Pignanelli: In a general election, voters rarely have a personal relationship with candidates — choices are made based upon party affiliation, perceptions formed in the media, campaign propaganda, etc. In contrast, when lawmakers convene to select the House speaker, Senate president and caucus leaders, voters and candidates have an intimate knowledge of the other's virtues and vices. As a veteran of five such elections, I can affirm the politics is raw, and entertaining, during the bruising process of choosing legislative leaders.

Often lawmakers are noble and support a colleague with impeccable credentials, despite prior disagreements. Then again, potential leaders have lost support for the pettiest of reasons, i.e. not sharing a gift box of candy with seatmates (yep, it actually happened). Because politicians are genetically hardwired from wanting to displease anybody, it is difficult to ascertain true support from bland noncommittal statements ("Of course you'd make an excellent Speaker!"). Each contender enters the leadership election convinced they possess a majority of votes, and most depart heartbroken and forever wondering who betrayed them.

The results of the recent Utah legislative organization activities are illuminating. According to insiders (ballot results are not public), Majority Leader Greg Curtis bested David Ure by at least six votes. This outcome reveals Curtis was always in the lead during the campaign season, despite negative fallout from his prior employment as general counsel to Nancy Workman. Her shedding of Curtis in the early summer was to his benefit, providing ample time for him to heal wounds.

House Democrats replaced Minority Leader Brent Goodfellow with Ralph Becker. In 2002, Becker was the incumbent leader and lost to Goodfellow. This reversal is a signal the caucus desires a return to a more aggressive response to GOP political activities. Conversely, most Senate Democrats enjoy a peaceful relationship with majority leadership and retained Mike Dmitrich as leader. Because both contestants for Senate president were generally well-liked, political operatives fervently hoped John Valentine (respected for his intellectual prowess) and Michael Waddoups (beloved for his honest demeanor) would reach an agreement. Instead, Valentine succeeded in promoting to colleagues a public persona as a consensus builder.