The American experiment has always rested on that uncomfortable idea. A society that abandons limits, procedures and rules in pursuit of desirable outcomes may not only fail to achieve those outcomes — it may also lose the freedoms that made them possible. Republics rarely collapse in a single moment. They erode through a thousand small exceptions, each justified by a good cause.

To slow that erosion and force politics through durable rules rather than momentary passions, the United States was designed as a republic rather than a pure democracy. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had produced, his reply was famously blunt: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The warning was not that voters would always choose poorly. It was that political actors, gradually, would be tempted to relax constraints in pursuit of preferred outcomes — and that citizens would have to decide whether to allow it.

Impressively, Utah voters seem to understand this distinction and are signaling that something is off. In a recent survey by the Utah Priorities Project, one of the most frequently cited priorities was “politicians listening to voters.” Close behind were concerns about “government overreach” and “partisan politics.” These are not complaints about any single policy. They are concerns about how power is being exercised. In other words, Utahns are paying attention to the how, not just the what.

Utah politicians who benefit most from the current rules appear to have noticed that attentiveness — and have begun to circle the wagons. As voters focus more on process and limits, the incentives shift. In a state where most elected representatives describe themselves as conservatives, recent actions instead suggest a growing comfort with reshaping institutions to secure preferred outcomes. That should trouble conservatives most of all, because conservatism is supposed to mean restraint: skepticism of concentrated power, and respect for durable rules.

Start with gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is not just a tough political tactic. It strikes at the discipline that makes representative government work. When politicians draw districts to protect themselves from real competition, they weaken the pressure to govern through rules that apply broadly rather than deals that serve narrowly. Safe seats don’t just pick winners; they change behavior. Representatives stop persuading the middle and start catering to the loudest faction and the best-funded interest. For a republic, that is poison. For a conservative movement that claims to prize accountability and limited government, it is hard to defend.

Courts exist to push back when that logic takes hold. An independent judiciary is not an obstacle to democracy; it is one of the ways a republic protects itself. Courts enforce constitutional limits precisely when the people in power would rather not be limited.

That is why the next move matters so much. Utah’s Legislature and governor did not simply redraw maps within those limits. Instead, after court rulings constrained legislative maps, they moved to expand the Utah Supreme Court. Whatever one thinks of court expansion in theory, timing matters. Changing the makeup of a court immediately after it enforces constitutional boundaries sends a simple message: When the rules become inconvenient, the referees can be changed. That is not republican restraint. It is power insulating itself from constraint.

And circling the wagons does not stop at elections and courts. Utah’s Board of Higher Education has discussed “horizontally integrating” university programs — a restructuring that can give government more direct leverage over what is taught and how programs are organized. Coordination can be reasonable. But centralization also creates a powerful tool: the ability to standardize curriculum from the top down, to reward friendly programs, to punish unfriendly ones, and eventually to narrow academic speech — especially speech that criticizes those in power. The tools the next generation of Utahns need to understand and question their government could be quietly reshaped in the process.

Taken together, these moves tell a clear story. Gerrymandering reduces accountability. Court expansion weakens judicial independence at the moment it becomes inconvenient. Educational centralization increases the state’s leverage over curriculum and dissent. The forms of republican government remain, but the protections weaken.

George Washington saw this danger from the beginning. When Virginia politicians attempted what we would now call gerrymandering to disadvantage James Madison — the word did not yet exist — Washington condemned the maneuver as “an unfair and dishonorable proceeding.” On his birthday, that standard is worth remembering.

Gavin Roberts is an associate professor of economics and chair of the economics department at Weber State University. He is a recipient of the Gordon Tullock Prize from the Public Choice Society and regularly shares his research locally, nationally and internationally. This commentary is provided through a partnership with Weber State. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent the institutional values or positions of the university.