SCOTUS rules against conversion therapy ban, big ticket endorsements draw attention to CD-2

Time now for Inside Utah Politics with Lindsay Ayers.

Welcome in today, so glad you're joining us.

This is news for Utah Plus.

Our free TV streaming app.

So whether you're on Amazon Fire, Roku, Apple TV,

or newer Samsung devices, we're glad you found us.

We also put this on YouTube.

So we're glad you found us there as well.

Joining me today, Taylor Morgan, Leah Murray.

Hi guys.

Tell the people who you are and what you do.

Go, someone.

Again, every time we have people listening to people

watching this show, they already had enough of me.

TV is like the subway.

Every five minutes, people are getting off.

Okay.

Taylor Morgan, Morgan May Public Affairs, local political,

consulting, lobbying, whatever firm.

We do all the fun stuff that y'all complain about.

They need to know you have street cred.

Leah.

Yeah, we do political campaigns and so forth.

Yeah.

Oh my gosh.

I just love that analogy of on and off the subway.

Yeah.

I just had to like my brain had to think about that every second.

Every five minutes.

I'm Leah Murray, political science professor.

Up at Weber State University.

I think that more applied to radio when I worked in radio.

It was like the subway.

Everyone's getting on and off.

You kind of have to revisit things.

So we don't assume everyone's watching the whole show the whole time.

It's TV more like they're coming in in different episodes.

Like not everybody was here at the pilot.

So they don't know the character development of Taylor Morgan.

Right.

You have to go back and watch the pilot though, right?

Right.

I don't know that you have to.

Like if it's law and order, dude, that's a lot of shows to catch up on.

Yeah.

But that's a good analogy.

We don't know the character development.

Murder or she wrote.

You're going to go back there, too.

Taylor Morgan.

Come on now.

And it is a character.

Although if you're coming in on 1883, right?

Yeah.

Yellowstone, the different.

Or the Marshalls.

True.

Right.

You don't necessarily have to go back to season one episode one of Yellowstone

to catch, you know, to understand the series.

It's like secret lives of Mormon wives, season four.

No, it's not.

If you're going to jump in at season four, you kind of need to jump in at season

four.

Or you kind of need to know where Whitney's been in the past.

No.

To know where she is now being on Chicago and dancing the stars.

Per this analogy is Taylor Whitney in that cast.

Or are we are we making?

I have never watched the show.

I have no idea who you're even talking about.

Yeah.

We hated him at first.

But now we kind of like him.

He's kind of likeable.

Wait.

Because he just says things straight up.

Yeah.

The long shot fan.

He's growing.

Yeah.

You're comparing me to someone in the real house wife.

Whitney.

Wait.

Or Whitney Levin.

I have no idea who you're talking about.

I want to understand this one.

You're going to have to go back and watch the pilot.

And then I think it's a lot more.

This fact fired.

Terrible fashion.

Can we please start this show over again?

Yeah.

All right.

Let's dive in because we had a lot to talk about.

Wastin time.

All right.

A big ruling from the Utah Supreme Court today.

See, I'm well-rounded.

I can talk secret labs and Mormon wives and conversion therapy.

It's not something to be proud of.

No, I'm very proud of it.

It's on my Twitter handle.

So the state, excuse me, the federal Supreme Court came out today

with a major ruling on conversion therapy.

Essentially saying states cannot ban so-called conversion therapy

where you try to convert someone out of their sexuality

or gender identity.

And this would be for minors.

Now, that's kind of what they said.

They applied strict scrutiny.

And so there's some details here that we'll get into all of that.

Yeah.

They sent it back to a lower court basically to say,

determine whether this law followed that strict scrutiny standard.

Kind of like what happened in our redistricting case, right?

So basically, one of the eight majority justices says that

this would regulate speech based on viewpoints.

Whereas the one person,

Akitanya Brown-Jackson, the one justice,

I should say, who dissented,

said that the state should be free to regulate health care.

This is a form of health care.

And it's a medically necessitated,

a medical necessity to regulate, essentially.

How do you guys feel about that?

Taylor, let me start with you.

You seem to have thoughts here.

Yeah.

So I think Utah's ban on conversion therapy

will hold up following this ruling

because Utah's ban is fundamentally different.

I thought the Utah way, we often hear about that.

I thought the Utah legislature,

when they passed this conversion therapy ban,

they did so with the full support of local stakeholders,

with religious organizations,

with the predominant religious faith,

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, strongly supported

the Utah ban on conversion therapy.

