Structure Over Politics: Restoring the State and Federal Balance

Can states help bridge America’s political divide? On this episode of PoliticIt, host Sen. John Johnson welcomes Utah State Representative Ken Ivory to discuss Utah’s National Federalism Initiative and its focus on “structure over politics.”

America was not supposed to swing back and forth between a red king and a blue king, with each new administration trying to redirect our lives through the stroke of an executive pen. We were supposed to have a governing partnership. And when we start talking about that partnership instead of immediately fighting over policy, something encouraging happens: people across the political spectrum can work together.

That is the idea behind Utah’s National Federalism Initiative. We are asking a basic question that too often gets skipped: Before we argue about what government should do, which government has the authority and responsibility to decide?

That question matters in law enforcement, education, transportation, forest health, and the funding of essential services. It matters to Republicans and Democrats. Most importantly, it matters to the people whose voices become harder to hear when every decision moves to Washington.

We are making progress by putting structure over politics. Not by pretending our disagreements have disappeared, but by recognizing that a durable constitutional system must work for all of us, including when the other party wins an election.

A Governing Partnership, Not a Chain of Command

Think about hiring a lawyer and an accountant. They have different responsibilities. You want them to cooperate, and you want both of them to do their jobs well. But you did not hire them to do the same job, and neither one works for the other. They both work for you.

That is a useful way to think about our constitutional structure. The people established state and national governments with distinct responsibilities. Both serve the people. The purpose of the arrangement is not to make one government responsible for every aspect of life.

The national government has important responsibilities involving national defense, diplomacy, international relations and trade, and relations among the states. State governments retain broad responsibilities for the everyday work of governing.

Our concern is that this relationship has become badly unbalanced. Instead of maintaining clear responsibilities, we increasingly turn every disagreement into a national contest. Whoever controls Washington is expected to settle the issue for everyone, and the next election becomes a fight to reverse the last result.

That is exhausting. It also leaves very little room for the governing diversity that makes our system valuable.

Federalism is not simply an argument for less government in Washington. It is an argument for understanding who is responsible for what. A functioning partnership requires a clear understanding of each partner’s job, the limits of that job, and the means of resolving disagreements.

We have found that people who disagree strongly on policy can still have a productive conversation about those responsibilities. That is where the work begins.

Utah’s National Federalism Initiative: Three Practical Pillars

Utah’s 2025 House Bill 488 established the framework for the National Federalism Initiative. The legislation organized the effort around three practical pillars: continuing education, an annual gathering of states, and work toward a national federalism commission.

1. Continuing education for state leaders

If we intend to restore a balanced partnership, we need to understand it ourselves. State leaders must know their jurisdiction, the limits of federal jurisdiction, and the tools available to maintain those boundaries.

We are developing continuing education for legislators, staff, agency personnel, attorneys, and other state leaders. Utah is leading this work, with the intention of making it available to other states.

This cannot be a matter of memorizing a slogan about the Tenth Amendment. Officials need a working understanding of their responsibilities that they can apply when a specific issue arrives on their desks.

2. An annual gathering of states

States also need a place to compare their understanding, identify shared concerns, and develop practical approaches together.

Our second annual Summit of States brought together state leaders from 23 states across the political spectrum. The Black Legislative Leaders Network and the Bipartisan Policy Center participated as co-sponsors.

That participation matters. This cannot become a gathering of people who already agree about every policy question. The mission is to put structure over politics in practice, which means bringing different perspectives into the room and doing the work together.

3. A state-founded, state-funded federalism commission

The third pillar is a national mechanism to monitor jurisdictional questions and help maintain the governing partnership.

The former Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, known as ACIR, provides a historical reference point for this kind of work. Our proposal is to build a state-founded, state-funded institution so the states have a durable capacity to examine federal actions and coordinate their responses.

The goal is not another organization issuing partisan statements. It is an ongoing institutional commitment to keeping roles and responsibilities clear.

Alignment, Allegiance, and Civil Rights

Coming out of the summit, we identified three areas for working groups: state alignment, state allegiance, and civil rights. Each addresses a different requirement for making federalism work.

State alignment means developing a common understanding of jurisdiction. If states use the same words but mean different things, cooperation will break down as soon as a difficult case arises. We need enough shared understanding to move from general principles to specific protocols.

