all of it, clearly.

Some of it.

I'm the Murray, and in this time of season, I'm overly pollinated, so I might just sneeze

a lot.

Also, I profess her up at Weaver State University.

It's relatable, Leah, because everybody has allergies right now.

Yeah, yesterday, a lot of us all, it's very high, Pollan, and I was like, uh-huh, I feel

that.

I have just for the record, I have not turned my sprinklers on.

I was seriously considering it.

Okay.

And then you shamed me with Director Joel Ferry, of course, and so I respect Joel on taking

his advice.

I'm going to hold off on turning on the sprinkler.

Does that affect the Pollan?

Is it because people are sprinkling that we're getting?

No.

No.

Pollan has to do with the blooming.

Yeah, that's right.

It doesn't have anything.

Like it doesn't care about my feelings or at all.

Yeah, I got you.

Um, I'm surprised we don't have a website yet to shame your neighbor.

When is that coming?

Is that not?

Shame your neighbor.

Shame your neighbor for watering too much?

Uh, well, I think there already are a few of those in the avenues in Sugar House, but

out in Draper, we have websites shaming people for yellow lawns out there, so.

Oh, got it.

Okay.

Okay.

You put rocks in your curb strip.

People think you're a Democrat.

Got to be careful.

And for bed, you do that liberal landscaping, having a bed.

You save water, especially now that they're not even paying us to do it.

What's the point?

Yes.

All right.

Well, let's jump into our topics today.

Shall we?

Oh, Lord.

Come on.

Yeah.

That's harmless.

Liberal landscaping is my new band name.

I like that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Let's dive into our topics.

The first and foremost, why don't just touch on the repeal of Prop 4 because this thing is

getting mighty close to not qualifying for the ballot.

We've kind of been watching this day by day.

There are updates at 9 a.m. every morning.

We thought that it would get to the requisite number of signatures by today.

It has yet to do that.

Taylor, do you put any stock in the numbers not moving yet in specifically Senate District

15?

That's where there's only 103 signatures separating this thing from passing or failing.

Or could this just be county clerks are busy counting everybody's signatures right

now?

I think that's part of it just the signature counting not only happening with these removals,

but also with candidate signatures right now.

There's a lot happening.

County clerks are very busy.

We did see though last week for five or six days straight.

They did bump off more than 100 signatures per day there for almost a week.

So I'm not too, I don't think the lag means that, you know, they're going to keep Senate

District 15.

I just think it's a timing of turning them in and reporting them.

We'll see what happens tomorrow morning.

Yeah, we'll be watching for sure.

There were 113 signatures over the required number 103, 103, okay.

Yeah.

Leah, any thoughts on the repeal effort appearing to get close to failing hanging on by

a thread?

No, but I mean a little bit.

I'm excited to see what the outcome is because steak dinner is riding on.

Whether Taylor was right about what would happen.

I think I'm going to be right.

I'm feeling confident about the steak dinner.

It's a prop bet.

I just hope it's a good steak dinner.

Oh my gosh.

No, it's not.

It's not a prop bet.

Is it gambling?

Isn't it just among friends like who's the smartest?

Yeah.

Cheese.

There's no money in my bracket, but like, don't tell John Curtis, okay?

So when is it illegal if we put money on it?

Maybe if it's in writing or on paper, I don't know, listen, I'm going to get my steak,

okay?

All right.

And you will too because of the bet.

So you're welcome.

That's fair.

What is really interesting though about this removal effort right now is it's no coincidence

that they are targeting Senate District 15.

I think Cottonwood Heights, mouth of Little Cop would Canyon, you know, a very kind of center

center blue district, a lot of center, center Republicans.

So it's no coincidence that Kathleen Rebe, the senator representing that district of

Democrat is also collecting signatures right now for the Democratic CD1 primary ballot

while opponents to the Republican Party's initiative are removing signatures.

I think those two efforts are perhaps working well together and it's been very effective

so far.

Interesting.

I didn't think through that.

Can I ask this question?

I'm so sorry.

And everyone at this table knows that I am not a huge fan of direct democracy and think

we should be like the other 24 states that don't have direct democracy.

