Update Opposing Removal of the Constitutional Income Tax Earmark for Education

News Update: The following information explains UCC’s opposition to Constitutional Amendment A, but it is possible that votes on Amendment A, like Amendment D, will not be counted because of constitutional flaws in the legislative process putting the Amendment on the November ballot. A lawsuit challenging the process is pending and must be decided very soon. Meanwhile, our arguments below remain the same. To be safe, we urge you to mark your ballot “against” Amendment A.

Introduction

Utah government has no more important function than to promote and protect a quality education for Utah’s children—its future workforce. The 93-year old constitutional mandate to spend income tax revenue on public education is designed to ensure success in that endeavor. Yet the mandate has been eroded in recent decades by expanding it to include higher education and to “support children” and individuals with disabilities, arguably to give the Legislature more flexibility about its budget priorities. Now the Legislature is going a step too far, making a power grab to amend the constitution to permit income tax revenue to be used for “all state needs.”  Although proposed Amendment A would maintain a base for funding public education, it would also grant lawmakers more flexibility to use income tax revenue for a much broader range of state needs. The Utah Citizens’ Counsel strongly opposes Amendment A.

The Misleading Description on the Ballot

Written by legislative leadership who need not be impartial, the ballot language states:

“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.”

The proposed Constitutional amendment language itself does not refer to “all” state needs” but rather to “other” state needs (which conceivably might be fewer than all).  And what is being referred to by legislative leadership as “prioritized” is actually that the state will maintain a “statutory public education funding framework that: (i) uses a portion of revenue growth…for changes in student enrollment and long-term inflation [italics added]; and (ii) provides a budget stabilization account.”

How enrollment and inflation changes will be prioritized depends on legislative statutes, which the legislature can amend or repeal at any time. The amendment itself does not specify what size a “portion” of growth must be for changes in enrollment and inflation. It could be small, medium, or large. And in a year without revenue “growth,” schools could get no funding for either enrollment growth or inflation.

Moreover, increased funding is not prioritized for much needed quality improvements in school support services, such as mental health professionals, nurses, social workers, paraprofessionals, or early learning programs or services for at-risk students. Although teacher salaries have increased substantially in the past few years, primarily to appease teachers as part of a bill to also provide scholarships (vouchers) to private school students, those increases do not outweigh the underfunding of public education for so many previous years. Also, in the aftermath of the pandemic, schools have found it necessary to increase educational interventions, especially in order to close achievement gaps. Overall, current levels of education funding are not adequate to support a first-class education system, which Utah legislators seemingly can’t envision.

Finally, a “budget stabilization fund” does not specify a base level of funding below which it cannot drop. It too is defined by statute and can be changed at any time.

The “Bait” to Lure the Voters

If passed, the proposed amendment will trigger a companion bill from the 2023 General Session, HB54, which repeals the 1.75% state portion of sales tax on food. (The 1.25% local portion would remain.)  If the amendment fails to pass, the companion bill will not go into effect, so it is intended to make the amendment’s drastic change to public education funding more appealing.  

 Removing the state sales tax on food should stand or fall on its own merits rather than being used as a bribe to vote for an amendment that harms public school children.   

What Might “All State Needs” Include?

Amendment A, if passed, will allow the Legislature to spend income tax revenues on whatever else it wants besides public and higher education and support for children and individuals with a disability. Although budget flexibility is, in general, a desirable goal, the Legislature already has considerable flexibility in the above income-tax language. It also has other options to gain more flexibility, including removal of the earmarks within its sales tax revenue that account for 25% of that revenue. A growing concern is that the Legislature wants to support private education and religious school vouchers, along with other pet projects and favored groups, at the expense of our public-school students and their parents.

In 2023, the Legislature created $8,000 scholarships (vouchers) for students to take to private schools, including religious schools, and for multiple extracurricular activities. The Legislature has now appropriated $82.5 million for such vouchers, using income tax revenue on the strained premise, now being challenged by a UEA lawsuit, that such funding is constitutional because it “supports children.” The program comes with virtually no transparency or accountability for academic achievement. Furthermore, although low income families are to be given priority, all families, regardless of income, have an opportunity to receive funding.

In Conclusion

Support for Amendment A requires trust that the Legislature will commit to sustaining and improving the quality of the public-school system, which enrolls 90% of Utah K-12 students. The Utah Citizens’ Counsel, however, lacks confidence in this assumption, given repeated income tax cuts and a declining commitment to education spending (measured as a proportion of personal income). Amendment A would allow the Legislature to spend income tax revenue for such things as ideological mini-schools, roads, professional sports stadiums, and suing the federal government. Additionally, the voucher program has already begun diverting millions of dollars from public schools annually, fostering a dual system of income-tax-funded public and private education. The ballot description for Amendment A to allow income tax money to be used for “all state needs” would make it far easier to continue to do so.

A large coalition of teachers, parents, and nonprofit organizations, including the Utah Education Association (UEA), the Utah PTA, and the Utah Public Employees Association (UPEA), is urging voters to defeat what they see as a “pro-voucher, power-grabbing amendment.” We join with them in opposing Amendment A.