Wyoming PBS, Cowboy State Daily, and Wyoming Public Media present Vote 2026 The Wyoming U.S.

Senate Democratic primary debates.

Live from the little theater on the campus of Central Wyoming College.

Greetings viewers, audience members, and candidates.

I'm Steve Peck, the public affairs producer for Wyoming PBS.

And welcome to our Democratic primary election debate among candidates for the U.S.

Senate.

That seat is held currently by Cynthia Lummis, a Republican who is retiring.

The primary election is next Tuesday, August 18th.

You heard our debate partners during the opening credits of this debate, and we add our thanks now to Central Wyoming College and its president, Dr.

Brad Tyndall, for hosting us tonight.

All ballot, all ballot eligible candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties were invited to take part in this debate.

Two Republicans— Two Democrats, Ballot eligible are on the stage tonight.

This debate is being aired and streamed live by Wyoming PBS and Wyoming Public Media.

Our debate comprises five segments.

First, a preview question was sent more than 24 hours ago to all candidates.

I'll ask that question to open the debate, and each candidate can respond for as long as 90 seconds.

The candidates will respond from left to right in the order that you see them.

That order was determined before the debate in a random drawing off stage in which the candidates participated.

Next, our panelists will ask three questions in sequence to both candidates.

Both candidates, in turn, will answer the same question again, with 90 seconds allowed for the response.

The candidate who responded second to the initial preview question will be the first to respond to the all panel question, and we will alternate opening responses after that.

Third, we'll devote a few minutes to a short answer.

lightning round, with each candidate responding to a brief prompt from the panelists with 15 seconds allotted per response.

We could have time for about ten lightning round cues.

Fourth, our panelists will ask one round of individual questions.

That is a different question for each candidate.

The initial answers are limited to 60 seconds, after which each remaining candidate in line will be permitted 20 seconds for a rebuttal or other response to the first candidate.

Then, the first candidate will have a final 15 seconds to follow up if desired.

As always, we'll proceed in alternating order so that a different candidate goes first with each new question and candidates, please help me if I get you out of order.

I want to do this right.

In a joint briefing before the debate, we expressed to the candidates that we expect and require civil conduct and decorum during the debate, and we don't expect any difficulties.

I'm the moderator of tonight's debate, and I'll be a questioning panelist as well.

My fellow panelists are two experienced Wyoming journalists, Clair McFarland of Cowboy State Daily.

And Melodie Edwards of Wyoming Public Media.

And that brings me to this note that Wyoming Public Media and Wyoming PBS have similar names, and we are partners in this debate.

But otherwise the two entities are completely separate and unaffiliated organizations.

The timer for the debate is Ryan Schuckman of Wyoming PBS.

He's operating a visual timing device resembling a traffic light that most of you can see.

Timing begins the moment a candidate begins speaking.

When 10 seconds of the candidate's allotted time remains, a yellow light will appear and flash.

When the candidate's allotted time for that response has expired, the red light will appear, alarm will sound, and I may ask the candidate to suspend.

Reasonable allowances to complete a sentence or a thought are permissible.

Candidates, thank you in advance for not abusing that flexibility.

Now we meet the candidates for U.S.

Senate in the Democratic Party From left to right, Billy Benavidez and James Byrd.

Now we begin.

The candidates were sent the following preview question.

Candidates, the constitutionally constructed separation of powers in the U.S.

Government has tilted in different directions over time through the generations.

Today, some say the executive branch, meaning the president, has been accorded too much power compared to Congress, partly because the U.S.

Senate has become too deferential to the executive.

Is this critique accurate in your view?

Or is the balance of power between the President and Senate appropriate and satisfactory?

Mr.

Benavides, you go first.

90 seconds.

First of all, thank you, Riverton, for having me.

I appreciate your time and the people all across Wyoming.

Thank you.

To answer the question, you have to go back to Eisenhower's day when he gave a speech when he was leaving office, he gave a warning on the military industrial complex on how expanded its powers have become.

