- Do you support or oppose the Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act that Utah voters approved in 2018? Please explain your reasoning.
- I support the Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act that Utah voters approved in 2018.
- I support it because it does three things our democracy badly needs:
- Respects the will of voters. Utahns across the political spectrum organized, studied the issue, and chose this reform at the ballot box. When people take the time to change the law through an initiative, elected officials should honor that choice—not undo it when it becomes inconvenient.
- Prevents extreme partisan gerrymandering. The Act bans maps that “purposefully or unduly” favor any party or politician and requires neutral criteria like equal population, compactness, keeping counties and cities together, and protecting communities of interest. That’s how you get districts that reflect real communities instead of being engineered to lock in power for one side.
- Creates a transparent, data‑driven process. An independent commission, clear standards, and modern analytical tools make it harder to manipulate maps in the shadows. Utahns deserve to see how lines are drawn, to offer input, and to trust that the rules—not partisan self‑interest—are driving the outcome.
- At the core, I believe voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. The Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act moves Utah closer to that principle, so I support it and would work to protect and strengthen it.
- What should happen when the legislature disagrees with a map the commission produces, and what would you do in that situation?
- I support the Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act that Utah voters approved in 2018. I support it because it does three things our democracy badly needs:
- Respects the will of voters. Utahns across the political spectrum organized, studied the issue, and chose this reform at the ballot box. When people take the time to change the law through an initiative, elected officials should honor that choice—not undo it when it becomes inconvenient.
- Prevents extreme partisan gerrymandering. The Act bans maps that “purposefully or unduly” favor any party or politician and requires neutral criteria like equal population, compactness, keeping counties and cities together, and protecting communities of interest. That’s how you get districts that reflect real communities instead of being engineered to lock in power for one side.
- Creates a transparent, data‑driven process. An independent commission, clear standards, and modern analytical tools make it harder to manipulate maps in the shadows. Utahns deserve to see how lines are drawn, to offer input, and to trust that the rules—not partisan self‑interest—are driving the outcome.
- At the core, I believe voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. The Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act moves Utah closer to that principle, so I support it and would work to protect and strengthen it.
- Do you support Utah's vote-by-mail system as it stands?
- I support Utah’s vote‑by‑mail system as it stands. Utah has one of the most secure, efficient, and voter‑friendly election systems in the country, and vote‑by‑mail is a major reason why. It increases access for rural communities, working families, seniors, military voters, and people with disabilities. It also gives voters time to study the issues and cast a thoughtful ballot.
- Just as important, Utah’s system is trusted. County clerks conduct signature verification, maintain detailed chain‑of‑custody procedures, and use bipartisan teams to process ballots. Independent audits and years of data show that Utah’s vote‑by‑mail system is both secure and accurate.
- I support it because it reflects Utah values: practicality, accessibility, and trust in our neighbors. Any changes to the system should strengthen those principles — not undermine them.
- What would you do to encourage more people to vote who currently don't vote?
- I want more Utahns to vote because our democracy works best when everyone’s voice is heard. The people who don’t vote often aren’t disengaged — they’re busy, overwhelmed, or unsure their vote matters. We can fix that by making participation easier, more welcoming, and more meaningful. To encourage more people to vote, I would focus on three things:
- Remove practical barriers. Many non‑voters are juggling work, childcare, school, or long commutes. Strengthening vote‑by‑mail, expanding ballot drop boxes, and ensuring clear, timely voter information helps people participate without sacrificing their responsibilities.
- Increase civic education and outreach. When people understand how decisions at the Capitol affect their daily lives — housing, schools, transportation, safety, and economic opportunity — they’re more likely to vote. Partnering with schools, community groups, and local leaders can help make voting feel relevant rather than abstract.
- Build trust through transparency. Some non‑voters stay home because they don’t trust the process. Utah’s election system is secure and well‑run, but we need to keep explaining how it works, how ballots are verified, and how results are audited. When people trust the system, they participate in it.
- Meet people where they are. Community events, cultural gatherings, faith communities, and neighborhood organizations are powerful places to share nonpartisan information about how to register, how vote‑by‑mail works, and what to expect on Election Day.
- My goal is simple: make voting feel accessible, understandable, and worthwhile. When more people participate, Utah’s decisions better reflect the full strength and diversity of our communities.