Now, it passed the Utah legislature unanimously back in 2023.

That's significant.

The Utah law is different

because in Colorado,

the Colorado version of conversion therapy

not only prohibited specific practices like, say,

electro shock therapy and so forth.

The Colorado law also prohibited talk therapy.

It prohibited conversations among health care professionals

talking and exploring about sexual identity.

The Utah law specifically carves out space

for health care professionals to have conversations.

Neutral conversations,

exploring sexual identity, sexual proclivity,

and it prohibits certain practices

that are indeed harmful to minors into anyone, frankly.

But it still allowed space for talk therapy and conversations

to be had not just by religious and ecclesiastical leaders,

but also by health care professionals.

I think the Utah law is, frankly, a better way to do it

because it does account for those first amendment rights

when it comes to viewpoints and conversations.

Leah, how do you see this?

Justice Brown Jackson essentially said it was opening a can of worms

where we could regulate or not regulate any type of medical procedure.

I think I read someone said just because it's words and not a scalpel

doesn't mean it's not a medical procedure,

but obviously that's differently than the Supreme Court felt.

I mean, a little bit eight to one to me feels

this is not a controversial case, right?

You have eight justices agreeing with this decision.

I mean, the two other liberals do a concurring, right?

So they're not all on the same page.

But I feel, if you think free speech matters,

then it matters inside of a doctor's office.

And it's part of my lived memory, right,

or gag orders from the 1980s,

where President Reagan said you're not even allowed

to mention the word abortion when you were in a doctor's office.

And a little I have to tell you,

I just think when you walk into a doctor's office

or a therapist's office that you should be free to speak.

So I don't think words are the same as a scalpel.

I guess I kind of disagree with Justice Brown.

And I feel like Justice Brown, Jackson,

I feel like really government should stay out doctor's offices.

And patients should be able to have conversations

with their doctor about the scope of things that they need to deal with.

So I worry more, I understand her point, Lindsey,

but I worry more on the other side.

And that chilling effect.

What I think is really special,

and I think great about Utah's law,

is my understanding of it,

is it does carve out space specifically

for talk therapy and neutral conversations

to be had by healthcare professionals,

with patients, with minors,

exploring these kinds of questions and issues

in that professional healthcare setting.

I think that is a healthy thing.

I think more conversations are good.

I think acknowledging different viewpoints

or different lived experiences as part of this.

I think that's really, really helpful.

And I agree with you.

I think any time we go so far as to restrict

and limit free speech in any setting,

I think we've gone too far.

I think in this case,

we are seeing the pendulum swing back to the center

of common sense free speech.

Yeah.

Justice Gorsuch wrote that the first amendment stands

as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy

in thought or speech in this country.

Yeah.

And regardless of where you are on this issue,

I think it protects both sides equally.

Right.

I really do.

Interesting.

All right.

We'll watch to see whether any conservative states

have to get challenged on their law.

The advocates here in Utah,

like a quality Utah,

who helped broker Utah's law,

don't think they would be challenged on it,

and kind of point out some of the things

you did tell her about,

just the nuances in Utah's law,

and how it was written differently.

And they even go so far in a statement to us

to say that they purposefully didn't copy other states

because they wanted to make sure

that free speech rights were protected here in Utah's law.

And I think we owe equality Utah so much credit.

I really want to give them all the kudos in the world

and applaud their efforts.

They worked so diligently on this specific issue

for decades here in the state of Utah.

They could have done it as it was done in other states,

and essentially they would have lost it today.

But because they were so diplomatic and so careful

to receive stakeholder support here in Utah on this issue,

and frankly, Utah was a hub of this kind of conversion therapy

in the past, very harmful conversion therapy.

And so for them to have led the effort to do this

in the right way here in Utah,

and really, again,

set the example for the rest of the country,

just my hat is off to everyone in equality Utah.

Yeah. All right.

We'll watch that issue closely.

All right. Another issue I'm watching is earlier this week,

Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall,

came out with a press release telling us

that she had met with ICE when it came to the warehouse

that's planned out on the west side of Salt Lake City,

just recapping a little bit.

If you remember,

they're planning a 7,500 to 10,000 bed mega center

on the west side that is information that the mayor said

was confirmed to her by ICE agents in this meeting,

or I should say ICE leadership that she met with.

But apparently they didn't commit to informing the city

about any of the code violations.

Mendenhall says that this facility is not up to code

when it comes to like water usage and sewer usage

and stuff like that.

It's in a resident show.

