Several Utah education leaders are calling the ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment on income tax spending — which has nuanced and unknown implications for public education funding — “misleading.”
As the state’s constitution now reads, Utah’s income tax revenue is earmarked exclusively for three purposes: public education, higher education and services for children and for people with disabilities.
But Amendment A, which will be on the ballot this November, would allow the Legislature to use income tax revenue for a broader range of unspecified “state needs.”
It would also enshrine the Legislature’s current practices for education spending — a formula that uses enrollment growth and long-term inflation to determine how many dollars schools receive per student each year — and savings into the state’s constitution.
Additionally, if the amendment passes, two companion bills from the 2023 legislative session would go into effect as new laws. One of those would eliminate the state portion of sales tax on food, which is 1.75%. Local governments levy an additional 1.25% sales tax on groceries, which would remain intact.
Here’s how the question will be presented to voters:
“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.”
In a joint statement, the amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton, and Sen. Ann Millner, R-Ogden, wrote, “Amendment A’s ballot title clearly and directly lays out exactly what voters are deciding on, which includes removing the state sales tax on food to help ease the financial strain on Utah families and allowing income tax money to be used for state needs only after the state funds student enrollment changes, inflation, and a rainy-day education fund to support schools during economic downturns.”
Utah State Board of Education member Sarah Reale raised an issue with the word “prioritize” in the amendment’s ballot language.
“It makes it seem like the amendment will prioritize education when really it is de-prioritizing education funding and putting it in a bucket and in competition with all funding requests in the state,” Reale said.
Carol Lear, another State Board member, agreed.
“We have evidence of legislators and leadership who have not displayed support of public education due to funding private school vouchers and intimidating public education teachers with complicated and demeaning laws,” Lear said.
Those opposed to the amendment argue it stands to further divert money from public education in a state that already ranks among the lowest in per-student spending.
Previously, Peterson told The Salt Lake Tribune that she believes the amendment would safeguard public education spending by embedding a “funding guarantee” in Utah’s constitution. Currently, that guarantee exists in statute, which lawmakers can change at any time.
Renée Pinkney, president of the Utah Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union, urged Utahns to vote against the measure.
“Amendment A would take funding from public schools to funnel to unaccountable, private religious school vouchers and politicians’ pet projects,” Pinkney said. “There’s a good reason teachers, parents, Republicans and Democrats stand strongly opposed to Amendment A.”
Pinkney is referring to the state’s $82 million school voucher program, the Utah Fits All Scholarship, which is funded through income tax revenue. It provides 10,000 Utah students an $8,000 scholarship that can be used for private school tuition, tutoring, homeschooling and extracurricular activities – such as violin lessons or swim classes.
The Republican-led program was pushed through in just 10 days during the 2023 legislative session. At that point, it became the largest school voucher program in state history, with an initial allocation of $42.5 million. The allocation was nearly doubled this year to $82 million to accommodate additional interest.
The UEA is suing the state over the program, alleging that using income tax revenue to fund vouchers “violates the state’s constitution.”
‘Sweeten the pot’
Reale argued that Amendment A’s ballot language also is manipulative, because it creates an “unfair” choice between reducing grocery costs and funding public education.
“They are making voters who vote ‘no’ feel bad about not wanting to help hungry families,” Reale said. “I don’t think the language should ever be putting two policy issues against each other.”
Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay, agreed, arguing that lawmakers are attempting to “sweeten the pot” by tying lower grocery costs to passing the amendment.
She argued that Utahns shouldn’t “sacrifice our future education revenue” for such “minimal” savings on food.
The average Utah household pays roughly $110 annually in state sales tax on food, according to estimations by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.
Moss called it a “distraction” from the lawmakers’ true focus: persuading Utahns to let them tap into the growing income tax fund — the state’s largest pool of money — and use it however they see fit.
Income tax revenue accounts for 35% of all state and local taxes. Utah is also one of just eight states that has a portion of its income tax revenue earmarked for education, according to the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.
Utah lawmakers now rely on sales tax revenue, allocated to the state’s general fund, to finance most state priorities, including Medicaid, transportation and public safety. By broadening the use of income tax revenue to include “other state needs,” they hope for more budget flexibility.
Should the constitutional amendment pass, the change — along with its two companion laws — would take effect Jan. 1, 2025.