Lael Cox and Dr. Jay Goodliffe, Political Science
Within a broader question of minority representation in democratic systems, this study shows how the maturity of legislators allows rural interests to be satisfied so as to avoid serious factional contention in the Utah State Senate.
Within Utah, the urban population seems fairly segregated from the rural population, with the rural population as a significant minority. Upwards of eighty percent of Utah’s population is densely centered in a four-county area around Salt Lake City along the Wasatch Front. This translates into about twenty out of the total twenty-nine Senatorial districts representing urban interests. Of these twenty counties, sixteen have less than a two percent rural population and none has more than nine percent. The Senatorial districts that fall outward from the Salt Lake area are clearly more rural housing usually twenty to seventy-four percent rural populations, although many consider anything outside the Wasatch Front rural. At a glance then, urban representation in the Senate has a clear two-thirds majority over rural areas.
Because of Utah’s population distribution, I originally expected to find a noticeable rift between the urban and rural ranks, particularly in issues dealing with state appropriations. In addition to the obvious fault lines (i.e. environmental issues), I expect debate over the allocation of the state budget because this tends to permeate a variety of specific interests and operates on the economic principle of scarcity (a program that helps one area uses up resources available to help other areas). My preliminary research indicated that rural areas sometimes complain about the percent of the budget that goes to urban projects, so I expected to find this in the legislative proceedings as well. Such sentiment might be augmented as rural areas seek services equal to those available to urban areas. Often in such cases, the cost required to put rural areas on par with the urban areas is considerably more because of the lack of existing infrastructure, while services would benefit a proportionately smaller population for the cost. Any push for equality would then draw dissent from urban areas.
The Senate provides a good forum for studying such interaction. Not only can we examine how experienced legislators approach such issues, but we can also see how in some cases the broad constituency bases require Senators to balance urban and rural interests within their own districts.
The qualitative portion of the research added the most insight. For this portion of the study, I interviewed ten state Senators. While I originally planned to interview more, the Senators’ scheduling constraints prevented me from performing some interviews. My original plan to interview all in person also changed to accepting telephone interviews due to Senators’ scheduling constraints. I am not disappointed with the response rate, though, because the Senators I was able to interview came from across both the urban-rural and party spectrums.
The Senators usually readily identified issues that do spark debate along urban-rural lines. Most pointed to environment and gun control as the sole ideological divides. They also mentioned technological development, education, and transportation issues. Upon further inquiry, the positions on these issues dealt mostly with appropriations, supporting my hypotheses about budget considerations being a fundamental part of an existing dividing line.
Almost all the Senators stated, however, that although there is debate on certain issues, this debate is not a consistent or even prominent divisive influence, but rather a process in understanding each other’s interests. Legislation is often presented dealing with issues that could urge rural and urban legislators to line up on opposite sides, but in comparing this to the interaction in the state House, where representatives seem to be more adamant about district specific positions, the Senators all identified an attitude of compromise to achieve consensus. From the perspective of the rural Senators I interviewed, most rural needs are met when the urban Senators understand the rural position. Urban Senators also agree that they are willing to look beyond district-specific gains and losses if rural areas need or deserve certain legislative measures. This occurs likewise with rural support for many urban projects. This mutual cooperation seems to demonstrate a fraternal bond within the Senate, where all the Senators seek to understand the needs of each other as well as the needs of Utah as a whole. Granted, sometimes interests conflict, in which Senators must defend some constituent interests, but where compromise is possible, it occurs. In examining those districts that house both urban and rural constituents, the Senators usually claimed their motive in taking a position on an issue fell to what position would benefit the most people.
I saw evidence of maturity in the quantitative portion of the research as well, oddly enough however, through the inconclusive nature of my results. I originally planned to aggregate the bills into a single measure of support for rural issues, looking specifically for evidence that the rurality of a district influenced the likelihood for supporting rural legislation. The findings were not significant primarily because almost ninety percent of the bills that reached the floor for final vote achieved virtually unanimous consent. Rarely did a bill receive more than two negative votes, leaving almost no variation in the dependent variable and little chance for any independent variable to explain much. The fact that most of the bills achieved such strong support on the floor may reflect the maturity of the Senate. I tend to doubt that the floor consensus reflects that any bills that sparked true contention along urban-rural lines were killed in committee because a fair amount of bills that could have easily created a gap did make it to the floor. Rather, the consensus more likely represents the willingness of Senators to look after the welfare of the state. Once an issue is understood, the Senators support it almost unanimously. One specific case reflects this. The piece of legislation identified by most legislators as a source of debate between urban and rural lines when introduced in the 2001 general session dealt with passenger restrictions for young drivers. Although urban and rural had clear opposing positions during floor debate, a logistical regression examining the results of the vote on the modified bill did not identify the urban-rural variable as a significant predictor in the vote.
One issue that has recently sparked heated debate along both urban-rural and party lines since the 2001 general session, lies in the task of redistricting according to the most recent U.S. Census results. Some of the new district proposals eliminate a rural district in favor of strengthening party grips on other districts. The results of this are yet to be seen. Apart from this issue, though, the Utah State Senate seems to be a fair forum for the advancement of the rural minority’s interests.