State allegiance means defending another state’s legitimate authority even when we dislike its policy. This is the real test.

I may strongly disagree with a decision made in California or Illinois. But if that decision falls within the state’s lawful jurisdiction, I need to defend its authority to make it. Otherwise, what principle will protect Utah when a national administration dislikes our choices?

That does not require endorsing another state’s policy. It requires distinguishing agreement with an outcome from respect for the authority to decide.

Civil rights must remain central to the work. Some of our partners have serious concerns about the history associated with arguments for state authority. Slavery and Jim Crow are not minor footnotes. They are dark chapters in which states participated in terrible violations of individual rights.

Those concerns deserve a serious response, not a dismissal. Neither state nor federal government should be treated as automatically virtuous. The purpose of the constitutional partnership is to protect people, not to give any government a free pass.

That is why the civil rights work belongs alongside alignment and allegiance. Restoring balance must mean protecting individual rights while clarifying governmental responsibilities. If we lose sight of the people the structure exists to serve, we have missed the point.

Four Constitutional Principles Behind the Work

We have organized our approach around four constitutional reference points. Legislators already have plenty to keep in their heads, so it helps to make the framework straightforward.

1. The Ninth Amendment: begin with the people. Our framework starts with the understanding that government exists to serve people and protect their rights. The people are not merely the subjects of a contest between institutions.
2. The Tenth Amendment: recognize distinct responsibilities. Powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. The practical task is understanding what has been delegated and what has not.
3. The Fourteenth Amendment: protect individual rights. Any effort to clarify state and federal responsibilities must take seriously the constitutional protections that apply against state action.
4. Article VI: honor the constitutional obligation. State legislators are bound by oath or affirmation to support the United States Constitution. Article VI also establishes the supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it.

That last point became very personal to me when my family read the Constitution together during my first campaign. I reached the language about the obligation of state legislators, and it hit me hard. Supporting the constitutional structure is not somebody else’s assignment in Washington. It is part of our job.

In my view, that responsibility cannot be fulfilled through inaction. If we do not understand the roles and responsibilities, or never act to maintain them, we are not taking the obligation seriously.

We also need to distinguish constitutional federal authority from the assumption that any federal action automatically settles a question. The inquiry has to begin with the authority actually delegated and the constitutional protections that apply.

These principles provide a starting point. The next step is applying them carefully, one area of government at a time.

Law Enforcement: Turning Jurisdiction Into Rules of the Road

Law enforcement is one of the first areas where we have moved from broad principles toward a practical protocol.

Earlier in the year, a Senate colleague raised concerns about ICE raids and asked whether our federalism work could examine them. My response was yes. We created a law enforcement working group and invited her to chair it.

That surprised her. But if jurisdiction is our principle, we have to follow it wherever the inquiry leads. We cannot investigate only the questions that are comfortable for our own political side.

We have been developing a state and federal law enforcement protocol, something comparable to a memorandum of understanding. Its purpose is to clarify federal responsibilities, state responsibilities, and expectations for coordination.

States carry broad responsibilities for public safety, while federal officers have authority in areas assigned to the federal government. A productive partnership needs to recognize both. It also needs clear expectations about communication and accountability when federal operations take place within a state.

The death of Craig Robertson in Provo during a federal law enforcement operation is one incident that has driven my concern. Robertson had made deeply inappropriate statements on social media involving President Biden and firearms. My concern about the operation centers on what state and local officials knew, how coordination occurred, and what information was available afterward.

I have raised concerns that Utah County’s sheriff lacked information about the death of a Utah resident at the hands of federal officers. Those questions illustrate why we need a clearer working relationship. Condemning threatening statements does not eliminate the need to examine how an operation was conducted or how agencies communicated.

The objective is to establish rules before the next high-stakes encounter, rather than argue about responsibilities afterward.

Once we develop this approach in law enforcement, we can carry the same discipline into education, transportation, and other areas. Define the authority. Document the responsibilities. Establish a shared understanding that can guide actual decisions.

Federal Funding: Prepare Before the Pressure Arrives

Jurisdiction is only part of the state and federal relationship. Funding is another major part, and it creates a serious responsibility to plan ahead.

Federal funds account for roughly a third of Utah’s budget in the figures we have been discussing. That is a substantial dependence on a partner facing enormous fiscal pressure.