But do you think this whole conversation, if it's pierced, right, the, like, guys, if

you will, like, if people are actually paying attention to it, does it make people less

willing to sign petitions or does it, right, listen, you just said, I'm so sorry to interrupt

Lindsay.

No, no, it's a question that some candidates have brought up, yeah, people leery of signing

things now because this prop for fight has been messy.

I will say yes.

I have a whole, I have spreadsheets that prove the answer is yes.

It has been tough for candidates statewide right now to gather signatures from voters because

of this signature burnout effect among voters.

Oh, yes, it's a real thing.

And you know, this is what happens when you have too much direct democracy.

So if Ruby is going door to door, her answer is sign me because I'm fabulous.

Take your name off.

And maybe that's an easier case to make to voters, exactly right.

Take your name off.

Is an easier case to make or sign for me like she's there talking because that's what

Taylor said.

She's going collecting with her packets, people are collecting with her packets.

And they may just have a handful of removal forms with them.

So she can double do.

Hopefully they don't have stamps as well.

Can't do that anymore, but you can have the individual sign that form in your presence.

And then there's nothing in law stopping them from taking that form.

The third party or someone else can take that form for the voter to the county clerk.

So do we think that's the next thing to go when it comes to a niche like signature

harvesting?

Yes.

I was going to say signature harvesting will be a really hot word in 2027 because I wonder

if that brought that somebody.

Let's get a contract on that.

Let's get a sports contract.

That is one of the, yeah, the questions out there is people right now in state law, it's

not illegal for a third party group to go around and collect those removals and just drop

them off at the lieutenant governor's or at the county clerk's office so that the people

don't have like because you have to do your removal in person or by mail.

You can't email it or sign a form online or fill out anything on it.

And we've gone to great lengths or I should say the Utah legislature has to specifically

prohibit ballot harvesting, right, which is, you know, campaign field canvassers will send

people two voters doors, you know, if they haven't turned in a ballot yet, they'll ask

me if they voted yet.

They'll say, hey, go get your ballot right now, go grab your ballot.

And then in the past, those canvassers would actually take the ballots and then turn them

in for the voter.

We prohibited that, but we haven't done it with signature removals.

So here's a question though, when you're gathering signatures, you do it by packet, right?

So I'm just thinking out loud here, you can collect multiple packets and turn them in,

like, can you packet harvest?

Well, that's the process, right?

Do we need to ban packet harvest?

We require a witness.

We require someone to be a witness to all the physical signatures.

That person has to sign and certify the packet and then turn it into the county clerk.

So you can't pack a harvest?

Well, it's, I mean, you need to define packet harvest.

Well, I think you were a question of one, if a gatherers can do it, then the repealers

can do it.

Or vice versa, if they're gatherers canvass the repealers.

Well, we love double standards.

So yeah, I would not expect that to be an issue with restricting the removal process at

all.

Okay.

We used to require removal forms to be notarized, but we removed that.

Okay.

We did make it.

We did make it a touch easier to remove your name.

Interesting.

I am a notary, by the way, just in case anybody needs services.

Good to know.

A lot of people on my Twitter asked me, can I add my name to the repeal effort now because

we're seeing people take their names off and they're seeing the numbers tick down and

they're like, wait, I didn't get a chance to sign and the short answer is no.

You can't because that window is already closed.

So all right.

We talked longer about Prop 4 repeal when there was no actual repeal yet to talk about

than I thought we would.

So thanks guys.

Like, can we pause real quick?

I'm so sorry.

What did you just say earlier, Taylor, like the Republican legislatures tried to?

Is the answer that it's easier to pull names off because generally Republican legislators

right would not be supporting an initiative going on to about it?

So a little bit like their feelings about direct democracy have boxed them into the

spin harder.

I think our initiative laws are largely put in place by Republican control.

Yeah.

I will say that I had a hand in helping reform that removal process and timeline back in 2019.

I had an initiative kicked off the ballot in 2018 because some opponents targeted one

district and bumped us off by a few hundred signatures, sound familiar.

And at the time, the removal process was actually even more favorable relative to the gathering

process.

And so we have made that process concurrent.

I think it is better the way it works now, but absolutely those who are pushing removal

have an advantage because the initiative sponsors cannot collect any more signatures to replace.

