Incumbent Carol Barlow Lear is vying to retain her District 6 seat against challenger Diane Livingston, who is running unaffiliated. The winner of November’s general election will represent the eastern part of Salt Lake County and the westernmost part of Summit County.
Lear, a Democrat, initially ran for office in 2016, representing what was then District 7. The area was changed to District 6 after a statewide redistricting initiative in 2021. Lear secured her second term in 2020, running unopposed.
Lear was a high school teacher early in her career and is now retired, but still works as an attorney at a private practice. She also served as the director of law and policy for 27 years at USBE.
Livingston serves as a substitute teacher in the Park City School District, according to her candidate filings.
To better understand the candidates’ positions on issues readers told The Salt Lake Tribune were important in this general election, a reporter reached out to Lear and Livingston with the same set of questions, on topics from the now-voided income tax amendment to book bans.
The questions and their answers that appear below — with the candidates listed in alphabetical order — may have been edited slightly for length, style or grammar.
Amendment A is now void. But as written, it would have removed the current constitutional requirement that Utah’s income tax revenue be used only for 1) public education, 2) services for children and 3) people with disabilities, allowing lawmakers to direct some of those funds toward a broader range of “state needs.”
Do you support removing that constitutional spending restriction? (Yes or no).
Lear: No.
Livingston: No
In 100 words or less, please explain why you do or do not support removing that constitutional spending restriction.
Lear: Public education now has a constitutional protection for funding — though shared. Without the earmark, public education would have a “promise” in statute, subject to the whim of future legislators. As we have seen recently, the Legislature does not always “prioritize” flexible public education funding over funding for private schools and pet projects. The Legislature’s current pet project is a voucher program that lacks accountability to voters and has siphoned $82 million from public education. Amendment A would have allowed the Legislature to use funds previously dedicated to public schools for “other state needs.” Public schools build communities; they need dedicated funding.
Livingston: I cannot support Amendment A as it was proposed. I understand that income tax revenue continues to grow, while Utah sales tax collections have diminished because of online sales. Given the state’s overall funding needs, I understand why the Legislature would seek flexibility. However, so many vital education needs remain unfunded — like meaningful class-size reduction — that I am reluctant to risk opening a “Pandora’s Box” on future funding. That is why, for now, I do not favor opening up the income tax fund to more than what has been agreed upon to this point.
This year, 13 books were banned from all Utah public schools under a new law requiring a book’s statewide removal if at least three school districts (or at least two school districts and five charter schools) determine it amounts to “objective sensitive material.”
The law grants USBE members the opportunity to overturn statewide bans if at least three members move to hold a vote.
If elected, would you exercise this option for future bans? If so, under what circumstances? Please explain in 100 words or less.
Lear: First, a decision to ban a book by a handful of school districts and/or charter schools does not honor the community standards of a different school reviewing the book. I do not support this disrespect of community standards and values. Second, this draconian law now extends to all curriculum materials. Every teacher is subject to criminal penalties under the law! Yes, the Utah State Board of Education could possibly overturn a statewide ban. Unfortunately, a supermajority of state board members supported the recent bills that ban books and threaten teachers. I support other available technology that enables parents to control their own children’s material selections from school libraries. I do not support a small community deciding on banning materials for all Utah students and parents.
Livingston: I do not support banning books in general. Parents have the right to choose what their children read. Each book in public schools must be carefully evaluated on its own merits. To be clear, the law does not focus on a topic; it only singles out graphic sexual content. If a book does contain graphic sexual content, I will feel compelled to follow the law and allow statewide removal. Absent that, I will support retaining even controversial books.
Do you support the use of state-funded vouchers to cover private school tuition and homeschooling expenses in Utah? (Yes or no)
Lear: No.
Livingston: Yes.
In 100 words or less, please explain why you do or do not support the use of state-funded vouchers to cover private school tuition and homeschooling expenses in Utah.
Lear: I do not support state-funded vouchers that direct public tax dollars to private schools or private lessons or activities for students outside of public education. I have actively opposed voucher programs for 20 years — as a parent, as an attorney and as a USBE member. The current voucher law has no meaningful accountability to taxpayers for $82 million siphoned from the public schools. The private schools/programs that accept vouchers are not “open to all” students, as required by the Utah Constitution. I am a plaintiff in the current lawsuit that would have this private use of public education funding declared unconstitutional.
Livingston: As both a parent and a former teacher, I have always supported our public school system first and foremost. Yet, I also believe parents should be empowered to direct their child’s education in a way that allows each child to thrive. Lower-income families enjoy fewer options than wealthier families and I don’t believe income should determine educational opportunity, so I do support additional funding options. I understand and share concerns regarding accountability and trust in allocating state tax dollars. As a board member, I hope to help create greater educational opportunities and to craft equitable solutions to these challenges.
