A proposed amendment to Utah’s constitution aimed at loosening restrictions on education funding has sparked a contentious debate among lawmakers and educators.
Amendment A, which would have shifted how income tax and intangible property tax revenue is allocated, has proponents arguing for fiscal flexibility and opponents warning it could destabilize education funding.
Section 5 of Article XIII of the Utah Constitution mandates that income tax revenue funds public education, higher education and programs for children and people with disabilities.
The proposed amendment sought to allow these funds to be used for other state needs once education funding priorities are met. However, a recent court ruling invalidated the amendment.
Amendment A will appear on ballots, but votes for or against it will not be counted.
The Proposed Amendment and Changes to Education Funding
Proponents of the amendment argued that the constitutional earmark restricts the state’s ability to allocate funds toward other pressing needs.
State Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, a sponsor of Amendment A, said the change was necessary to ensure Utah’s budget could be more adaptable to future challenges while still preserving essential protections for education.
McCay argued Amendment A would establish a new statutory framework in which a portion of revenue growth would continue to fund public education in response to student enrollment changes and inflation. It would also create a budget stabilization account to provide a financial safety net.
“This amendment would protect and provide continued constitutional protections [for education] while allowing income tax revenue to be used for other state purposes after fulfilling growth and long-term inflation responsibilities,” McCay said during a general session.
The amendment also promised a food tax cut. House Majority Leader Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, argued that the amendment represented an opportunity for Utah residents to influence the state’s budget and food tax policies directly.
“We have a constitutional duty to balance our state’s budget … This bill allows the citizens of the state to make the decision and I think that’s what we need to do,” Schultz said.
Opposition Fears Cuts to Education Funding
Despite assurances from proponents, educators and some lawmakers voiced concerns that the amendment would create uncertainty for education funding.
State educators, along with House Democrats, argued that the proposed changes risk reducing the resources available to Utah’s public schools, making them vulnerable to future administrations’ shifting priorities.
“We cannot support these measures to remove the constitutional earmark on public education funding,” Utah House Democrats said in a statement. “Education funding is essential to our state’s future and should never be used as a bargaining chip.”
Opposition to Amendment A centered on fears of weakening educational funding. Utahns for Student Success (USS), a coalition of educational groups that grew out of concerns about Amendment A, echoes this fear in its FAQs page.
“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,” USS’ statement reads.
House Minority Leader Angela Romero echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that the amendment could jeopardize funding stability for public education, thus impacting Utah’s students.
“By voting against the proposed constitutional change, you will be protecting Utah’s public school system and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to receive a quality education,” Romero said.
Court Ruling Stops Amendment From Reaching Ballot
On Sept. 18, 2024, the Utah Education Association (UEA) filed a supplemental complaint in response to Amendment A as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the state’s school voucher program.
The UEA’s complaint highlighted two major issues: first, that the ballot language was misleading and did not disclose the amendment’s impact on education funding; second, that state leaders failed to follow constitutional requirements by not publishing the amendment in a newspaper 60 days before the election, which compromised transparency and voter awareness.
This lawsuit, initially filed in May 2024, challenges the constitutionality of the Utah Fits All voucher program, which diverts public funds to private religious school vouchers.
UEA President Renée Pinkney said that “the voucher program not only diverts essential funding from underfunded public schools but also lacks accountability.”
As a result of the UEA’s complaint, a recent ruling from the 3rd District Court for Salt Lake County declared Amendment A invalid due to the state’s failure to meet publication requirements.
State leaders chose not to appeal the court’s decision, meaning that votes on the amendment will not be counted in the upcoming election.
Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz issued a joint statement.
Schultz and Adams expressed their disappointment with the ruling, “Utahns will not have the opportunity to decide on two important matters in November,” but that they “remain committed to continue supporting education and lowering taxes for all Utahns.”