- Utah voters can put questions on the ballot through citizen initiatives and referenda. Should the threshold for passing them be changed? Why or why not?
- I don’t believe the threshold for passing citizen initiatives and referenda should be raised. Utahns already face one of the most demanding signature‑gathering processes in the country, and raising the bar even further would make it nearly impossible for regular people to put issues on the ballot. Citizen initiatives are one of the few tools voters have to check legislative power when they feel their voices aren’t being heard.
- The current system strikes an important balance: it requires broad support across multiple counties, ensures signatures are verified, and gives voters the final say. Changing the threshold now — especially in a way that makes initiatives harder to pass — would weaken that balance and reduce public trust.
- If anything, we should be strengthening the relationship between voters and the legislature by respecting the outcomes of initiatives once they pass. When Utahns take the time to organize, gather signatures, and vote on a policy, elected officials should treat that decision as meaningful, not something to undo after the fact.
- Citizen initiatives are a safety valve in our democracy. They give Utahns a way to raise issues that might otherwise be ignored. Keeping the threshold where it is protects that right and keeps power closer to the people.
- What do you see as the relationship between transparency and corruption?
- Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Transparency and corruption are directly linked. Corruption thrives in environments where decisions are made behind closed doors, information is withheld, and the public can’t see who is influencing outcomes. When processes are opaque, it becomes easier for a small number of people to manipulate rules, resources, or power for their own benefit.
- Transparency does the opposite — it forces sunlight onto the process. When the public can see how decisions are made, who is involved, and what data or reasoning is being used, it becomes much harder for corruption to take root. Clear disclosure rules, open meetings, accessible records, and public reporting create accountability. They also build trust, because people can verify that institutions are acting in the public interest.
- In my view, transparency isn’t just a procedural value; it’s a preventative measure. It’s one of the most effective tools we have to protect public resources, uphold ethical government, and ensure that decisions reflect the needs of Utahns rather than the preferences of a few insiders.
- Does Utah's GRAMA support the public's right to know, or does it need strengthening? Or is it too stringent?
- I believe Utah’s GRAMA law supports the public’s right to know, but it needs strengthening. GRAMA is an essential tool for transparency — it gives Utahns access to records that show how decisions are made, how money is spent, and how public institutions operate. That’s a cornerstone of accountable government.
- But in practice, GRAMA has gaps that make it harder for the public to get timely, affordable, and complete information. Fees can be unpredictable, response times vary widely between jurisdictions, and some agencies interpret exemptions so broadly that records are withheld even when disclosure would clearly serve the public interest. When the rules are uneven or unclear, transparency becomes inconsistent — and that’s where mistrust grows.
- Strengthening GRAMA doesn’t mean overwhelming agencies; it means clarifying standards, improving consistency, and ensuring that public access is the default, not the exception. That includes:
- Clearer limits on excessive fees
- More uniform timelines and enforcement
- Narrower, better‑defined exemptions
- Modernizing systems so records are easier to search and release
- GRAMA is fundamentally a good law, but Utahns deserve a system that is as strong and reliable as the values it represents. A transparent government is a trustworthy government, and strengthening GRAMA is one of the most effective ways to protect that trust.
- Describe a specific action you would take in office to make sure every person in your district has equal access to government services and equal protection under the law, regardless of citizenship status.
- I would propose an “Equal Access Review” process that requires every state agency and local partner serving our district to evaluate whether non‑citizen residents can safely and effectively access their services. This includes looking at language access, documentation requirements, complaint procedures, and whether people feel safe seeking help without fear of retaliation or misunderstanding.
- As a legislator, I would use that review to do three things:
- Remove unnecessary barriers that prevent non‑citizens from accessing services they are legally entitled to — such as public health programs, emergency services, workplace protections, and victim support.
- Require clear, multilingual information so people understand their rights and know how to get help, regardless of citizenship status.
- Ensure equal protection in practice, not just on paper by strengthening anti‑discrimination enforcement and making sure agencies have the training and resources to serve everyone in our community.
- This is a concrete, actionable step that brings transparency, accountability, and fairness into the system. Every person in our district deserves equal access to government services and equal protection under the law — and this is one way to make that real.
- Is there anything else you think is relevant that our questions did not reach?
- Not at this time.