The key mistake here, they just needed to get an additional Senate district or two and

have larger buffers.

Really, they should not have counted on any Democratic Senate district in their 26.

That's the issue.

Interesting.

All right.

Well, for sure, we're talking about this again when we record on Thursday because it's

likely to move in the coming days.

Let's switch to another topic and that is prop betting because we've talked about it a

handful of times.

Let's have a prop bet on how long we talk about prop betting.

So our good Senator John Curtis from the great state of Utah has introduced legislation

to ban this at the federal level.

And specifically, it's banning sports contracts.

So Taylor, maybe I can start with you.

Can you just outline sort of what his proposal would do and how it's kind of, you know, a message

of, you know, states, rights versus, you know, the federal government banning this stuff?

What do you think?

Yeah, well, really prop betting and contract betting have become wildly popular and are

just growing exponentially across the country because they're specifically designed to exploit

loopholes in states where gambling is prohibited, like Utah.

You cannot gamble on sports or other things in Utah legally.

However, we don't have laws specifically on the books, or well, we do now prohibiting

prop betting and contract betting.

So really, this legislation is trying to close that loophole at the federal level so that

these prop betting companies, contract betting companies can't get into states just because

states haven't yet specifically banned these very specific forms of gambling.

Contract betting is really wild.

This is where you can enter a contract in, you know, with someone, one of these contract

betting firms on almost anything.

You can do it on political campaigns.

You can do it on a reality TV.

You can do it on sports.

So Warren Iran?

The Warren Iran.

Right.

Almost anything is open to gambling at this bill.

I think is a really good bill at this.

Prop betting is devastating young male Americans.

It is a huge problem.

I mean, the thing I liked about this bill and I do apologize for coughing out of frame,

like a little bit, uh, pollen, um, but what I thought was interesting is the conversation

around where the purview, so I'm just going to tease you a little bit, right?

Like states have the right to make bad decisions, right?

So if a state wants to say all young men can bet and do this prop betting, right?

So what I liked about this conversation was you talk us to say, no, we're going to

protect our young men from these bad choices.

So we don't want to be protected.

We like to pet on stuff.

I mean, are you saying there shouldn't be a federal ban on this?

Correct.

Yes.

So a little bit, it's like a federalism issue.

A little bit, I think the federal government is encroaching all over the place on what

should be the state's purview.

So if you are someone who wants to live in a state where prop betting is fine and young

men get to gamble their lives away, move to that state a little bit, right?

And I guess I just feel like when it comes to health and the welfare of people, that

is a state purview pretty clearly to me.

Yeah.

I mean, I'm all, I'm all about state rights.

I'm all about that in federalism.

I absolutely believe in the local control in that way.

This one is tough, though, because these forms of gambling were intentionally created

specifically to exploit the loopholes in states that didn't specifically ban these kinds

of gambling.

Right.

And different states have different approaches.

Let's not forget, there's millions and millions of dollars, billions of dollars, I should

say, behind these gambling firms in this industry that is actively opposing any prohibitions

across the country in the states.

One.

So I think it's worth Congress looking at me, but I hear you.

So I agree states always do it better, but in this instance, these gambling methods are

exploitative and they intentionally seek out loopholes in the states.

Right.

But I guess what I'm going to say is I think more states probably are okay with gambling.

So just think about where the lotto are, where we drive to buy lottery tickets.

So a little on this one, I want to make sure that states like Utah have carved out the

space to, you know, well, this legislation does provide, it allows the states to make

the decision, right?

Right.

It prohibits these forms of gambling in states where those states have an otherwise allowed

them, right?

So it does in some ways let the states still make the decision.

I think it prompts the conversation in all the states and that's important.

So one of the things that the prediction markets have done in recent days is go in and

try to create policies around the insider trading piece of this because, you know, take

the football gatorade color.

For example, there's a guy who knows or a girl who knows what color the gatorade is that's

going to be dumped on the coach.

And that person could go make millions of dollars just by, you know, having that inside

of the management.

Listen, if you want this bill to get through Congress, you cannot include a prohibition

on insider trading, right?

In it because Congress will never vote to prohibit insider trading.

We know that.

Well, so should the companies be doing that?

I'm not saying that's okay.