What was left when Eisenhower left?

Or what have you.

Why did was he giving a warning?

So did Trump, as of this day, is it watered down of the powers of the presidency compared to what was in Eisenhower's day?

It's a great question to ask.

So we will see what happens.

But that's a greater question.

What did Eisenhower warn us of?

And is Trump's power and authority watered down?

Does the Senate have too much power?

So we need to go back to what Eisenhower said.

His warning, and we'll see what happens.

and what can be done, what should be done.

Thank you sir.

Mr.

Byrd, 90 seconds.

Thank you.

The article one of the Constitution clearly illustrates separation of powers within the federal government.

The current executive is really exceeded those and encroaching on new territories that are just unknown to past administrations and this country dangerously towards dictatorship.

The United States Senate has abdicated its responsibility in the constitutional role of reining in the executive and making sure that the executive follows those rules.

And so when we look at what is being done is we have innuendos and threats that come from the administration of the executive towards the sitting members of Congress, which should be illegal.

Inside a functioning federal government with an attorney general that doesnt work directly and does the president's bidding, This would never stand.

But we have allowed this to happen, and it has collapsed the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the United States Senate.

So what they need to do is rein this president in.

They need to go back to their constitutional mandated responsibility and rein this president and his cabinet and appointees in, because that is their job underneath the Constitution of this United States.

Candidates, thank you.

We'll begin our round of all panel questions.

The first question comes from Clair McFarland.

Mr.

Byrd, you'll be the first to respond.

The U.S.

Senate garnered controversy last year for Senator Mike Lee's plan to sell off swaths of public lands.

Do you approve of that failed measure, and what is your approach to public lands policy?

Mr.

Byrd, 90 seconds.

Thank you for the question.

I'll be straightforward with you.

My position on public lands is not one acre, not one square foot should ever be sold off, disposed, or in any way traded away from what the existing status of that land is right now.

Because Wyoming is extremely susceptible and extremely vulnerable to the movement of public lands.

For example, there's ranchers and farmers who depend on these public lands to augment their operations.

It is critical that these low cost lease—leases be extended to these farmers and ranchers, so that these legacy ranches and— can be profitable and maybe handed down to the next generation.

We also have to look at the other side of this, which is tourism.

$5.5 billion spent in this state last year on tourism.

And I can guarantee that those people did not come here because of our wonderful pumpjacks on the anticline, that cool technology that we use to get coal out of the ground.

They came to see Bambi, Boo-Boo, they came to see blue skies and wide open spaces.

They came to see wild horses down in Adobe Town.

And if we start selling off public lands, that goes away.

All of those people who are guides, all of those people in the hospitality industry, and all the supported industries.

Roughly around 55,000 people, their jobs and their livelihoods will be in jeopardy.

Thank you sir.

Mr.

Benavides, 90 seconds.

In regard to public lands, unfortunately, at some point in time, I believe this year, They threw out the rule book.

They've been working on the rule book in regard to chemicals, in regard to protecting the land for decades, and they just, “Oh, might as well just throw it out.” “Why not?” That's not good.

That's not great.

That's terrible.

In regard to protecting public land, why would the federal government want to take it?

Why should they?

Will they?

Can they?

How, how far are they going to go?

We should protect Wyoming public land forever.

As long as I'm in the Senate for generations to come, I would protect public land.

And as well as be strategic in regard to the rule book, I don't want to throw the thing out.

Why would we throw the darn thing out?

There's some chemicals that were used back in the early ‘90s that were harmful to people and yet they threw out the rule book, said, “Go ahead and use the chemicals again.” Why are we doing that?

We shouldn't be doing that.

So we should put some strategic rules back in to make sure people are protected, as well as the lands.

Candidates, thank you.

Our next question comes from Melodie Edwards.

Mr.

Benavides, you'll be first.