Especially after they turned off their water.

Yeah. So what do you guys make of her meeting?

What's the next move for the city?

I mean, she kind of seemed in this statement,

and obviously we haven't talked to her,

so a little bit reading between the lines,

but she seemed to kind of say,

well, at least they clarified with me some of the things

they're planning,

but they didn't really give me everything I wanted.

Right. I mean, a little bit.

She's doing the best she can for her city.

The thing I was concerned about in this story

is the amount of water being used, right?

So the answer is extreme, what's the burden?

Oh my gosh, and talking about this now,

when we're like, we haven't had snow all year, right?

Like the drought that we are in,

the low water reserves that we have,

a little I was concerned that the federal government

is not required to tell the city any of that, right?

And that they're not required to actually work with the city

on those kind of things.

So what is she going to do, right?

Like she's got a defender city,

she's got to defend that water,

and maybe the best way to do that is to have conversations

rather than being,

what's the word I'm looking for, antagonistic?

Well, I think turning off their water was antagonistic,

but perhaps that was a smart tactic

that brought ice to the table for conversations.

And so I can respect that.

Look, I don't think any of us agree that we need

nor want a mega center,

a detention facility here in Salt Lake City.

I personally would argue that, you know,

Salt Lake City, Utah does need some kind of facility

on a much, much smaller scale.

I don't think it makes sense for DHS

nice to be sending people out of state

to Las Vegas to be processed.

I've heard great arguments be made by defense

and immigration attorneys saying that they would prefer

to have their clients close by

so that they could better serve their needs

and keep them close with family members to support them.

So perhaps there is a need for some kind of a nice facility

here in adjacent to Salt Lake City.

We are the Crossroads of the West,

I-15, I-80, the airport just in terms of convenience

and logistics and transportation.

Perhaps it does make sense to have some kind of small facility.

I hope that Mayor Mendenhall is possibly open

to something like that and is brokering in good faith

with ice because that could be a positive outcome

but the politics of that don't necessarily line up well

with her in Salt Lake City either way.

So we'll see what comes of it.

Is she negotiating in good faith here

or simply trying to throw everything she candidates

to prevent any kind of a facility?

Yeah, I mean I guess my question too is like looking

at the map of Utah.

Couldn't we place this detention center anywhere else?

Right, we're going to have a whole-

I mean like a little bit it feels like this city

which is a liberal bastion inside of this state

is being given an ice detention center.

Right.

I think it's a punishment.

I think it's beautiful.

So the politics-

Right.

I just want to kind of say I think she's right

to have conversation and not just shut off the water.

Right?

So I think the next step has to be relationship building

right with ice and I like the way she said

I'm just going to keep trying to be transparent

about what's happening.

But a little, everything you just said could be served

with an ice detention center somewhere else

where maybe the water burden wouldn't be as high

or right or already have a thriller.

Yeah, dense population area that's already really leaning

into that water.

Maybe in Twilla or Grantsville.

Maybe next to the nuclear site.

Just saying there's there are options

but clearly the politics of putting these detention facilities

in blue cities makes me happy.

Yeah, let's make no mistake.

That's intentional.

Right.

So you sort of how both sides doing is what I'm hearing you both say

is the federal government did it by plopping it in Salt Lake City

and Mendenhall's doing it by shutting off their water.

Right.

But Mendenhall had no choice.

Right?

Like the center came to Salt Lake City.

They could have chosen somewhere else.

Once it arrives, what is she going to do?

She's got to defend her city.

Yeah.

And that's my question.

Is she open to any kind of facility

or is it simply a no no matter what?

That's the question.

And at this stage, at least from what we know,

the politics tend to confirm that it's a no no matter what.

Yeah, she did reaffirm in her statement

that her position has not changed.

So even after this conversation with ICE,

she was still a no.

I'm trying to get her on the show to ask some of those questions.

So we'll see.

Okay, we'll keep watching that for sure.

Let's move on to some of our new congressional races

in our brand new congressional maps that exist

after a court imposed new maps.

Want to bring up some endorsements

that have happened in congressional district two.

So this would be.

Are you sure it's not one?

No, I'm thinking in my head right now.

I'm like, okay, one is the don't have.

It can be confusing to ask picker Mike Johnson.

I know.

Okay, so that's part of the issue here.

If you're not following along at home,

how Speaker Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan of the Freedom Caucus

came out endorsed Blake Moore in the CD2 race,

which is not the donut hole.

It's the one that goes around the donut hole.

