House, Senate candidate responses

In our continued coverage of the Hot Springs County Republican Party Candidates Forum held on June 25, this article will cover the candidates for the state offices. For State House District 28, incumbent John Winter will face off against challenger Kevin Skates, both registered as Republicans. For State Senate District 20, incumbent Ed Cooper faces challenger Tom Olmstead, also both registered as Republicans. HSC Republican Chairman Cheryl Aguiar presented the questions to the candidates.

Aguiar asked Ed Cooper, “After the end of the 67th legislature in Wyoming, Governor Gordon vetoed a property tax bill that would have given Wyomingites an across the board property tax cut of 25% of their home’s value. He also vetoed a gun bill that would have made it legal to carry concealed weapons in public schools, hospitals and government meetings, and he vetoed an abortion bill that would have shuttered the only clinic that provides procedural abortions in Wyoming. A special session was proposed to address those vetoes. Did you vote for or against the special session? Why or why not?”

State Senator Ed Cooper replied, “I abstained from voting, which means I didn’t vote for or against it. That ends up as a negative vote. But the reason for that was, the last special session we had was restricted to one bill, considering 42. That was in 2020. I believe it was. There is no way in the special session to control the actual number of bills that come forward. Had we been able to strictly address the bills that were vetoed, then I would have voted in favor of it. But that’s not what was fixing to happen. So we were going to go down here and spend a month and $1 million, or just short of $1 million, to address who knows how many bills. The only one of those bills that was time sensitive for Senate File 54. That’s the property tax bill. We wanted it passed so that we could put it in effect for the 2024 tax year. We didn’t get that done. We did get some really good bills passed, but that one did not get passed. That bill will be back in some form in 2025. That bill was still just a Band-Aid. It doesn’t fix property taxes. It was just a two-year fix to help us get through until we can fix it. The entry zones bill, I was probably one of the strongest advocates there for that gun free zone bill. The reason I was that strong of an advocate is because it is a Second Amendment constitutional right. Period. That bill will be back in some form or another. In the judicial system last week, we formed a task force. I’m on that task force to bring that bill forward. Three through the Senate. Three from the House. We’ve been tasked with running back three alternatives. One, basically, the bill as it stands, representative Harrelson from Wheatland, he was the primary sponsor on the bill. He says he has some amendments to it. He wants to use the tweaks to it. A second would be the phone bill amended to address some language in the back of that bill that’s possibly unconstitutional that needs to be addressed. And then the third is an alternative bill, one that I’ve actually been working on, based on conversations with a gentleman from Cody. That may be still protecting 100% of our constitutional Second Amendment rights, but it may be more palatable to the education sector.”

Aguiar asked Tom Olmstead, “For you, though you were not in the legislature last year. Had you been in the legislature, would you have voted for the special session or not? Why or why not?”

Tom Olmstead replied, “I would have absolutely voted for it. I understand the concern that they might go off the rails. But there are absolutely ways that they could have specifically addressed those three bills. I think they’re very important, and each one, on its own. You’re looking at a pro-life bill. You’re looking at a strong Second Amendment bill. And you’re looking at the taxation. It’s come up several times. People that either abstained or voted against the special session. The special session is going to cost the taxpayer more money. You’re literally addressing property tax. And so I think in the long run, it behooves our legislators to have that session. It’s their duty. I think good things could have come out of it. Those were absolutely three bills that should have went forward. And I know I’m not taking a lot of time here, but my answer is I absolutely would go forward with a special session.”

Aguiar asked John Winter, “In early May, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a bill into law that would give law enforcement officers the authority to arrest people without legal authority to be in the United States. So if you were illegally here Wyoming, you were illegally in Oklahoma, right? Stitt said his sole aim was to protect all 4 million Oklahomans, regardless of race, ethnicity or heritage. He said the bill was not a stop and frisk type of bill. It’s a pretty hardcore illegal alien bill. Do you believe there is a need for a bill like this in Wyoming? And would you work to craft and pass a bill similar to this bill here in Wyoming? Why or why not?”

State Representative John Winter replied, “I‘m not familiar with that bill, but we do not need illegal aliens here. And, I will do whatever I can to see that does not happen,that we don’t get illegals here. Sometimes I think our governor does not maybe do the right thing, if you will. I don’t always agree with him. And so I hope that we get something similar to that passed. I can’t remember right now whether we had a bill like that on the books. But I think we do whatever is necessary to keep these illegals out of our state”.

Aguiar also asked Kevin Skates to respond. He said, “I think our border situation is out of control, and we need to do something. I think we need to somehow up our border control, up how we take care of the situation with the illegals. I think that’s fine. I think that I would support something similar to that. Maybe not exactly that bill, but something similar to that, that authorities or law enforcement would have the authority to arrest people who don’t have proper paperwork. But I think it starts down at the border itself, and I think we really need to increase our border security.”