Whose role is it to ensure that A.I.

doesn't harm citizens?

How can we best do that?

Mr.

Benavides, 90 seconds.

Number one, I would recommend regard to citizens, the people, we the people.

Back in JFK days, my platform is Governor Freudenthal and JFK.

What would JFK do today if he was sitting here and looking at A.I.?

Infringing on our privacy, hurting people, the environment?

There's numerous things that it's great for, but there's a lot of things that are it's horrendous and horrible.

And yet it's getting— what my opinion is, it's getting swept underneath the rug.

It's being quieted.

“Oh, we don't want to say too much about A.I.

because it might affect—” whether it be stock prices, the people, or what have you.

But we need to stand up as Americans against A.I.

the things that are bad.

Is there benefits to it?

I imagine there is.

But there's bad things as well.

And we need to stand up as Americans and as a senator, I would do whatever Wyoming the people, we the people, want.

Not just, “Oh let me just abide by what Washington wants.” Unh-uh, no.

What does the people in Wyoming want?

That's what I would do.

Is protect Americans and the people of Wyoming.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Byrd, 90 seconds.

Thank you.

A.I.

is an interesting animal.

It's one of those things that was developed inside some computer labs by some very smart programmers.

and what we've come up with is a wild piece of software.

Just recently, in the last couple of weeks, they had an A.I.

program that was in a sandbox, that's a tech term for a closed network, and they thought they had this thing secured.

It actually found a way out of the sandbox and onto the public network.

That is genius.

But the scary part of that was, it left itself a note in case it was found out and captured on how to do it again.

This is the kind of technology we need to be very, very careful with how we are rolling out.

And very careful with whom we let roll this out.

We dodged this bullet once, and that was back when we were inventing and working with the atom bomb and all the science for the atom bomb said, if you set this off, you might destroy humanity.

Well, we dodged a bullet.

But I don't think that A.I.

is going to allow us this dodge because of the way that this code is written and the way that it's put out on the machines, we may not be able to control this.

So for me and the Senate and all the governmental operations right now, we need to come to a full stop on this until we can actually guarantee you, the general public, that this thing is under control.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Benavides, 90 seconds.

Regard to A.I.?

I'm sorry.

That's the conclusion of the question.

The next question, Mr.

Bird, will be starting.

The question comes from me.

Candidate, much of U.S.

senators work comes in committee hearings, research, and analysis through committee.

Are there some specific Senate committees well suited to your interests and experience that you'd like to serve on if elected?

Yeah, thank you very much.

Ways and Means.

That's one of those committees that just basically takes on all aspects of the government, make sure that the government agencies can all function together, not DOGE, not taking a hacksaw and just eliminating and decapitating agencies.

Ways and means is the one that makes sure that budgets that are approved by the House and ratified by the Senate are applied correctly within inside the budgetary system of the United States government.

There also make sure that these entities function for the people.

So it's an extremely important committee, and it's one that's really off the radar most of the time, because it involves a mountain of work and dedication.

Mr.

Benavides, 90 seconds.

In regard to committees, hearings, there's numerous, you know, overall that I would... want to see, you know, some emphasis on.

Number one is freedom.

We want our freedom back.

Number two is women's health.

I think it gets neglected.

Just like recently in the last couple of years, freedom.

Number three, patriotism.

We don't have any patriotism anymore.

We need to be proud to be an American.

It's just a small smidget, but still, it makes a big difference.

And then also, we need to root out some of this corruption that's going.

You don't think there's corruption going on in the hearings?

Backside slimeball deals?

Oh, you bet there is.

And it's nasty.

It's sick.

The um... Let's get rid of the corruption that is just run rampant in Washington as well as I mean the cover up corruption pig.

Nasty and filthy.

But in regard to the— in regard to hearings, making sure that things are running efficiently, correctly, done by the process, by the book, old school, the way JFK, even going back to Roosevelt's day to make sure its done right the way its supposed to be done.

