Renée Pinkney, president of the Utah Education Association, talks with reporters after a press conference at the Utah PTA offices announcing a campaign urging Utah voters to reject constitutional Amendment A. (Katie McKellar / Utah News Dispatch)
Utah’s largest teacher union and the other plaintiffs suing the Utah Legislature over the state’s new “school choice” voucher program are taking a page out of the Amendment D playbook.
As part of their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program, the Utah Education association, two parents, a public school teacher and a Utah State Board of Education member on Wednesday filed a motion asking a district court judge to void another proposed constitutional amendment on Utah’s Nov. 5 ballot, Amendment A.
If approved by Utah voters, Amendment A would nix the state’s nearly 100-year-old constitutional earmark reserving income tax revenue (which currently reserves that money for public and higher education and some services for children or people with disabilities) and allow income tax dollars to fund other state needs.
The change would also specify in the Utah Constitution that the state can only use those dollars for other priorities after it uses a portion of revenue growth for “changes in student enrollment and long-term inflation” — something that’s already in state statute but would be codified in the constitution.
Utah voters to decide whether to nix Utah’s education earmark. Here’s what’s at stake
Utah’s Republican legislative leaders have long argued the state needs to remove that earmark to allow more budgetary flexibility and address a structural imbalance between sales tax revenue and income tax revenue, because income tax revenue growth has long outpaced other types of revenue growth.
But the Utah Education Association has opposed the amendment, arguing it would allow income tax revenue to be funneled away from public education needs in a state that they say already underfunds public schools.
The UEA and other plaintiffs allege the Utah Legislature violated the constitution because Amendment A’s ballot language “obscures the intent and effect” of Amendment A, and because lawmakers failed to publish the actual text of the proposed amendment in newspapers across the state, “thus making it even more difficult for voters to understand the true effect of the amendment.”
Attorneys for the UEA and other plaintiffs are following a similar strategy that opponents of Amendment D — a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the Utah Legislature’s power to amend and repeal ballot initiatives — successfully used earlier this month. They argued Amendment A’s language was “false and misleading” and didn’t follow constitutional publishing requirements. Last week, a judge agreed and voided Amendment D while leaving it on the Nov. 5 ballot. In less than a week, the Utah Supreme Court is slated to hear the Legislature’s appeal.
Ballot language for 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.
Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper — who wrote the ballot language for Amendment A — didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Gov. Spencer Cox responds
Reporters asked Utah Gov. Spencer Cox about the lawsuit during his monthly PBS Utah press conference, but he said he’d only just been made aware of it so he wasn’t prepared to comment on it. Asked whether the earlier ruling on Amendment D could jeopardize Amendment A, especially given it hadn’t been published in newspapers across the state 60 days before the election as required by the Utah Constitution, Cox said, “that’s a good question.”
“Maybe, again, I’m at a disadvantage here so I don’t know,” Cox said, though he argued Amendment A — which the Utah Legislature put on this year’s ballot with SJR10, a resolution passed during the 2023 general session — faces different “circumstances” than Amendment D, which lawmakers proposed just last month by calling an “emergency” special session.
“So I would be surprised,” Cox said, though he added he hadn’t had a chance to look at the lawsuit.
In general, though, Cox argued Amendment A “is a good idea” because it would give state leaders “the flexibility that we need to fund the government as a whole.”
He also noted the constitutional earmark on education funding has been loosened multiple times, including in 1997 to allow income tax revenue to be spent on higher education, as well as in 2021 to open income tax dollars to social services for children and people with disabilities. Additionally, he said state lawmakers have already been shifting dollars between state accounts to create some budget flexibility within existing constitutional constraints.
“So the idea of the earmark and all of that money going directly to education funding has never worked the way it was intended to work,” he said. “So instead of, I think, kind of keeping up that charade, we should actually put some protections in place, which we’ve done via legislation to make sure that we’re getting more funding to our schools.”
