OCR Text |
Show October 15 02.qxd 12/7/2021 2:42 PM Page 10 THE OGDEN VALLEY NEWS Page 10 Volume VII Issue I October 15, 2002 Ballot Measures — 2002 Constitutional Amendments and Initiatives Constitutional Amendments and Initiatives give voters the opportunity to directly change the State Constitution and state law. WHAT ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS? The six propositions on the 2000 ballot are proposed amendments to the Utah Constitution. Under Article XXIII, amendments may be proposed in either the Senate or the House. If they pass by a two-thirds vote in both houses, they are put on the ballot at the next general election for a vote of the people. If a majority of those voting approve, the amendments become part of the Constitution. WHAT ARE INITIATIVES? Initiatives are proposed laws. Article VI of the Utah Constitution vests the legislative power of the state in (1) the Legislature and (2) the people of the State of Utah. The Constitution says voters may initiate any desired legislation and submit it to a vote of the people for approval or rejection. The Constitution does not specify detailed rules for the initiative process. The number of signatures from registered voters required on petitions, where and when and by whom they are collected, and how they are verified are set by the legislature. Until recently, Utah law said that to place an initiative on the general election ballot, sponsors must collect signatures equal to 10% of all votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, or about 76,000 signatures statewide. Furthermore, those signatures must include 10% of the votes cast in each of at least 20 of the 29 counties; that is, they must be “geographically distributed.” But in August 2002 the Utah Supreme Court ruled that requiring signatures to be geographically distributed from particular counties is not constitutional because it does not allow “uniform operation of the law” for every voter. The court said that a signature from a voter in a county with a small population counts more than a signature from a voter in a large county towards getting a petition on the ballot. For example, not getting signatures equal to 10% of votes cast in the smallest county (Daggett, 42 signatures) could negate the 30,496 signatures needed from Salt Lake County, keeping a proposed law off the ballot. That violates the one-person, one-vote principle that says every vote should count equally. The Court said that the Legislature should not make it so difficult for citizens to initiate laws. In states that do not require geographic distribution, putting an initiative on the ballot is easier. California, for example, requires signatures equal to only 5% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election statewide and need not be gathered from any particular number of counties. Utah law also provides that an initiative that attracts signatures equal to only 5% of the votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, including 5% of votes cast in at least 20 of the counties or about 38,000 signatures, can be sent to the legislature for their action. If the legislature does not pass the initiative, sponsors can continue to collect enough signatures to put their proposal on the ballot at the next general election. Since this part of the law depends on geographic distribution, it was likely invalidated by the Utah Supreme Court as well. Once an initiative becomes law, it can be amended or repealed by the legislature, just like any other law. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 1- RESOLUTION ON INVESTMENT OF STATE SCHOOL FUND AND UNIFORM SCHOOL FUND (SJR 20) Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to: 1) eliminate a requirement that a portion of the interest earnings of the State School Fund be retained in the Fund as a protection against the effects of inflation; and (2) provide that dividends from investment of the State School Fund may be spent to support the public education system? PROS AND CONS: No arguments against Constitutional Amendment Number 2 were submitted to the Lt. Governor. INTENT: Constitutional Amendment Number 1would (1) eliminate a requirement that a portion of interest earnings from the permanent State School Fund, equal to the current inflation rate, be retained in the fund every year. The amendment would also expand what earnings may be spent to support the public education system to include dividends as well as interest. The State School Fund contains proceeds from the sale of lands originally granted by the United States for the support of public education, sale and use of other public lands, legislative appropriations, bequests and donations. The principal of the Fund must be held and invested, but earnings may be spent on public education. Until recently, all investments were in interest-bearing bonds, whose value goes down as inflation goes up, eroding the value of the fund. Therefore an amendment passed in 1994 that requires Fund managers to retain enough interest to protect against that erosion, before giving the rest to the schools to spend on their current needs. Since then the law was changed to allow investment in equity securities as well as bonds. This provides more growth and protection from inflation. The 1994 amendment is no longer needed, and threatens to leave little or nothing to be distributed to the schools for the education of children in some years, according to Senator Lyle Hillyard and State Treasurer Edward T. Alter. