Will Utahns vote on Amendment A?

A challenge to a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with education funding wasn’t going to end if the Utah Supreme Court had reversed a decision voiding another amendment on the November ballot.
But what happens to Amendment A, which would remove constitutional restrictions on using state income taxes for public education and some social services programs now that the high court has agreed another amendment wasn’t properly explained or noticed to voters?
Earlier Wednesday, Third District Judge Laura Scott ended a status conference on the Utah Education Association’s attempt to stop Amendment A by telling the participants she’d see them again on Oct. 15, “unless we have a decision from the Supreme Court that resolves that issue.”
She set an Oct. 15 hearing on a preliminary injunction for Amendment A, saying it would “focus on the language of the amendment” if the Supreme Court reverses the ruling against Amendment D, which would give state lawmakers the express power to change or repeal initiatives approved by voters.
Scott said if the state’s high court affirms that the state failed to meet a constitutional requirement for publishing the Amendment D language in newspapers throughout the state ahead of the election, “it wouldn’t be necessary to go forward with the preliminary injunction,” since Amendment A opponents are making a similar claim.
The hearing date set comes after voting machines in Utah can be reprogrammed to not count results from something on the November ballot, although a court can order those totals not be released.
The status conference dealt with the UEA’s request to add the challenge to Amendment A to its lawsuit filed in May against the state’s new school voucher system, known as the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program. Utah lawmakers have appropriated $82.5 million over the past two years for the program that started this fall with 10,000 students receiving scholarships for private school.
Scott granted UEA’s request to file a supplemental complaint later Wednesday.
The teacher’s union said in court filings the amendment needed to be stopped so voters don’t “unknowingly remove one of the Constitution’s primary barriers to private school vouchers.” Just as in the Amendment D case, they argued the Amendment A ballot language is “false and misleading” and that the Utah Legislature failed to publicize the amendment as required.
The ballot language for Amendment A reads: “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.”
Lawmakers decided last year to link passage of the amendment to removing the state’s 1.75% share of sales tax on food.
The ballot language was written by Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper. Previously, non-partisan legislative staff was responsible for what voters see about an amendment, but that was shifted to leadership under a bill passed by the 2024 Legislature.
Both Adams and Schultz, as well as Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, who oversees elections in the state, may be added as defendants. Two of the three defendants in the original UEA case against school vouchers, Gov. Spencer Cox and Attorney General Sean Reyes, did not oppose adding the Amendment A challenge, but the third, the Alliance for Choice in Education, did.
Alliance for Choice in Education claimed that the challenge to Amendment A “bear no legal or factual connection to any issue” in the original case. In her ruling, Scott said the group “has not shown that the proposed Supplemental Complaint is untimely, was brought in bad faith, or is futile.”