A New Citizen’s Keen Question Calls for a Clear Answer: Exploring Federalism After a Weber County Town Hall

March 21, 2025

Last night, I joined colleagues at the Weber County GOP town hall in Ogden—a lively session with state legislators and senators facing an eager audience. Then Te Anu Tonga, a recent U.S. citizen still sorting through Utah’s political puzzle, posed a question that struck a sharp note. “I’m trying to figure this out,” she said, eyeing the panel, “so why does the state legislature get to decide if a bureaucrat-led political subdivision can have rulemaking authority? I thought local control meant something.” At first, it carried a confrontational edge—aiming “bureaucrat” at lawmakers might stir tension. Driving home, I reflected. That wasn’t a jab; it was keen insight—pure, probing curiosity from a new voice. As a state senator who champions placing people’s power close to home, I knew her question merited more than a passing reply. I opened my laptop, delved into research, and here’s the unvarnished truth: it’s federalism, Utah’s structured system, guided by the Legislature—House and Senate—as the voice of the people we represent, from Salt Lake’s steady stream to Kane County’s quiet core. Let’s look closer.

PoliticIt Radio Song about this blog – “Who Holds the Reins”

Federalism’s Foundation: The Founders’ Framework

Imagine 1787—James Madison laboring in Philadelphia, penning words that shaped a nation: “The power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments” (The Federalist No. 51) [Ref 1]. That’s federalism: the U.S. Constitution assigns Congress key duties—taxes, defense (Article I)—and the Tenth Amendment reserves the rest for the states, granting them an inherent right to govern within their sphere [Ref 2]. Alexander Hamilton heralded this balance, as detailed in The Federalist No. 9 [Ref 1].

“The power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments… a double security arises to the rights of the people.”

James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

Here’s the critical catch Te Anu caught: her “bureaucrat-led political subdivision”—say, a water district—holds no such inherent right under the Constitution. The Supreme Court settled it in 1907 in Hunter v. Pittsburgh: local entities are “convenient agencies” of the state, with no constitutional claim to autonomy as states enjoy under federalism [Ref 3]. In Utah, that positions the Legislature—House and Senate, the people’s voice—as the pivotal player. Federalism’s first principle: states steer their local landscape, while local subdivisions depend entirely on state authority.

Utah’s Undertaking: The Legislature Leads, Locals Lean

Step forward to 1896—Utah trades territorial turmoil for statehood. Our constitution asserts, “All political power is inherent in the people” (Utah Const. art. I, § 2), and the Legislature—House and Senate—channels that charge as your representatives [Ref 4]. Shaped by decades of federal-Mormon friction (1850–1896), Utah forged a framework where the state sets the stage, yet I believe it’s to bolster local liberty, not bind it [Ref 5].

Te Anu’s query lands in Article XI: the Legislature—House and Senate—establishes cities, counties, and special districts like water districts, which lack any inherent constitutional footing [Ref 4]. Cities can claim Home Rule—securing a charter through a two-thirds council vote or a 15%-signed petition plus referendum—to manage “municipal affairs.” That’s Salt Lake City’s sales tax or Provo’s BYU zoning—rulemaking rooted in local reach, as outlined in Utah Code Annotated § 59-12-2219 [Ref 6]. Madison might praise this balance [Ref 1]. Yet it’s a limited license, not a right: the Legislature grants it for local matters, and we can reclaim it—overriding a city rule with a state statute when the people’s wider will warrants, a power we’ve wielded before.

Counties and districts heed Dillon’s Rule—Judge John Dillon’s decisive dictate: “Municipal corporations… derive their powers… exclusively from the legislature” [Ref 7]. A water district like Central Utah’s gains rulemaking—like setting rates—only if the Legislature permits, as per Utah Code Annotated § 17B-1-201, and we can retract it when Utah’s collective course shifts [Ref 6]. Vincent Ostrom might lament this limits “the creative potential of local diversity,” and I share that concern—I’d rather see local lights shine, but the Legislature balances that with the people’s statewide song [Ref 8].

Power Play: The Legislature Prevails, Locals Press

This isn’t mere theory—it’s a tangible tussle. In 2021, the Legislature—House and Senate—passed SB 195, halting local mask mandates, even in Home Rule cities, with Governor Cox’s emergency order reinforcing the move (Utah Code Ann. § 26B-1-103)—we pulled that rulemaking back for public purpose [Ref 6]. In 2023, HB 259 mandated housing zones—Sandy sued, stumbled (Utah 3rd Dist. Ct.) [Ref 9]. Madison might’ve urged resistance [Ref 1], but the Legislature’s prevailing voice carried.

“The people… guard their own liberties… the vigilance of the state will be a match for the vigilance of the general government.”

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 46

Counties and districts face firm footing. Utah County’s sheriff patrols follow the Legislature’s lead (Utah Code Ann. § 17-50-302); its 2020 election aligned with our system—rulemaking stays scarce [Ref 6]. Rural Kane County, with a $4 million budget, sought road funds in 2022—the Legislature declined [Ref 10]. Water districts only act when the Legislature allows—like Central Utah’s rate-setting—and we can rescind it swiftly. Hamilton’s stern warning fits: “A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will” (The Federalist No. 79)—the Legislature holds that heft, but I’d argue it’s to reflect your resolve [Ref 1].

