Reaction to Utah Constitutional Amendment A ruling

SALT LAKE CITY — A decision by Utah’s Third Judicial District Court has voided another proposed constitutional amendment on Utah’s November 2024 general election ballot. Proposed Constitutional Amendment A will remain printed on the ballot — but votes toward it won’t count. 

On Wednesday, the court granted a permanent injunction against lawmaker-backed Amendment A. The voter-approved amendment would have removed the earmark on income tax for school funding.

The Utah Education Association filed a lawsuit that very closely mimicked the lawsuit over the proposed Constitutional Amendment D. The UEA argued that the language on the ballot is misleading and that the legislature didn’t release a public announcement in the required time frame.

Amendment D was voided last month for not meeting those requirements. Amendment A was voided for the same reason.

Income tax, state food sales tax, and education in Utah

The reason lawmakers said they wanted to free up income tax is so they could remove part of the state’s food sales tax.

A trigger law is in effect that would remove 1.75% of the grocery sales tax for the general fund each year – about $200 million according to the Deseret News — if the earmark on the income tax was removed. Lawmakers in support of Constitutional Amendment A said they wanted to free up income tax funding to help fill some of the expected shortcomings without the food sales tax.

Reaction to the court decision on Constitutional Amendment A

Utah Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Shultz issued a joint statement following the ruling on Wednesday.

“We remain disappointed that Utahns will not have the opportunity to decide on two important matters in November, as we believe voters should shape our laws and our future. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Amendment D, and given the notice for all the amendments were the same, the Legislature chose to file a joint brief allowing the district court to resolve the case. This action aimed to prevent unnecessary expenditure of tax dollars.

“Amendment A would have constitutionally guaranteed funding for public education and removed the state sales tax on food. While votes on this amendment will not be counted, we remain committed to continue supporting education and lowering taxes for all Utahns.”

Due to ongoing litigation, the UEA would not comment on their win on Wednesday. The lawsuit on Amendment A was part of a larger lawsuit they have against the Utah Fits All Scholarship, a state-funded program that gives students up to $8,000 a year to go to private schools.

But Utahns for Student Success – a bi-partisan coalition of 12 organizations including the UEA – is calling this a victory that highlights the need to “ensure voters receive timely, honest, and accurate information when making critical decisions for our children’s future.”

Should you vote on the voided Utah Constitutional amendments?

Ballots are already printed; they’ve already gone out to overseas military personnel.

KSL NewsRadio asked the Salt Lake County clerk about all the ballot confusion last month when the Amendment A lawsuit was announced.

 

Lannie Chapman said her office will treat votes for voided amendments similar to votes for a candidate that dropped out of an election after ballots are sent out.

In other words, clerk’s offices can toggle off the question on the ballot with the voting machine, so they won’t be counted and results won’t be released on election night.

She said voters should still review and fill out the whole ballot even though both Utah Constitutional Amendments A and D are voided.

Can the court’s decision be appealed?

Any appeals to this decision are unlikely.

Alliance for a Better Utah Senior Policy Advisor Chase Thomas said the defendants agreed that the Utah Supreme Court controlled the question about newspaper publishing.

“We could be proven wrong on that and there is an appeal. But I am guessing that the Utah Supreme Court would rule the same way,” he said.

KSL Legal Analyst Greg Skordas agreed. He said the arguments were “virtually identical,” and the government acknowledges that.