Republican incumbent Molly Hart is battling to keep her District 7 seat against Democrat John Arthur. The winner of November’s general election will represent the southeast portion of Salt Lake County.
Hart advanced to the general election after defeating GOP opponent Kris Kimball in the June primary with 55% of the vote. While Kimball had secured the Utah Republican Party nomination, Hart gathered enough signatures to make it onto the ticket.
Hart is vying for a second term after winning the GOP primary in 2020. That win secured her the then-District 10 seat, as she had no challenger from another party. The area was changed to District 7 after a statewide redistricting initiative in 2021.
With over 20 years of experience in education, Hart now serves as the executive director of Summit Academy, a K-12 charter school with multiple campuses throughout the Salt Lake Valley.
Arthur is a teacher at Meadowlark Elementary in the Salt Lake City School District. He was named Utah Teacher of the Year in 2021 and was one of four National Teacher of the Year finalists. Arthur also serves an adjunct professor in the Graduate School of Education at Westminster University; the director of candidate recruitment for the Utah National Board Coalition; and co-director of the Utah Teacher Fellows, a nonprofit dedicated to teacher development.
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 Arthur and Hart 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).
Arthur: No.
Hart: No, not at this point.
In 100 words or less, please explain why you do or do not support removing that constitutional spending restriction.
Arthur: The constitutional earmark on income tax revenue is a legacy investment in our children’s education and the promise of public education. Almost 80 years ago, our state’s leaders recognized that reinvesting the income we earn into our public school system was the best way to ensure our children become even stronger drivers of our workforce and economy. And it worked! That’s why we have the top economy in the country, and we should have the top education system, as well. We need to increase our investment in public education.
Hart: First, I object to yes/no answers to these questions. The problem right now is that complicated questions are being reduced to yes/no answers. This only increases polarization and a lack of thoughtful problem-solving. I look forward to opportunities to discuss these issues with the meaningful dialogue they deserve. There is enough ambiguity in the proposed alternative to the earmark that further work on the proposal is needed. It is easy to forget that the current system of education funding is not working either. Clearly, a better system is needed.
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.
Arthur: If elected, I would collaboratively exercise the option to overturn a statewide ban on books that were challenged based on subjective criteria rather than objective standards of educational value. It’s vital to maintain access to diverse literature that promotes critical thinking and reflection among students. Banning books can stifle important discussions about complex societal issues and limit students’ exposure to varying viewpoints. I believe in a balanced approach that protects children from genuinely harmful content while allowing for a rich educational experience and opportunities to better understand the lived experiences of others.
Hart: It is impossible for me to predict a future vote. It completely depends on the facts and context of the situation. I have concerns that the community has been cut out of the consideration of books in the school libraries. I am mostly concerned with high school libraries, as elementary and middle school libraries should have a much more conservative approach to book selection. I am also concerned with how much money is spent on books that may or may not be read at all.
Do you support the use of state-funded vouchers to cover private school tuition and homeschooling expenses in Utah? (Yes or no).
Arthur: No.
Hart: Private school, no. Homeschooling, 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.
Arthur: Public money must remain in our public schools, period. Using vouchers to siphon public funds into private, religious, and homeschools is unconstitutional, and it diverts essential resources away from all public school students, especially those with disabilities and other special needs. Vouchers undermine our ability to serve all students effectively. Instead, we should invest in strengthening our public education system, enhancing teacher support, and ensuring equitable access to educational resources for every child in Utah. This approach fosters community, accountability and a well-prepared future workforce.
Hart: I support choice options, and I look forward to improvements to the current policy that will hopefully tighten usage and accountability guidelines. I also believe the award amount is too high, and we could double the number of students served, without significantly impacting the ability to access the materials families would like, and not requiring additional funds that the public system needs. As a public education leader, I look forward to the loosening of bureaucratic red tape on public schools that this legislation seems to indicate that they are open to.