Either I'm just trying to be snarky.

Yeah.

Does that need regulating, I guess, is the question, Leah?

No, and I guess my, well, yes.

I want to just kind of say is someone who watches sports and who actually cares about,

like, I don't know, college sports and we're all paying attention.

I mentioned my bracket earlier.

How is your bracket?

Shh.

Not good.

Yeah, just shush, just shush.

But the answer kind of is everything you watch has got the betting push, right?

So everything, if I'm watching a show to kind of get a sense of like, what the teams

are doing or if I want to do a second chance bracket, by the way, my bracket, I didn't

spend any money on it.

Just for bragging rights with friends to talk about which teams we're winning.

And the answer is every single thing you watch has a push to bet.

You could bet on this.

You could bet on this.

I'm very concerned about the level of gambling attached to NCAA programs.

I'm very concerned about young people who are, for the most part, student athletes being

treated very poorly.

So I got to just say, I've got major issues with this across the board.

And I think Utah's mood on this is actually correct, which is we should be limiting the

dopamine hits, which come tied to making gambling as easy as it has been.

Taylor, go into the mind of the politicians, though, Senator Curtis, we also know Senator

Moore is running a house version of this.

What is their motivation?

Is there a political motivation here or is it, they really see gambling as the problem?

Like, because this issue is popping up all of the sudden, I mean, it's not a new concept,

but in the last couple of months, we've really seen a push towards regulating production

markets.

I think there are a few things happening.

Obviously, it is primary election season.

This is a populist issue in a lot of ways.

And so there's a political element there.

At the same time, just recently, we have had a compelling new data surface that tell us

this is devastating young male Americans.

It is having a real impact on our economy.

It is a serious problem, right?

And I think Congress is acting in good faith here.

I don't think it's just a political gimmick.

So I appreciate them getting into this because, you know, states need help on this one.

And I think a lot of the states and a lot of voters in the states have specifically pushed

Congress to get after this in some way.

All right.

We'll watch to see how it shakes out.

But interesting that our two Utah, two members of our delegation are on the forefront of pushing

this through at the federal level.

So Utah has been on the forefront.

We are the tip of the spear on so many of these issues, right?

Whether it's social media, mental health among youth, you know, prop betting, gambling,

these kinds of things.

I think that's, you know, a good thing.

I think Utah is finding a good space here to have some influence nationally.

And shame was plugged for the show this week.

John Curtis will join me on Inside Utah politics.

I'll send that at 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. and we'll talk about that.

Here he has a beautiful backyard that is entirely grass free, by the way.

Oh.

So ask him about that.

So does he have liberal landscaping?

Well, he was a Democrat when he was mayor of Provo, technically, so I'm sorry, Senator.

You're not a Democrat when you're mayor that's a nonpartisan election.

Well, he was registered as a Democrat.

You can be a Democrat and still be, you know, mayor is in a nonpartisan election.

Taylor, he's a Republican.

Stop it.

All right.

We'll leave it there.

Okay.

Finally, here on the show, want to hit the DHS and TSA and ice fun.

Funding situation.

So as we're recording this, as it stands right now, Congress is under negotiations about

how they fund the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ice and TSA.

Democrats don't want to fund ice because they think there's been bad behavior there.

But DHS needs to fund TSA workers.

So today, there's been talk of a reconciliation package where we fund everything else and

then fund ice separately or something to that regard.

But essentially, the president, President Trump has now come out and said, I won't support

any deal unless you pass the save act in here.

Right.

So it's like, here's one issue, which is transportation.

And let me throw this other giant controversy in, in some effort to never compromise.

But I feel like, yeah, let's not solve a problem.

Yeah.

Well, it's really, really difficult.

And I have a lot of strong feelings about this.

No words.

Yeah.

Well, I want to make it clear that, you know, the way ice is going about immigration policy

and, you know, detaining people, deporting people, they're just, they're doing it the wrong

way.

And frankly, it is a huge distraction from, you know, some of the really good things

that are happening when it comes to immigration law and enforcement in this country.

There are some good things happening with this administration and securing our border.

But nobody is talking about that because of what ice is doing and how they've been

behaving and how they're, you know, coming into communities and buying up giant warehouses

for detention facilities, right?