Balancing Duty: Local Needs vs. Statewide Good

Te Anu’s question prods a deeper duty: how does the Legislature—House and Senate—balance local citizens’ needs with those of all Utahns, given locals lack inherent constitutional rights? Two tensions stand stark. First, affordable housing: Utahns statewide clamor for more, yet local control often fuels NIMBYism—“not in my backyard”—blocking projects [Ref 11]. HB 259 in 2023 forced cities to zone for housing, overriding local resistance like Sandy’s, because the people’s pressing need for homes trumped neighborhood naysaying [Ref 9]. I respect local voices—cities should shape their streets—but when Utah’s housing crisis bites, the Legislature must act for the broader good, ensuring shelter for all.

Second, education: the state aims to tailor learning to individual students, a goal set in Utah Code Annotated § 53G-10-402, but local school boards, guarding their turf, sometimes prioritize self-interest over statewide standards [Ref 6]. The Legislature steps in—mandating curricula or funding—to align education with Utah’s collective aim, yet I’d rather see boards bloom with flexibility where it fits. It’s a tightrope: local liberty lifts communities, but the people’s statewide will demands a unified push. We weigh both, striving to serve you wholly, mindful that local power flows from us, not from constitutional roots.

Local Lift: ULCT and UAC Lend Leverage

Here’s where the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) and Utah Association of Counties (UAC) lend lift. Since 1907, ULCT’s been the “collective voice of Utah’s municipalities,” says Cameron Diehl [Ref 12]. It secured HB 35 in 2024, preserving local rental rules—Hamilton might laud it as a win for local rights [Ref 1]. It trains Provo to zone, aids Santaquin sans lobbyist loads—bolstering Home Rule’s hold [Ref 12].

UAC stands as the counties’ stalwart. In 2022, it pushed SB 170 for land use rights; in 2023, it won $10 million for rural EMS—the Legislature backed both (Utah Legislature, 2022, 2023) [Ref 13]. Its insurance pool pared Davis County’s costs by $1.2 million, and it channels federal funds to Kane [Ref 14]. Daniel Elazar calls this “a partnership among governments”—they’re strengthening local stakes the Legislature seeks to support [Ref 15].

The Core Conclusion: Federalism’s Firm Frame

Te Anu’s question last night at the Weber County GOP town hall wasn’t a stray spark—it was a keen flare, and driving home, I knew it demanded a clear, commanding answer. It carried a confrontational clang—bureaucrats vs. lawmakers—but it’s a new citizen’s earnest exploration. Utah’s federalism elevates the Legislature—House and Senate, your voice: Home Rule cities wield rulemaking, limited and liable to recall; districts and counties, with no inherent constitutional right, depend on our decree under Dillon’s Rule. Madison sought “a double security… to the rights of the people” [Ref 1], but Ostrom might note the Legislature’s leash limits “polycentric order” [Ref 8]. We’re pressing forward—housing, masks—and as Utah grows, Hamilton’s words resonate: “The vigor of government” secures liberty (The Federalist No. 1) [Ref 1]. I hold that liberty lives loudest near you—Te Anu’s keen query—why can’t those bureaucrats rule themselves?—didn’t get a full airing last night, but my research reveals it’s a contest worth considering.

“The vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty… a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal.”

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 1

---

References

1. Madison, J., Hamilton, A., & Jay, J. (1788). The Federalist Papers. Penguin Classics. [Available online at Project Gutenberg]
2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8; Article VI, Clause 2; Amendment X. [ constitution.congress.gov ]
3. Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907). [ supreme.justia.com ]
4. Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 2; Article XI. [ le.utah.gov ]
5. Utah State Historical Society. (2025). “Utah Territorial Period, 1850–1896.” [ history.utah.gov ]
6. Utah Code Annotated § 17B-1-201; § 17-50-302; § 26B-1-103 (2021); § 53G-10-402; § 59-12-2219. [ le.utah.gov ]
7. Dillon, J. F. (1911). Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Corporations. Little, Brown, and Company. [ archive.org ]
8. Ostrom, V. (1990). The Meaning of American Federalism. ICS Press. [Available via academic libraries]
9. Utah 3rd District Court Records, Sandy v. State of Utah, 2023. [ utcourts.gov ]
10. Kane County Budget Report, 2022. [ kanecountyutah.gov ]
11. Utah Foundation. (2023). “Housing Affordability in Utah: A Public Perspective.” [ utahfoundation.org ]
12. Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT). (2025). “About ULCT.” [ ulct.org ]
13. Utah Legislature Archives, SB 170 (2022); EMS Funding (2023). [ le.utah.gov ]
14. Utah Association of Counties (UAC). (2025). “Services and Impact.” [ uacnet.org ]
15. Elazar, D. J. (1987). Exploring Federalism. University of Alabama Press. [Available via academic libraries]
16. Utah & Local Politics
17. • #UtahPolitics
18. • #WeberCounty
19. • #OgdenTownHall
20. • #UtahLegislature
21. • #LocalControl
22. • #FederalismInAction
23. • #UtahGOP
24. • #CivicEngagementUT
25. Civic Themes & Governance
26. • #PowerToThePeople
27. • #KnowYourRights
28. • #CivicEducation
29. • #VoiceOfThePeople
30. • #DemocracyInAction
31. • #PolicyAndPower
32. • #GovernmentByThePeople
33. National-Level Reach
34. • #AmericanFederalism
35. • #FoundersFramework
36. • #ConstitutionalLaw
37. • #LocalVsState
38. • #MadisonWasRight
39. • #DillonsRule
40. • #HomeRule
41. General Engagement
42. • #AskTheBigQuestions
43. • #SpeakUpStayInformed
44. • #CommunityVoices
45. • #YourVoiceMatters
46. • #FromThePeopleForThePeople