Slight misrepresentation of the facts here.
Utah isn't as monolithic as it used to be.
Elsie mentions it's fifty seven percent Lds.
The article says:
...the 104-member, part-time Legislature, whose members are around 80 percent faithful members of the Mormon Church...
So the legislature is roughly 23 percent more Mormon than Utah is.
I would hope that I vote for a better person than ME to run the government over me!
The article says:
...the 104-member, part-time Legislature, whose members are around 80 percent faithful members of the Mormon Church...
So the legislature is roughly 23 percent more Mormon than Utah is.
__________________________________________________________
You misunderstand a lot about state and local politics.
First, Salt Lake City is only about 40% LDS while the County is about 50% LDS. All the other counties in UTAH are about 75% LDS, some more and some less. When you have elections the majority of voters get to decide who represents them. In the vast majority of the state there is a majority of Mormons and they typically vote for people like themselves who happen to be Mormons. In the City of Salt Lake that is also the case but the majority is not Mormon in the city and the city makes up a large part of the state population. If not for the City and their below 50% Mormon population the state legislator would be 100% Mormon.
Like I said, in Rome, Italy the city council is 100% Roman Catholic, in Italy the Parliament is nearly always 100% Roman Catholic. While some of the Communists in Italy are really Atheist they call themselves Catholic so they can get elected.
I don't see the problem with Utah and their Mormon majority. I don't see a problem with the State Legislator of Georgia not having any Mormons on it or Kentucky, New York or many other states. People like to be represented by people like themselves. It sounds like someone doesn't like Mormons and wants to take away their opportunity to represent themselves in their own state.