So that is the only thing Americans are thinking about when it comes to ice right now.

And then to send ice to airports, you know, to fill in for TSA agents, that's, I think,

pretty, that's pretty problematic in a lot of ways.

I think people have not that, not that I do, but many Americans don't trust ice because

of what they're hearing and what they're seeing on the news.

And so to put them in airports is problematic.

And now we're throwing in the save act on top of it.

Right.

So the answer is we have a major problem.

We are not negotiating well.

We have people trying to fly like in this week and this has nothing to do with this story,

but that air Canada flight that ran into a, right, like a truck on the New Guardia.

And you're like, nobody wants to get on a plane, right?

This is all very terrifying.

And a little bit, we have to fly like that's something that this country uses for its

transportation.

And instead of in good faith, having a conversation, which I do think Republicans and Democrats

in Congress were doing, here's what we can do.

Let's fund TSA, but not ice.

Let's manage this with a new DHS secretary that's coming and whatever.

And then the other president being like just throwing, right, just a bomb, like right

in the middle of it.

It just makes me question if he's even serious.

Oh, he's not.

Of course not.

Right.

But he did this with the big beautiful bill and was able to get most of what he wanted.

I think Congress did that in spite of President Trump not because of it.

I don't think President Trump helps that bill get done.

I'm sorry.

I interrupted you, Taylor.

No, but also big, beautiful bill was, here's all the things we want.

This is a very precise conversation about ice not being done the way we want it to be

done, right?

The manager like Taylor just talked about.

And what I'm going to do is now talk about elections at the exact same time just for

funsies.

Right?

This is not serious.

I just solved this problem.

I just we're trying to poke each other in the eye, right?

So Democrats in the House will not vote for funding for the TSA because of ice's behavior,

right?

No, but they said they would.

They want to carve out ice from the conversation right now, but up until now, right?

And so for President Trump to send ice to fill in for those TSA agents, right?

That is inflammatory.

That is a real extreme poke in the eye to those Democrats in Congress in that way.

And now to throw the save back on top of it, at some point, we just need to stop fighting,

guys.

Let's just try to get something done.

Let's solve the problem.

Yeah.

We only have about 30 seconds left, but what happens here?

I mean, does the president relinquish?

Do we fund DHS?

Do we do a reconciliation with just, you know, some provisions?

How do you guys see this?

So I think I just paid $4.19 on the gallon at the gas tank to fill my car to drive down

here.

I think that kind of has nothing to do with what we're talking about turns public opinion

away from him.

And then maybe he starts to behave now, come on, yeah, I'll bet you on it, I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't see the pathway, Lindsey, to resolution here.

I think it's just, it becomes more and more problematic.

The politics are not clear for anyone here.

Just because again, President Trump is hijacking this issue to bring in another issue, right?

We just need to get serious about solving real problems.

Yeah.

All right.

We'll see where it goes.

Taylor Morgan, Lee, I'm all right.

Thanks for your insights today, Leo.

You didn't even sneeze.

I know, but I talked a little bit.

I apologize.

You're fine.

No worries.

We didn't even say producer Peters here, but he's been here and I am, you know, there's

a few points I almost hopped in, but we're just any fact checks.

Yeah.

Do you really need me fact check?

Well, I actually, I was going to note here, are Utah prop betting ban has not fast

has not been signed yet.

Has not been signed yet.

Oh, it has not been signed.

He passed the legislature.

He passed the legislature.

The governor has not signed.

And yeah, governor has until Thursday to sign her veto.

I doubt this is something you could also let it go into law without

signature.

The passive approach.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

But that's, that's the only thing I had in the neighborhood of a fact, Jackson.

So the effective date would be in June.

If he lets it go or does sign it, which means we have a couple more months, you guys.

Oh, yeah.

So get your bets in.

Prop betting is still legal in Utah until that law changes.

All right.

Well, get out there.

Don't water your lawns.

Put in your liberal landscaping.

Do whatever you need to do to conserve water.

Yes.

Apparently we are in a world of dire hurt as always, watch inside Utah politics.

Wherever you get your podcasts, you can just search for inside Utah politics with

Lindsey Erts.

And we will see you next week.