In our discussions, we have raised concerns about federal debt approaching $40 trillion, annual interest costs exceeding $1 trillion, and the strain on Social Security’s trust funds. We have also discussed projections involving potential benefit reductions if Congress does not address trust fund depletion.

Those figures and timelines belong to the fiscal outlook informing our work, not a promise that a particular event will happen on a particular day. The planning question is broader: what happens to Utah if federal support diminishes, and how much time will we have to respond?

We cannot answer that question responsibly by assuming Washington will always find a solution at the last minute.

During meetings in Washington with members of Congress, including House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington, we discussed these fiscal pressures and the state’s dependence on federal funds. What troubled me was hearing how difficult it was even to have a serious conversation across party lines about the problems.

If the national government cannot work through the issue, states still have to prepare for its consequences. Our sick, our poor, and our elderly do not become less vulnerable because a discussion in Washington is politically difficult.

We have a choice. We can develop an understanding of our exposure and prepare, or we can wait until circumstances force decisions upon us. I would much rather have a plan.

Utah State University and Deep Contingency Planning

That is why our work with Utah State University’s business analytics faculty and students is so important. They are helping us develop a more sophisticated picture of the risks associated with potential reductions in federal funding.

The students are engaged because they understand that these decisions affect their future. They see the debt and the uncertainty, and they recognize that much of the responsibility for dealing with it will fall to their generation.

Frankly, leaving them a problem of that magnitude without preparing is not acceptable.

The dashboarding work is organized around three questions:

• Probability: How likely is a particular reduction in federal funding?
• Magnitude: How large would the effect be on the state?
• Urgency: How quickly would the state need to respond?

These questions belong together. A large reduction with a long planning horizon creates a different challenge from a smaller reduction that arrives with very little warning. State leaders need to understand both.

The team is using tools such as Monte Carlo simulations to examine many possible scenarios. Instead of depending on a single forecast, this approach explores a range of outcomes and helps identify the scenarios that deserve particular attention.

The point is not to pretend a model can tell us exactly what Congress will do. The point is to make contingency planning more disciplined. We want to move beyond general anxiety about federal finances and toward a clearer understanding of what different outcomes could mean for Utah.

We have had an initial look at the dashboard concept and are beginning to examine scenarios. There is more work ahead, but this is meaningful progress: students, professors, and state leaders working together to prepare rather than simply passing the concern along to someone else.

Forest Health Makes the Partnership Concrete

Forest management shows how jurisdiction, funding, and everyday consequences come together.

For Utah communities, a forest is not just acreage on a federal map. It affects the air we breathe, the water that flows through our watersheds, wildlife habitat, highways, homes, and local livelihoods.

In our committee discussions, we have raised concerns about a devastating fire season involving deaths, the loss of more than 200 homes, and extensive highway impacts. I believe inadequate forest care and accumulated fuel are central issues that demand action.

My argument for active management is straightforward: a forest has limits. Trees compete for water, sunlight, and nutrients. When vegetation becomes excessively dense and dead material accumulates, forest health and wildfire risk become urgent concerns.

I often compare active forest care to weeding a garden. Leaving everything alone does not necessarily mean everything stays healthy. Our concern is that the curtailment of timber management has contributed to conditions in which too many trees compete for limited resources and more material becomes available to burn.

The numerical examples I have used to illustrate tree density are meant to explain that competition, not to establish one prescription for every forest. The practical issue is whether conditions are being addressed before communities face another catastrophic fire.

Now place that concern alongside federal finances. Land management competes with national defense, transportation, education, mandatory programs, and interest payments. Our concern is that maintenance and fuel backlogs will continue growing while federal resources remain constrained.

Utah cannot simply walk away if that happens. The consequences remain here. Our communities still need healthy watersheds and clean air. They still face the danger and cost of deteriorating conditions.

That is why federalism is not an abstract constitutional hobby. It is a question about who has a responsibility to act when a governing partner is not addressing a problem that directly affects people’s lives.

Land Ownership and Governing Jurisdiction Are Different Questions

One important distinction in our land discussions is the difference between ownership and governing jurisdiction.

Our committee has examined federal materials addressing jurisdiction over federally owned land within states. My reading of those materials is that federal ownership does not, by itself, answer every question about governing authority.