Aguiar continued in her questions and said, “Governor Gordon launched his Decarbonizing the West initiative at the Western Governors Association a year ago to, in his words, “Examine how decarbonization strategies can position Western states at the forefront of innovation, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and strengthen their economies.” Do you believe these strategies run in conflict with Wyoming’s legacy industries, or do you believe his initiative is a good idea? Why or why not?”

Tom Olmstead replied, “Actually, I believe it’s a horrible idea. We’ve spent a lot of effort as of late, it seems like, pushing this green new agenda, whether its carbon sequestration or otherwise. There’s really only two reasons that you’re going to buy into this part of sequestration. One, you truly believe that the carbon in the atmosphere that hasn’t changed more than a fraction of a percent since we’ve been walking this planet has suddenly become this dire issue for us. That’s one reason they would be for this. I don’t believe that. The second reason that you would be for that, and I’m sure one of the reasons that the governor is, is for money. It’s strictly a money thing. There is a ton of federal dollars attached to not only carbon sequestration, for special interest money. A lot of these renewables, that money is coming in, it’s our tax dollars. It’s our federal tax dollars, and it’s flowing into Wyoming and is basically stomping out our traditional energy. I’m absolutely against it. I know that the federal government, whether it’s EPA regulations, they want to stamp out the coal industry, they want to stamp out our natural gas. It’s the regulations. They’re strangling our traditional energy industry. And on the other side of it, they’re feeding money in the back door to say, okay, well, we can keep your people with money. We can keep people employed. I ask at what cost? number one. You’re basically selling out your traditional energy industry. They did the same thing with the auto industry. There’s a ton of money dumped into the auto industry. They accepted it. They made the electric vehicles nobody buys. What is really going to cause even more dependency on the federal government for the subsidies that we already are getting. So I’m absolutely against it. As far as other renewable energy, if they can stand on their own two feet. The problem is, since solar wind, they have always been heavily subsidized. And it actually stifles ingenuity. If you make a product and that product doesn’t work as efficiently as it should, nobody’s going to buy it. You go back to the drawing board and you make a better product. That’s a free market, that’s free enterprise. That’s the way it works. As soon as these industries are pumped full of government subsidies, it stifles innovation. I’m not against them, but as they stand right now, they are nowhere near as efficient as our traditional energy resources.”

Ed Cooper replied, “There’s two answers to that. Part of it is in direct conflict. I’m not a Green New Deal person. I’m not a renewable energy person. I think if Philip Anschutz wants to go down here on his ranch and build 600 wind towers, that’s his money. His business. But in Wyoming, 85% of our energy is exported out of state. We use hardly any of it here. And the bulk of that energy that’s headquartered out of state is either in the form of generator electricity or in the form of coal, primarily coal. Being on the Energy Council, which is 15 states, we have representatives from 15 states and three provinces, and they’re all energy producing states. These folks are worried about their coal supply from Nebraska to Kansas all the way to Louisiana. And the coal we supply is Wyoming coal. They understand that the only way that we’re going to keep coal in production, based on federal regulations, is with carbon capture. Once we capture that carbon, we’ve got to do something with it. The proper use for that carbon dioxide is tertiary recovery, enhanced oil recovery. In that case, we take that CO2 that is captured wherever it may be. We put it back in the ground in these oil fields around the state. In this basin, every one of these oil fields along the rim here are serious candidates for enhanced oil recovery. We have a project down in the southern part of the state of Patrick Draw… that’s down to ten barrels a day. When it was new, it was probably 2,000 barrels a field. Today with enhanced oil recovery. Patrick Draw is producing 7,000 barrels a day. That’s big revenue for the state of Wyoming. As far as the sequester, there’s good and bad for it.… But with the sequestration projects that are coming into the state, we’re also getting other industries trying to come to Wyoming, such as ethanol and fertilizer plants that are using Wyoming’s natural gas as their fuel source. They’ve got to have somewhere to go with their CO2. They’re right now, they’re back in the Midwest. They don’t have anywhere to go and they don’t see any future. So these regulations are going to kill those industries. Those people want to come to Wyoming because we have primacy. We can put CO2 in the ground here. And those industries are asking Wyoming, how do we get involved? How do we move to Wyoming? How do we grow our business in Wyoming? There are both sides to the story.” 

Aguiar then said to all the candidates, “I’m going to read something and I want you to tell me specifically where I’m reading. “All power is inherent to the people. And all three governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times have an unalienable right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such a manner as they may think of proper.” Where am I reading that from?”

