2024 Ballot Guide

** Update 10/9/24 ** Constitutional Amendment A was declared "void" by a district court on October 9, 2024 for failing to be properly noticed as required by the Utah Constitution. The proposed amendment will still appear on ballots because they have already been printed, but votes cast for or against the amendment will not be counted.

Constitutional Amendment A

“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 this amendment is approved, state statute will eliminate the state sales tax on food.”

Summary

Constitutional Amendment A would:

Allow the Utah State Legislature to use revenues from income taxes and taxes on intangible property, for any purpose in the state budget. Currently, they can only be used to fund public and higher education, and programs for children and people with disabilities.
Before income taxes could be used for other purposes, require that lawmakers continue prioritizing public education by funding a statutory framework that includes covering long-term inflation, changes in student enrollment, and a budgetary stabilization account.

If the amendment is approved, the following would take effect in statute:

Remove the state portion of the sales tax on food (local taxes on food would remain in place).
Protect public school funding that is lost due to declining enrollment for the next five years.

Background

How things were:

For most of its history, income taxes have primarily been used to support Utah’s public K-12 schools. Over the past thirty years, the Utah Legislature has proposed incremental changes to the Utah Constitution to open up revenues from the income tax for other uses in the state budget:

In 1996, voters approved a constitutional amendment that allowed income taxes to also be used for higher education.
In 2020, voters approved another constitutional amendment that allowed income taxes to be used for programs that aid children and Utahns with disabilities.

What will change?

Instead of funding just education and programs for children and individuals with disabilities, Constitutional Amendment A would open up money from state income taxes to be used for anything in the state budget, after funding public schools to a minimum set by the state. What the minimum is however, is a little bit tough to define. To use the income tax money for additional budget items, the Legislature must comply with a framework that uses a portion of income tax revenue growth to cover growth in student enrollment and long-term inflation, as well as fund a “budgetary stabilization account.”

This funding framework is already contained in state code and the specifics, including how large a portion of revenue growth is deposited into certain accounts, is defined by state laws that can be changed at any time by future Legislatures.

What else is related?

During the same legislative session that lawmakers proposed this amendment, they also passed two bills that served as sweeteners for both advocates and voters to swallow this change in the Constitution:

As mentioned in the ballot language, H.B. 54 (2023) would eliminate the state portion of the sales tax on food if voters approve Constitutional Amendment A. This would still leave the local portion of sales taxes on food.
H.B. 394 (2023) would protect public schools from funding losses due to declines in student enrollment for the next five years if voters approve Constitutional Amendment A.

It is important to note that both of these bills are only laws, so essentially just promises from lawmakers, rather than contained in the proposed constitutional amendment, and so they could be changed at any time by future Legislatures.

Arguments in Favor

FLEXIBILITY: Over the last few years, lawmakers have increasingly been worried about having sufficient flexibility in the state budget to fully fund needed programs and services. While income tax revenues have seen strong growth recently, sales tax revenues have seen much smaller growth, especially due to the general lack of sales taxes on services at a time when society is shifting away from purchasing goods to purchasing more services. Sales tax revenues have also increasingly been tied up for specific uses due to the use of earmarks (funds set aside for a specific purpose), particularly for transportation. Lawmakers point to these imbalances in the state budget as the need for more flexibility so that more services and programs can be funded using rapidly growing income tax revenues.

ADDITIONAL PROTECTION: The proposed amendment provides additional constitutional protections for the funding of public education that must be met before lawmakers can use income tax revenues for other purposes in the state budget. A statute that goes into effect upon passage of the constitutional amendment also protects schools’ funding from the effects of declining enrollment for five years.

REMOVES FOOD TAX: If the constitutional amendment is approved by voters, lawmakers have already passed a statute that would go into effect taking off the state portion of the sales tax on food.

Arguments Against

LESS PROTECTION: The current income tax mandate ensures that public school funding is protected from the traditional rat race of competing for state funding. The so-called protections offered in the constitutional amendment for public education are vague and not very strong. For example, the amendment would only require lawmakers to use a “portion” of income tax revenue growth, without specifying how large of a portion of that growth must be used for public education. The statutory protections that would go into effect are also not strong because statutes can be changed at any time by any future Legislature, rather than having the strength of being constitutional language.

ALTERNATIVE FLEXIBILITY: The desire for more flexibility in the state budget is possible without removing the income tax mandate. There are a number of sales tax earmarks, or “reservations” on funding in other areas, particularly transportation, that could be altered for additional flexibility in the state budget. Lawmakers could also raise the general rate of sales taxes to bring more revenue into the state’s General Fund, or they could stop cutting income tax rates every year and fund more of higher education and some social services out of the Income Tax Fund. There are plenty of options for lawmakers to explore before completely opening up income tax revenues for any purpose.

TRANSPARENCY: With the income tax mandate, Utahns know where their money is going and how it is being spent. Removing the income tax mandate would remove transparency on how income taxes are spent and open up a large pool of taxpayer dollars to be used on anything from private religious school vouchers to politicians’ pet projects.

HOLDING HOSTAGE: Tying the removal of the state portion of the sales tax on food to the constitutional amendment is unnecessary and could be done without tacking it on to this unrelated amendment. In the same vein, lawmakers could protect public education funding without tying it to a potentially unpopular decision to take away the income tax mandate. Using ballot candy in this way is a disingenuous ploy to distract voters from the true consequences of this constitutional amendment.