Isabella Carter
Utah Amendment A, also known as the Constitutional Requirements for Education Funding Amendment, was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the ballot in Utah for the 2024 election. The amendment would have amended Section 5 of Article XIII of the Utah Constitution to remove the requirement that all funds raised from the state income tax go towards public education and services for the disabled. However, the amendment was ruled invalid by the 3rd Judicial District Court as it was not published in a state newspaper 60 days before the election as required by the state constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Type of Amendment | Constitutional Requirements for Education Funding Amendment |
| Date | November 5, 2024 |
| Purpose | To amend Section 5 of Article XIII of the Utah Constitution |
| Effect | Allow income tax money to be used for all state needs and prioritize public education funding for changes in enrollment and inflation |
| Effect | Eliminate the state sales tax on food |
| Effect | Remove the constitutional earmark on public education funding |
| Effect | Weaken protections for public school funding |
| Effect | Increase the limit on annual distributions from the State School Fund to public schools from 4% to 5% |
| Supporters | State Sen. Dan McCay (R), State Rep. Karen Peterson (R), State Rep. Mike Schultz (R) |
| Opponents | Utah House Democrats, Utahns for Student Success, Utah PTA |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The amendment would allow income tax money to be used for all state needs and prioritise public education funding for changes in enrollment and inflation
- It would remove the constitutional earmark on public education funding
- It would ban foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums and prohibit foreign individuals, entities or governments from influencing, supporting or opposing an initiative or referendum
- It would clarify the voters and legislative bodies' ability to amend laws and establish requirements for the legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative
- It would allow the Utah Legislature to alter or repeal any voter ballot initiative passed by Utah voters and sidestep a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling on ballot initiatives
The amendment would allow income tax money to be used for all state needs and prioritise public education funding for changes in enrollment and inflation
The Utah Constitutional Requirements for Education Funding Amendment, or Amendment A, was certified for the ballot in Utah as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. The amendment would have amended Section 5 of Article XIII of the Utah Constitution to allow income tax money to be used for all state needs, not just public education.
The amendment proposed to prioritise public education funding for changes in enrollment and inflation. This would have been achieved by removing the constitutional earmark on public education funding, which currently ensures that a certain percentage of the state budget is allocated to public education.
Supporters of the amendment argued that it would provide continued constitutional protections and allow revenue in the income tax fund to be used for other state purposes once the state had fulfilled its responsibilities for growth, student enrollment, and long-term inflation. They also believed that it would allow citizens to have a say in how the state's budget is balanced.
However, opponents of the amendment, including the Utah PTA and Utah House Democrats, argued that it would result in a significant loss of investment in public education, making funding subject to political whims. They believed that education funding should be a priority and non-negotiable, and that the amendment's language was vague. Utahns for Student Success also opposed the amendment, claiming that it was a veiled attempt to divert money from public schools to fund vouchers for private religious schools.
On October 9, 2024, the 3rd Judicial District Court ruled that the measure was invalid due to a procedural error. While the measure would still be printed on ballots, any votes on it would not be counted.
Influences on the Constitution's Authors
You may want to see also
It would remove the constitutional earmark on public education funding
The Utah Constitutional Requirements for Education Funding Amendment, or Amendment A, was certified for the ballot in Utah as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. The amendment would have amended Section 5 of Article XIII of the Utah Constitution to remove the constitutional earmark on public education funding.
The amendment's wording on the ballot was as follows: "Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to allow income tax money to be used for all state needs and prioritize public education funding for changes in enrollment and inflation?" If approved, the amendment would have eliminated the state sales tax on food.
Supporters of the amendment argued that it would "protect and provide continued constitutional protections but then allow for... revenue in the income tax fund to be used for other state purposes once we fulfilled our responsibilities for growth, and for student enrollment and long-term inflation." They also believed that it would allow citizens to make decisions about the state's budget.
However, opponents, including the Utah PTA and House Democrats, argued that the amendment's language was vague and that its passage would result in a significant loss of investment in public education, making funding subject to political whims. They believed that education funding should be a priority and non-negotiable, and that the amendment would weaken existing protections for public school funding.
French Constitution of 1791: Three Key Outcomes
You may want to see also
It would ban foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums and prohibit foreign individuals, entities or governments from influencing, supporting or opposing an initiative or referendum
The Utah Constitutional Requirements for Education Funding Amendment, or Amendment A, was certified for the ballot in Utah as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. This amendment sought to amend Section 5 of Article XIII of the Utah Constitution.
The amendment would have allowed income tax money to be used for all state needs and prioritize public education funding for changes in enrollment and inflation. If approved, the state statute would have eliminated the state sales tax on food. However, opponents argued that the amendment's language was deceptive and misleading, claiming that it was a veiled attempt to divert funding from public schools to vouchers for private religious schools.
Amendment A faced strong opposition from groups like Utah PTA and Utahns for Student Success, who asserted that it would weaken constitutional protections for public education funding. They believed that education funding should not be compromised and must remain a priority.
While Amendment A was initially placed on the ballot, a ruling by the 3rd Judicial District Court on October 9, 2024, deemed it invalid. The ruling stated that the measure had not been published in a state newspaper 60 days before the election, as mandated by the state constitution. Consequently, votes on Amendment A would not be counted, despite its presence on the ballots.