And a little maybe what sort of looking for Snafu

when he said I'm endorsing Blake in CD1

when he's really running in CD2.

Oops.

Is that an oops or is it?

I don't know.

But how many of those videos, like is he going to record?

I've got to think Speaker Johnson is recording 37.

Yeah.

I've heard many, you know, kind of challenged.

He's doing a few.

He's doing it.

And Utah's new congressional map makes zero sense.

And so I cannot blame Speaker Johnson

for getting the district numbers.

And Blake is very ironic because Blake's been getting hit

from the right on people who think he should run in CD1.

He's not getting hit from the right.

He is getting hit from a small group of very vocal

carry on the Liz and B supporters.

But she's not getting hit from the right.

That she's running to the right of him.

That's going to be his challenger.

Right.

It's his challenger and his challenger surrogates

and campaign team are the ones that are criticizing Blake more

for not running in CD1.

Right.

And that's silly.

It's an absurd argument to make because carry on

Liz and B is not running in CD1.

Nor are any of her supporters that could be running in CD1

because CD1 is a gerrymandered, packed, democratic district

where a Republican does not have a chance.

You made her a joke.

You made her a joke.

You made her a joke.

You made her a joke.

You made her a joke.

Right.

I mean, it's just, but it feels super.

It's not the right issue to raise.

No, it's not.

Yeah, the key to Speaker Mike Johnson is still endorsing

Congressman Blake Moore to run for Congress.

That's all that matters.

Because he's in the leadership.

Right.

And a little bit, I kind of wanted to say maybe we're not

doing this conversation.

But that matters.

Right.

When we're thoughtful about what our congressional delegation is,

when we're thoughtful about where they sit and what power they wield

in that chamber.

Yeah.

You know, like those things matter.

Maybe we can have a quick conversation about when do

endorsements matter?

Because we will see much, many more endorsements.

And to be fair, Liz and B has an endorsement from House Speaker,

Mike Schultz here in Utah.

So one of Utah's top state leaders.

How and when do endorsements matter in your guys' opinion,

Taylor?

They don't.

Period.

Well, can I push back?

Sure.

Do they not not matter?

Hmm.

Can they matter more in a primary cycle that we're in right now?

So when you've got intra-party dynamics happening,

like the issues are should be relatively the same.

The party label is absolutely the same.

There shouldn't be a ton of daylight between a Liz and B

and a Moore.

So actually, a Mike Schultz endorsement or a Mike Johnson

endorsement may be send some signals to delegates and primary

voters in a way that I would argue in a general election doesn't

really matter.

But no.

No.

OK.

I can see that.

I can see that because in the city, one race, for example,

both Democrats are trying to carve out a more progressive lane.

And you've got Nate Bluin with the Bernie Sanders endorsement.

And then, you know, Ben McAdams who's trying to, you know,

maybe move a little bit to the left.

They're trying to out progressive each other a little bit.

So to Leah's point, aren't you seeing some of that daylight

in who's endorsing them?

But voters don't know.

Voters aren't tracking that.

If you ask the average Democratic voter in CD1 today,

who is Bernie Sanders' choice in that race,

I guarantee you a majority would not even know.

Now, endorsements can be impactful when those endorsements

come with significant financial dollars with PAC support,

with PAC resources.

For advertising.

Right.

Correct.

So when those endorsements come with money,

then they can be impactful.

But the endorsements themselves simply do not move the needle

in campaigns.

I've watched that closely for 20 years.

I watched candidates spend way too much time, effort, and money

trying to get endorsements.

And at the end of the day, endorsements themselves really do not matter.

Because voters in their own minds already have an understanding

of who a candidate is, who is liked and liked by that candidate.

And frankly, it's about the individual candidate,

not surrogates or those around them.

That is what moves voters.

But can I ask that question?

I'm just pushed back again.

I'm so sorry.

When the speaker of the United States, House of Representatives,

does an endorsement, don't we expect kind of leadership

pack funding to follow?

We do.

And the money matters.

But again, if you go to CD2 to Blakemore,

the district where Blakemore is running,

and you ask the average Republican voter,

who's speaker of the US House of Representatives?

Yeah, who Mike Johnson is.

Yeah.

80% will not know.

No, I think that's right.

It does.

The endorsement doesn't matter.

But what matters is it comes with House majority pack money.

That will help more.

He had that either way without, even without the endorsement,

so to speak.

He had the money.

I will say that, you know, I anchor the four o'clock here every day

and one of my producers accidentally wrote Senator Mike Johnson

in the script.