That is the legal distinction we are working to apply. We are not treating an ownership map as the end of the inquiry. We are asking what jurisdiction exists, whether it has been transferred, and what responsibilities remain with the state.

I have pointed to federal jurisdictional studies and criminal justice guidance addressing the significance of a state ceding jurisdiction and the federal government accepting it. Those materials are part of the basis for our position that state governing authority deserves much closer examination.

Our work is directed toward asserting what we understand to be Utah’s authority to establish standards involving forest health, safety, access, and productivity. The application of that position requires careful attention to the particular authority involved.

The distinction is not merely semantic: owning land, managing land, and exercising governing jurisdiction are related but different questions.

If we fail to separate them, we may overlook responsibilities that affect air quality, water quality, watershed protection, and nearby communities. Our approach is to identify the jurisdiction first and then determine how it can be used responsibly.

The same habit applies beyond land. A funding relationship, an agency’s presence, or an ownership interest should prompt a careful inquiry into authority, not replace that inquiry.

Could States Offer Washington a Better Funding Partnership?

Contingency planning can also put states in a position to propose solutions rather than simply brace for cuts.

One possibility we have discussed is developing block grant proposals with other states in areas such as education or health and human services. The idea is to exchange some federal funding for greater flexibility, with the federal savings directed toward deficit reduction.

For example, states might propose accepting 70 or 80 cents for every dollar under an existing arrangement if restrictive conditions were removed and states had greater room to organize services.

That is a proposal to explore, not an established agreement or a guarantee that every program can achieve the same result. The underlying question is whether a state can accomplish more with fewer dollars when it has greater flexibility to make decisions.

A coalition of red and blue states could approach Washington with a practical offer: let us help reduce the pressure on federal finances while improving our ability to govern responsibly at home.

But the details matter. We need to understand the risks, the responsibilities, and the effects on people who rely on services. That is why the analytics work comes first. A serious proposal should emerge from preparation, not wishful thinking.

This is also where the partnership idea becomes constructive. States are not simply telling the federal government to go away. They are offering to take responsibility, work together, and help address a problem that affects the entire country.

The Test Is Defending Authority When You Dislike the Outcome

After the 2024 election, Utah House leadership asked me to help develop a plan for addressing the structure of government. Governors in blue states were talking about federalism, and there was an opportunity to build something that could last beyond one administration.

I made an important point in that conversation: if Governor Gavin Newsom advances a California policy we dislike, but the matter falls within California’s lawful jurisdiction, Utah needs to stand for that jurisdiction.

That principle cannot change with the party in the White House.

If our argument is only that Washington should leave us alone when we dislike the president, we are not defending a constitutional structure. We are defending a temporary political advantage.

My conversations with Representative Jennifer Dailey-Provost have reinforced the value of a different approach. As a progressive Democrat in a strongly Republican state, she has described having more ability to influence issues that matter to her in Utah than she would have in Washington.

She participates, builds relationships, and affects policy. We disagree on plenty, but we can work together.

When we began discussing this effort, we also talked about our families. She has a daughter named Maggie, and I have a granddaughter named Maggie. We talked about the debt, the division, and the system our children and grandchildren will inherit.

That conversation did not erase our differences. It gave us a shared responsibility that was larger than them.

Bringing Government Back Within Reach

The road forward is practical: educate state leaders, align our understanding of jurisdiction, protect civil rights, develop clear protocols, prepare for financial risk, and build institutions that help states cooperate over time.

It moves more slowly than I would like. But it is moving, and that gives me real hope.

At the state level, one person can bring an idea to the capitol, advocate for it, and help change the law. Many of us have seen it happen. When the same decision moves to Washington, that person’s influence becomes much harder to exercise.

Keeping appropriate decisions closer to the people is not about making every state identical. It is about preserving room for different communities to govern, innovate, and remain accountable while protecting individual rights.

Our children and grandchildren may eventually ask whether we recognized the problems ahead and what we did to address them. We should have an answer better than another round of partisan fighting.

Structure over politics means taking responsibility for a system that must serve people regardless of who wins the next election. That is worth Republicans and Democrats working on together, and it is how we begin leaving the next generation a governing partnership that can endure.

#politicit #utahelections #utpol