One of the key provisions of Amendment A was its focus on prohibiting foreign influence on ballot initiatives and referendums. This aspect of the amendment aimed to ban foreign individuals, entities, or governments from directly or indirectly influencing, supporting, or opposing any initiative or referendum. It sought to ensure that decisions on ballot initiatives and referendums were made without external interference, reinforcing the integrity of the democratic process in Utah.
Calmly Handling Crises: My End's Non-Emergency Philosophy
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![The revised ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, embracing all ordinances of a general nature in force December 20, 1892, together with the charter of Salt Lake City, the amendments the [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81nNKsF6dYL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
It would clarify the voters and legislative bodies' ability to amend laws and establish requirements for the legislature to follow the intent of a ballot initiative
The Utah constitutional amendment on voter initiatives, also known as Amendment A, seeks to clarify the ability of voters and legislative bodies to amend laws. This amendment is a response to a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling on ballot initiatives, which Republican lawmakers argue has weakened their authority to repeal and replace these initiatives. The amendment aims to establish clear guidelines for amending laws and enforcing the intent of ballot initiatives.
The amendment proposes to add specific language to the Utah Constitution, stating that the people's exercise of their ballot initiative or referendum power does not restrict the legislative power to amend, enact or repeal laws. It seeks to address concerns raised by Republican leaders about the impact of the court ruling on their ability to govern effectively.
By clarifying the voters' and legislative bodies' ability to amend laws, the amendment aims to strike a balance between direct democracy and legislative power. It seeks to ensure that ballot initiatives do not become "super laws" that are immune to legislative changes. The amendment also establishes requirements for the legislature to adhere to the intent of a ballot initiative, ensuring that the will of the voters is respected and implemented as intended.
One of the key provisions of the amendment is the ban on foreign influence in the initiative process. It prohibits foreign individuals, entities, or governments from directly or indirectly influencing, supporting, or opposing an initiative or referendum. This provision ensures that decisions on laws and policies are made by Utah citizens without external interference.
The amendment also addresses the time allowed for gathering signatures for a statewide referendum. It proposes to allow Utah citizens 50% more time to collect the required number of signatures, making it easier for citizens to initiate referendums and participate in the democratic process.
While supporters argue that the amendment clarifies the roles of voters and legislative bodies, opponents have criticized the amendment's language as deceptive and misleading. They argue that the amendment's true intent is to weaken protections for public school funding and divert resources to private religious schools. Despite these concerns, the amendment will appear on the ballot, and Utah voters will have the final say on whether to approve or reject these changes to their constitution.
Hip-Hop Innovations: Defining Creative Industry Boundaries
You may want to see also
It would allow the Utah Legislature to alter or repeal any voter ballot initiative passed by Utah voters and sidestep a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling on ballot initiatives
The Utah Legislature's authority to alter or repeal any voter ballot initiative passed by Utah voters is under scrutiny in the upcoming November 5, 2024, ballot. The ballot will ask voters whether to change the Utah Constitution to sidestep a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling on ballot initiatives. The proposed amendment, known as Amendment A, has sparked controversy due to its potential impact on the power dynamics between the legislature and voters.
Amendment A seeks to clarify the relationship between the legislative body and voters in amending laws. It would allow the Utah Legislature to alter or repeal any voter ballot initiative, a power that Republican leaders believed they already possessed. However, a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling in an anti-gerrymandering lawsuit challenged this authority, asserting that ballot initiatives should not be considered "super laws" immune to legislative changes. The ruling left room for interpretation regarding the Legislature's ability to amend government-reform initiatives, stating that it does not entirely preclude their ability to make amendments.
Proponents of Amendment A argue that it is necessary to maintain legislative power and prevent California-style governance, where lawmaking at the ballot box could create "chaos". On the other hand, opponents of the amendment, including anti-gerrymandering advocates with the group Better Boundaries, criticise the ballot language as misleading. They argue that the amendment would weaken their constitutional authority to repeal and replace ballot initiatives, potentially impacting public education funding.
Utah House Democrats and Utahns for Student Success share similar concerns, stating that Amendment A could result in a significant loss of investment in public education. They worry that education funding would become subject to political whims, with the potential for funds to be redirected from public schools to vouchers for private religious schools. Additionally, opponents argue that the amendment's language is vague and does not adequately protect public education funding, which they consider essential to the state's future.
The outcome of the ballot will determine whether the Utah Legislature regains its perceived authority to alter or repeal voter ballot initiatives or if the recent Utah Supreme Court ruling will be upheld, maintaining a check on legislative power and prioritising the voice of voters in the law-making process.
Liberal Constitution Interpretation: A Progressive Vision
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Constitutional Amendment A is a proposal to amend Section 5 of Article XIII of the Utah Constitution.
The amendment would allow income tax money to be used for all state needs and prioritise public education funding for changes in enrollment and inflation. It would also eliminate the state sales tax on food.
The amendment was declared "void" by a district court on October 9, 2024, as it failed to be properly noticed as required by the Utah Constitution. Votes cast for or against the amendment were not counted.
The amendment was opposed by Utah PTA and Utah House Democrats, who believed that it would result in a loss of investment in public education. Utahns for Student Success also opposed the amendment, arguing that it was a "power grab" to take money away from public schools and give it to vouchers for private religious schools.