Kevin Skates replied, “I’m not sure.” John Winter, Tom Olmstead, and Ed Cooper replied, “The US Constitution.”

Aguiar provided the answer and said, “Article one, section one, the Wyoming Constitution.”

Continuing in asking questions to the candidates, Aguiar said, “Chloe’s law was passed in the legislature and was signed into law by Mark Gordon this year. It is a ban on transgender treatments for kids. Did you vote for this bill or against it? Why or why not?”

John Winter replied, “I voted for Chloe’s law. There’s only one clinic that I know of that’s in Wyoming that promotes transgender and abortion stuff. Right now I’m trying to get something done with the legislature to stop that and take it through the Ag committee. But Chloe’s law was promoted by a gal, a representative out of Cody. And she’s dynamite. She knows what she’s talking about. And we need to support that bill and what we can do to help these kids.”

Kevin Skates replied, “Not knowing a lot about it, but I would have voted for it. For the ban.”

Aguiar then said, “On April 9th, 2024, Secretary of State Chuck Gray sent a letter to governor Mark Gordon urging him to sign the Secretary of State’s amendments to chapter two of its election fraud procedures to require acceptable identification for proof of identity and proof of Wyoming residency when registering to vote in Wyoming, as well as to provide uniformity and clarity concerning providing evidence of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. Three days later, Governor Gordon, along with legislative leadership advice from both chambers, vetoed this rule change, saying that Secretary Gray was exceeding his statutory authority. Which side of this argument are you on, and why?”

Ed Cooper replied, “You have to have a valid ID to even get a library card. So, asking somebody to prove where they live as part of their voter ID is just common sense. I cannot see what the big deal is. Now on my driver’s license, I’ve had mine for a long time. It does not have my street address on it. You didn’t used to be required. When you get a driver’s license today, you have to have your street address on it. But mine didn’t. So by law, had it passed, I would have had to go get a new driver’s license or I wouldn’t have been able to vote. It’s pretty simple. Go get a new driver’s license, get what you need on it. It’s not a big deal.”

Aguiar followed up with Cooper as a member of the audience said they felt he did not answered the question. Aguiar asked, “Were you in favor of Mark Gordon’s decision, saying that Secretary Gray was exceeding his authority?”

Ed Cooper replied, “I would have supported Secretary Gray.”

Tom Olmstead replied, “I have to echo what Senator Cooper said. I think it’s a no brainer. You supply an ID for libraries, to get on an airline to buy airline tickets. We have a serious issue in this country with election fraud. I support a lot of what Secretary of State Gray has been doing to curb that election fraud. I think there’s a lot more that can be done. And unfortunately, he’s been stifled a lot by the governor. But I don’t see where there’s an issue or why there should even be an issue, to show ID to vote. I could go on and on, but it’s pretty self-explanatory.”

Aguiar continued and said, “According to NASBO, the National Association of State Budget Officers the enacted budget for Wyoming’s fiscal year 2025 to 2026 says that our budget holds $153 million statutory reserve, or 5% of our general fund in the budget reserve account and transfers the remaining general fund budget reserve account, ending balance of $49 million to basically the rainy day fund. Which has a projected balance of $1.6 billion at the end of next biennium after the transfer. Do you support the continuation of adding more money every legislative session to the rainy day fund? If yes, why? If not, what would you propose to do with that money instead?”

Kevin Skates replied, “Well, I do support the rainy day fund. I think there’s a lot of states that are envious of us for being able to do that. However, I would say yes. I would agree with continuing to put money into that fund, but at the same time, we heard earlier about property taxes and more property taxes and things like that. So at some point, if we get to the point where we don’t have enough money for infrastructure, for small towns, for communities, we may have to dip into that rainy day fund. But I am in support of continuing to do that.”

John Winter replied, “I’m not. I think this rainy day fund is fine. It’s been good, but we keep adding to it but not taking care of things we need to for the state. We have all these trust funds, and it’s just getting ridiculous down there. It’s hard for us to really know where we’re at, because we’re always sticking money into some fund somewhere, and we don’t get anything done. We have a budget that’s the largest budget we’ve ever had. And we just keep spending money. It just really bothers me. I didn’t vote for the budget this year. I don’t think I voted for one once since I’ve been there. We need some money managers down there. And I’m not one of them, but we need some money managers that know how to make our state operate in the correct way. And I think we have some folks that are coming up and they have the ability to do that, but they keep getting beat down. They’re not allowed to host a committee and to move things forward. It’s a good old boys’ network down there. And I hope that we elect folks that are going to make a difference down there. Right now there’s too much money spent.”