There was no Republican primary ballot in the mail for me this week. I’m not complaining; I shouldn’t get to vote to choose candidates for a party to which I don’t belong. I left the GOP ten years ago for local, state, and national reasons.
I attended two debates between my district’s state senate candidates anyway. I still care whom my old party chooses; in lopsided Utah County they’re essentially choosing the general election winners a few months early.
Some readers here want only neutral information about candidates and elections, and that’s okay. The best I can do in this case is two links.
First, here’s a video of the state senate portion of the May 19 debates in American Fork. It’s from the American Fork Chamber of Commerce’s YouTube channel. Thanks to the Chamber for sponsoring, hosting, and recording the event, as they so often do.
Second, for the American Fork Citizen’s coverage of the debate—and much better photos of the candidates—follow this link.
I’ll post notes separately on GOP candidates for Utah County Commission Seats A and B. There would be two other races on my ballot, if I had one: state school board and county clerk. I have nothing to offer about those races; I don’t know the candidates.
Here follow my own opinions.
Utah Senate District 21: Kelly Smith vs. Brady Brammer
This races pits incumbent Brady Brammer against Kelly Smith, who is currently in her second term on the Cedar Hills City Council. I won’t pretend to be unbiased.
I know Brady Brammer only by what I’ve seen during the campaign, plus a bit of news here and there. I’ve known Kelly Smith for years. We’ve worked together on some political things. She’s as effective in local politics, including behind the scenes, as anyone I know. If I had a vote it would be hers. If I hadn’t been so caught up in other things and missed the deadline, I might have returned to the GOP long enough to vote for her in this primary. So correct for my bias however you wish.
Besides the May 19 debate, I crashed the party on March 31, when these two debated at American Fork Junior High for an audience of delegates to the Utah County Republican Convention. The observations that follow are from both debates.
Two debates: Likes and Dislikes
There were questions and answers on dozens of topics, from data centers to the Utah Lake Authority. Sometimes the candidates disagreed, but often they didn’t, and there was just some more or less interesting discussion.
Here are some of my personal likes and dislikes from those events. I won’t pretend to have liked the two candidates equally, and I wasn’t keeping score—and this will not even approach a comprehensive account of either event.
Like: Brammer speaking intelligently of the role and structure of the state judiciary in one debate.
Dislike: In the other debate, Brammer cherry-picking numbers to make the Utah Supreme Court look lazy.
Like: Both candidates opposed online voting.
Dislike: Smith wants ID required for voter registration but not for voting. (I want it for voting too.)
Like: In response to multiple questions, Smith declared her opposition to giving any legislative authority to anyone who is unelected (i.e. passing the buck to agencies and commissions).
Dislike: Brammer repeatedly pledged his allegiance to the Utah County Republican Party Platform. When I was active in that party, I thought the county platform didn’t serve even its partisans well. In the first debate he also emphasized his duty to represent the delegates, when I want him to focus on representing all his constituents.
Like: Smith said, “I represent everyone. Not just delegates, not just Republicans.”
Dislike: Brammer preached this tired party dogma to delegates: The only path to the ballot should be the party convention, not signatures on petitions. He seemed quite sincere. I fancied I saw the politician’s gift to be sincere about whatever he needs to be sincere about in the moment, because . . .
Like: Smith noted in response, but without sarcasm, that Brammer used signatures, not convention delegates, to get on the ballot in his first race for the Utah House.
Dislike: Brammer all but mansplained to his opponent—as if she, a seasoned, intelligent, active, communicative, collaborative local government official, just couldn’t understand how things work at the state level, where the party rules. But she is a politically seasoned, retired public school teacher who is also an outspoken Republican; even if she hadn’t worked with the legislature, she’d know about partisan conflict.
Like: Both candidates discussed the paramount importance of transportation issues, especially with rapid population growth. Smith in particular spoke intelligently of local, regional, and state governments’ collaborative roles in public transit.
Dislike: Brammer waffled on public transit. But I get it. The topic makes a lot of western conservatives queasy. (Full disclosure: I love public transit.)