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 - RESOLUTION AMENDING REVENUE AND TAXATION PROVISIONS OF UTAH CONSTITUTION (SJR 10) PROS AND CONS: Supporters of Amendment 1 say it will allow more earnings of the State School Fund, including dividends, to be spent on public education. No arguments against the amendment were submitted to the Lt. Governor. This amendment is supported by the State Treasurer, the Constitutional Revision Commission, State Board of Education, Utah PTA, Utah Education Association, Utah Elementary and Secondary Principals’ Association, School Superintendents’ Association, and School Boards Association. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 JOINT RESOLUTION ON CHANGES TO COUNTY BOUNDARIES (SJR 4) Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to: (1) authorize counties sharing a common boundary to make a minor adjustment, as defined by statute, to the common boundary; and (2) for any other move of part of one county to another: (a) require a vote of the entire county from which the area is proposed to be moved rather than just the area proposed to be moved; and (b) clarify that the move must be approved by a majority of those who actually vote on the proposal, not a majority of all registered voters? INTENT: Constitutional Amendment Number 2 would (1) allow the legislative bodies of counties that share a common boundary to make a minor adjustment to the boundary instead of requiring any boundary change, no matter how minor, to be approved by voters. “Minor” would be defined by statute. (2) For a county annexation that is not a minor boundary adjustment, approval by voters in both counties would still be required. But (a) all residents from both counties, not just residents of the area to be moved, would vote and (b) the Amendment would require approval by a majority of those who actually vote on the proposal instead of a majority of all voters who live in the affected area, which is consistent with standard voting requirements. 801-745-4000 2555 WOLF CREEK DR. EDEN STORE HOURS: MON. - SAT. 7 AM - 10 PM SUNDAY 7 AM - 9 PM Snelgrove Ice Cream 1/2 gallon rounds 2 for $5.00 with coupon Limit 2 per coupon Expires 10/31/02 Red Vines Mixed Licorice 16 oz. bag 2 for $3.00 with coupon Limit 2 per coupon Expires 10/31/02 Gatorade 69c Limit 6 per coupon Assorted 32 ounces with coupon Expires 10/31/02 Nestles Candy Bars Halloween Treats $1.79 Limit 2 per coupon 1 lb. bag with coupon Expires 10/31/02 Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to: (1) reorganize and clarify the Revenue and Taxation Article; and (2) change the membership of county boards of equalization from county commissioners to elected county officials as provided by statute? INTENT: Constitutional Amendment 3 is a “recodification,” of Article XIII, the Revenue and Taxation Article. Recodification does not change the basic meaning of a law or Article, but reorganizes and rewrites it in clearer language. Article XIII has become confusing because it is very long and has been amended many times. Amendment 3 does make one meaningful change. The make-up of County Boards of Equalization, which adjust the valuation and assessment of property, becomes “elected county officials as provided by statute,” instead of “Board of County Commissioners” to apply to counties governed by more modern government forms such as Councils. PROS AND CONS: Amendment 3 is based on two years of study by the Constitutional Revision Commission and has been reviewed by over 60 tax experts and interested parties, according to sponsor Senator John Valentine. Reviewers include State Tax Commission, Utah Taxpayers Association, Utah Manufacturers Association, Utah Mining Association, AFL-CIO, Association of Certified Public Accountants, Utah Association of Counties, Utah League of Cities and Towns, Utah Association of Special Districts, tax practitioners and tax law professors. No arguments against the Constitutional Amendment 3 were submitted to the Lt. Governor. No arguments against Constitutional Amendment Number 3 were submitted to the Lt. Governor. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 RESOLUTION REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE PRIOR TO SPECIAL SESSION (HJR 11) Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to prohibit the Legislature from transacting legislative business during a special session unless the Governor gives 48 hours advance public notice of that legislative business, except: (1) in cases of declared emergency; or (2) with the approval of two-thirds of all members of the Utah Senate and House of Representatives? INTENT: Under current law, the executive branch controls the agenda of a special session and can add items at any time. The legislature may then have to act on items without the benefit of participation of the public, including the media. Constitutional Amendment 4 would require advance notice of legislative business in a special session, except in case of declared emergency or when two-thirds of the legislature agree. PROS AND CONS: Amendment 4 sponsor Representative Steve Urquhart has stated that “the legislature is the ‘open’ branch of government and must have public input to do its job well.” No arguments against Constitutional Amendment Number 4 were submitted to the Lt. Governor. BALLOTS cont. on page 11 |