And I was on the air and I read it.

And then I was like, nope, that's how speaker Mike Johnson.

And so I knew who that was, but that's the point.

Yeah.

Just to make Taylor's point a little bit.

Yeah.

And in fairness, speak of Mike Johnson,

didn't even know the district number.

Right?

It cuts both ways.

Let's be honest.

Although to be fair, it's the current district number.

Again, it is.

His current, yeah.

Maybe it was.

I mean, it's not like he was.

It's the most confusing congressional map in the entire country.

And the most jerrymandered partisan pack district in the country,

too, Leah Murray.

What, cough, cough?

One of the other things I want to bring up about this race,

is that Blake Moore has now officially gathered his signatures

to qualify for the ballot.

I just checked the lieutenant governor's website

before we recorded this episode.

So he's got the requisite 7,000 signatures.

That puts him on the ballot.

That means that Liz and me, because she is not gathering signatures,

must do well at convention.

She has to essentially win it outright by 40%.

Right?

She has to at least qualify for the primary.

So hypothetically, say Blake Moore were to win convention.

She has to receive at least 40% plus of the state delegate vote

in order to be placed on the party's primary election ballot.

Now, because Blake Moore did collect signatures,

and he will be punished for that by state delegates at convention

on April 25th, it's likely that carry on Liz and be will win

more than 60% of convention.

So I expect there to be a primary between these two,

but I fully expect Blake Moore to beat her handily in that primary election.

That is the historical trend here in Utah Republican primary.

Well, we don't see any scenario in which

Liz and me doesn't make it out of convention.

I don't see that, no.

Okay, interesting.

We will watch that for sure.

Okay, we only have like two minutes left,

but I'll bring up the final topic here.

And that is a nuclear site in Twilla.

Right by the new ICE facility.

Yeah, except not, right?

The West Desert just has plenty of places.

There's a lot of room out there.

There's a lot of room for things to go.

What do you guys make of?

You know, this is a, the federal government coming to states

and saying, hey, we want to put some small nuclear sites

to really bump up Utah or America's energy grid.

We want Utah to be a hub.

Governor Cox is like, sign Utah up.

We are all on board.

Do we still fear nuclear the way we used to?

And we have like about a minute to discuss this very important topic.

So yes, we do, but I don't know that we should, right?

So the answer is like, there's deep history in Utah

around nuclear, right?

Nuclear waste, right?

Yeah, nuclear waste, right?

And all that kind of stuff.

Yeah.

But the answer is when we are talking about having nuclear energy

in our energy portfolio, which we absolutely have to have,

if we're going to do any of the fun things that we like to do

that has to be part of the portfolio,

nuclear power is very different than nuclear weapons, right?

Yeah.

So the way that it's, and I'm not in any way a nuclear expert, right?

Yeah.

But the way that that is managed, it's not something that people

should be afraid of.

Yeah, a lot of credit to leadership in the legislature

and by Governor Cox on this issue.

Utah is essentially all of the above.

Everything is on the table in terms of our energy approach.

I'm really excited for the future of nuclear power here in Utah.

I think we can do it safely.

We can do it smartly.

And Utah is going to, once again, lead the nation

in showing other states how it can be done the right way.

So you don't have any concerns about the waste,

even though it's like an hour outside of the city.

Utah has long been a destination for certain kinds of low level

the nuclear and radioactive waste.

If we are going to accept waste here in Utah,

we should use the technology to power right our cities

and our state instead of just bearing the waste.

So I'm all for this.

I think it's long overdue.

Okay.

We shall leave it there.

Taylor Morgan, Liam Murray.

Thanks for your insights today.

We always appreciate you.

Sorry for the coffee, Nick.

No, I liked the reaction.

That was just.

There were no words.

I assume it's still the palm.

Yeah, it's still the palm.

It's not my political views.

It's just the palm.

I'm allergic to those two.

It was just a cough.

Like I have no words.

I'm just going to cough.

Yeah.

All right, watch inside Utah politics this Sunday,

8 a.m. and 4 p.m.

We will talk more about the Confirmation Therapy.

Impact to Utah's law will have a quality Utah there

still working on booking another guest.

Hopefully it's may or may not all,

but that's just me putting out good vibes.

I'm happy to broke that interview.

Will you?

Thank you.

Can you do my dirty work for me?

Yeah.

Maybe you know.

Okay, perfect.

She often says no to me.

It's fine.

Everyone says no to me.

It's fine.

All right.

We will see you next time.