Like: On the banning of books, Smith said libraries have limited shelf space, and librarians should curate the collections with teacher and parent input.
Dislike: Brammer wants parental discretion, not librarian discretion, to prevail with respect to books in school libraries.
Break for an unsolicited thought from me: I agree in principle that some books don’t belong in school libraries and classrooms for a given age. But a law that bans a book in schools statewide if only 3 among dozens of Utah school districts ban it, is a special Utah Legislature brand of folly. Governor Cox should have vetoed H.B. 29 in 2024 and held out for something emphasizing local control of what happens in local schools. The legislature’s veto-proof Republican majorities—an unhealthy condition in any legislature with any party, especially when it’s chronic—might have overridden the veto, but that’s not certain, and at least there would have been more of a fight. Why should the Daggett, Piute, and Tintic School Districts (less than 1,000 students combined) have that kind of power over school libraries in Alpine, Davis, and Granite Districts (over 200,000 students combined)? Or vice versa? I know the state school board has a brief window in which it can override an automatic ban, but why should it have to?—and it’s not clear to me why the state board should make those decisions for local schools either.
Like: When asked about compromising or standing in principles, both candidates did well (despite Brammer briefly genuflecting to the party platform). Brammer: If you can win the fight without compromise, win it. Otherwise, take incremental victories. Smith: Stand on your principles, but others have principles too. We can compromise without sacrificing principles.
Dislike: Brammer kept saying “I did this. I stopped that. I cut this tax. I cut that tax. I passed a bill. I fought that battle”—as if he were a legislature of one. It’s fortunate that he assured us, “I have a servant’s heart,” or we might have doubted his humility. Forgive my sarcasm.
Like: Smith pointed repeatedly to the burden of unfunded mandates from the state on local governments and emphasized the need to defend and increase local control.
Dislike: Brammer’s sanctimonious critique of local governments and school districts funding things with bonds.
Mild dislike: Smith reduced larger questions about tax cuts to concerns about education funding, which is crucial but not the entire picture.
Final Thoughts
Brammer’s campaign is conspicuously well funded, and both candidates and their campaigns are polished and professional. We don’t always see that in these races, and I welcome it.
Both candidates are intelligent, poised, and articulate. We don’t always see that either, but I’m glad when we do. Brammer is a bit more articulate than Smith, even if he sometimes edges toward glib.
If Brammer is aiming for higher office next, he has a shot. He knows which buttons to push, and he’s fairly skilled at pushing them. But I had intermittent trouble trying to cut through his rhetoric to what he actually believes. (I often have this difficulty with politicians.)
One of Brammer’s campaign fliers that landed in my mailbox lately has a banner across the top, in bold white lettering on red, “NOT ALL HEROES WEAR CAPES.” Based on what I saw at the debates, I cannot doubt that the candidate approved this message.
If I were a criminal defendant in desperate need of an attorney who could convince a jury of my peers of whatever I needed them to believe, at least long enough to acquit me, Brammer would be a good choice of hero. And in November I will most likely vote—in my disappointment—for the Capeless Hero, if he wins the primary.
As I said, if I had a vote in the primary, I’d cast it for Kelly Smith. Friendship is all I need to justify that, but I’d choose her in this race if she weren’t a personal friend and political ally. Of course we don’t agree on every issue. But she knows the people, cities, and issues in her district broadly and deeply, and she’s a workhorse, not a show horse. And I’ll take someone any day who tells me what she really thinks over someone who flatters my ears with whatever he thinks I want to hear.
At the Utah County GOP convention she got more than one-third of the delegates’ votes. That wasn’t enough to force a primary without signatures, but it’s not bad, considering that I heard her tell the delegates what she thinks, not, in some cases, what we all knew many of them wanted to hear.
If you have a vote in this one, Brady Brammer’s not a bad choice. But Kelly Smith is an excellent choice.
One guy’s opinion.
Thanks for reading.
Read my notes on candidates for Utah County Commission Seats A and B here.