And I don't think it's being done at all.

They're doing what they want, when they want, how they want to do it.

Candidates, thank you.

That concludes that round of questioning.

We'll now spend a few minutes with our lightning round short prompts from the panelists.

15 seconds allowed for responses from the candidates.

You'll each respond to the same prompt.

The first question prompt comes from Clair McFarland.

Mr.

Benavides, you'll begin.

Israel.

Say again?

The prompt is “Israel”.

The prompt is Israel?

So you have a few seconds to... Israel is God's chosen people.

But unfortunately, they are doing a lot of evil within Washington from what I'm gathering.

And it's rather sad.

And... I pray for Israel that they will do well, that they'll get back on track to what God intended instead of doing filthy rot and corruption.

Mr.

Byrd.

Thank you.

Our relationship with Israel really needs to be reevaluated top to bottom.

Israel is heading towards what is known as a rogue nation, and we're helping to augment them in that and help them in that case to be a rogue nation.

They have broken all sorts of international treaties.

Thank you, our next prompt is from Melodie Edwards.

An all of the above energy approach Mr.

Bird, you're first.

Thank you.

My background is in exploration oil and gas.

This is one of the things that I am fairly sound at.

Wyoming used to be, used to be the number one energy producer in this country.

I don't know why they're not the— I do know why they're not the number one anymore, because our state legislature and the federal government's not allowed them to continue that.

Mr.

Benavides.

Well, we need to use a diverse approach with this.

We should be loving oil and gas in the state.

Do we?

I know we have, I believe, a constitutional amendment or what have you with ten years, you might want to look into making it for 20 years.

Along with wind, solar, We don't want busted up birds in regard to windmills, what have you.

We want efficiency, reliability.

There you go.

Candidates, thank you for that change of pace.

Our time for the lightning round has expired.

We'll now have individual questions.

First to one candidate for a 60 second response, the second candidate then would have 20 seconds to react, rebut, or respond.

The first candidate can follow up with another 15 seconds.

Mr.

Benavides, you'll begin.

The question is from me.

What's your view on term limits for members of the U.S.

Senate?

Well, my own platform, Whatever Congress decides to do, let them— whatever.

Let them do what they want to do.

My platform is one term only guaranteed.

Let me say that again.

I don't think people sometimes understand that.

One term only guaranteed.

As well as no stock trading guaranteed.

I'll invest in mutual funds, but that is a very interesting topic that people like in this state.

That I'm not looking to be a career politician.

One term only.

And that is nice, it's clean, it's free, and it's what America and Wyoming, from what I'm gathering, wants.

Thank you sir.

Mr.

Byrd, 20 seconds.

Thank you.

Term limits are absolutely necessary.

Term limits for the House of Representatives, term limits for the Senate, and especially term limits for the Supreme Court.

The current legislative body in Washington, D.C., and the Supreme Court have proven to the public that the current use for the way we keep them in office is outdated, and it needs to be changed.

So I am absolutely for term limits on all three bodies.

Thank you.

The next prompt is from Clair McFarland.

Mr.

Byrd, you'll be first.

Thank you.

If elected, you would be tasked with voting on confirmation for Wyoming's top federal prosecutor, the U.S.

Attorney for Wyoming, significant here because that prosecutor works with felonies on the Wind River Indian Reservation as well as crimes in national parks.

What would you be looking for in a U.S.

Attorney nominee candidate and what would be some red flags?

Well, thank you for the question.

The first red flag is whether they have a clean background.

When you are looking to be at that level of the administration, I'm looking for somebody that has a clean background.

That means that they don't have any sort of ghosts or skeletons in the closet about things that they've done in the past that would impugn or take away from their ability to be in that position.

The second is knowledge.

Knowledge of what that position does, knowledge of the law, and knowledge of the Constitution, Being able to apply that to the everyday citizens of this country and how we are living right now.

That are— Those are the basic qualifications.