Utah’s largest teacher union files lawsuit against Utah Fits All school choice voucher program
He also argued lawmakers have “proved” their commitment to education funding over the past several years, with significant new investment toward public education. Earlier this year when UEA sued the state, Adams issued a statement saying Utah education funds have increased $2.5 billion since 2014.
Critics of removing Utah’s education earmark note that Utah (a state known for its large families and young population) has long lagged behind other states, historically ranking last in the nation when it comes to per-student spending, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Though in 2021 Utah moved up a slot, to 50th in the nation, when it outpaced Idaho.
They argue that removing the constitutional earmark and Amendment A’s new language wouldn’t provide enough of a guarantee that Utah lawmakers fully fund public schools — and rather open the door to other priorities.
“It really is an issue of prioritizing public education. Ninety percent of our students attend public schools, and they are the most important part of our society and community in terms of the future,” said Utah Education Association President Renée Pinkney. She said the argument that Utah should “give up this constitutional mandate for kids so we can have convenience in budgeting is a little much.”
The Utah Education Association and a coalition of educators, parents and child advocates, hold a press conference to announce the creation of the political issues committee Utahns for Student Success, which launched a campaign to urge Utahns to vote against Amendment A. (Katie McKellar / Utah News Dispatch)
Campaign launched to fight Amendment A
On Thursday, the Utah Education Association and a coalition of educators, parents and child advocates announced a separate effort to fight Amendment A: the formation of a political issues committee called Utahns for Student Success, which is launching a campaign urging Utahns to vote against Amendment A.
Representatives for those groups — Pinkney, Utah PTA President Corey Fairholm, Utah School Employees Association President Mike Evans, and Moe Hickey, executive director of Voices for Utah Children — held a news conference Thursday to announce the campaign.
According to the PIC’s campaign finance report, it received about $20,000 in contributions from the Utah Education Association, as well as $70,000 in in-kind contributions for polling.
The PIC’s website, VoteAgainstAmendmentA.org, says Amendment A was “worded like it will increase public school funding,” but it alleged that’s “wrong.”
“Amendment A was carefully crafted by state politicians to mask its true intent — a power grab to take money away from Utah’s public schools and give it to vouchers for private religious schools. Utah’s Constitution already protects public school funding — Amendment A would weaken those protections,” the PIC’s website states.
Removing the education earmark on Utah’s income tax would open up the revenue to all uses, not just “vouchers for private religious schools.” And the Utah Fits All Scholarship offers up to $8,000 to qualifying Utah students that can be used for education expenses including private school tuition and fees, tutoring services, or other costs, not only funds for religious school tuition.
Pressed on this, Pinkney told reporters “we are just making an assumption as to where those vouchers are going” because Utah lawmakers won’t be releasing a report detailing how the Utah Fits All scholarship money is spent for another year. She said she’s also heard of parents using vouchers for “ski passes, horseback riding, all kinds of extracurricular” that may or may not be private school or religious related.
Pinkney also pointed to an article published on the Intermountain Catholic website that announced the National Catholic Educational Association had recognized Galey Colosimo, principal of a catholic private school located in Draper, Juan Diego Catholic High School, with an award for “promoting full and fair parental choice in education.” That article says Colosimo “and other private school and home school advocates” worked to pass the initial Utah Fits All Scholarship program, funded initially with $40 million.
Then in the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers expanded the program’s funding by another $42.5 million — thanks to efforts from the nonprofit Utah Education Fits All, for which the article says Colosimo serves as board chairman.
Pinkney said it’s “pretty clear” from that article that there are people working to increase opportunities for vouchers for religious private schools.
If Amendment A passes, Pinkney said “other state needs would take priority over public education.”
To lawmakers’ arguments that the Utah Fits All program was needed to give parents more choice in their kids’ education, Pinkney said Utah already has “plenty of choice” in its public school system, but a fully funded public school system would offer even more choices, and that’s what she said lawmakers should prioritize, not vouchers.
“We need the political will to fund public education at the levels high enough to meet our students’ needs, as well as our educators’ needs,” she said. “If we had a fully funded public education system, you wouldn’t need to look outside public schools, because we would have everything we need to meet every child’s needs.”
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.