There are many more that would come with that, but those would be the basic things Id look for.

Mr.

Benavides.

And what I would look for just going off of my background.

People call me Billy the Baptist.

In regard to doctrine of Baptists or Christians, there is only one race as a human race.

They shouldn't be looking upon someone by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

I would love for them to have a clean background.

And nothing hindering on what... Mr.

Byrd, 15 seconds to follow up if you'd like.

Oh, Im sorry.

That's— we'll move on to the next question, which comes from Melodie.

The Senate has long debated the problem of immigration.

As Wyoming law enforcement agencies sign agreements to cooperate with ICE, what are the top changes that you would make to how the United States handles immigration?

Well, thank you for that question.

Mr.

Benavides goes first this time.

Okay, excuse me.

I get a little... Well, for one, I like the saying of build the wall, make it— make it tall, protect us all.

I love that because we need to get the illegals out.

In regard to the legal immigration, they're welcome in because they're doing the right thing.

They're going through the right processes, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing.

But the illegals?

Get them out.

A.S.A.P.

Now.

Why wait?

Why sit there?

They are breaking the law.

Let me say that again.

They are breaking the law and we're allowing them, whether it be benefits, whether it be illegal activity, drugs, crime.

I am against illegals, but... legal immigration who are doing things the right way, the way they're supposed to be doing it.

There is nothing wrong with that.

And they're welcome as long as they do it the right way, the American way.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Byrd, 20 seconds.

Could I get you to repeat the question, please?

The Senate has long debated the problem of immigration.

As Wyoming law enforcement agencies sign agreements to cooperate with ICE, what are some of the top changes that you would make to how the United States handles immigration?

Thank you for the question.

Well, first of all, we just gave them $78 billion.

Now, let that soak in for a second, $78 billion.

Our major problem with immigration is we have people that are in this country who can't get an immigration hearing.

The first thing I would do is divert that to the courts, hire more people in the courts so we can get immigration judges to make a decision on whether these people should be admitted.

And then we take the ones who we don't want, and send them out the door.

Candidates, thank you for your responses.

The time has come for closing statements.

Each of you is allotted 60 seconds.

Mr.

Byrd, James Byrd, you go first.

Thank you.

I would like to thank the people of Riverton, Wyoming, PBS, and the Central Wyoming College for hosting this tonight.

I have run around this state for the last four months, met a lot of people and what they want is change.

The change that they want is they want representation in Wyoming that goes to Washington D.C.

Not people who leave here and go to D.C.

and try to represent the D.C.

interests in Wyoming.

So here's what I pledge to you.

Elect me and I will give you that representation.

I will break that cycle of no representation in, in Wyoming— from Wyoming in Washington, D.C.

I will make sure that you have a clear voice in the United States Senate and they know that we are from Wyoming and we mean business.

Thank you, sir.

Billy Benavidez.

Please go to my website if you can.

Billyforwyoming.com.

I give some good info on there.

Thank you everyone for listening, watching in.

Sometimes unfortunately in the Senate, there's some people in there that it's gone old and cold.

I call it the Al Bundy syndrome.

They scored four touchdowns in one game four decades ago and think they can live off of that.

Oh heck no.

We need some active, vibrant, energy, to the Senate, on the floor where we can have some patriotism again.

Just to let you know, I will put the Constitution on my back with you, the American people and Lady Liberty, the Statue of Liberty standing right next to me, walking side by side down the Senate halls, wherever it needs to go to get rid of the corruption, the filth, the decay, to bring back a winning attitude to Washington.

Once again, a wrecking ball that they have never seen before.

I am ready to do it for every single one of you.

Candidates, thank you for participating.

Voters, remember the primary election is next Tuesday, August 18th.

Our debate can be seen again online at wyomingpbs.org and YouTube.

This concludes our primary election debate cycle.

We'll return in the fall with general election debates.

Thanks for being with us.

You're watching Wyoming PBS.