OCR Text |
Show . f 1 Utah Voter Information Pamphlet I General Election November 8, 1988 .' : COMPILED BY W. VAL OVESON, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR f mm, STATE OF UTAH W. Val Oveson hi Vtf. 'X rrf . i 1 CT l LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR g tcutenant (governor vf'"--. 203 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 841 14 September 26, 1988 Dear Fellow Utahn: On November 8, Utah voters will have the opportunity to un Novemoei , proposed amendments to vote on three initiatives as well nformation Pamphlet the Utah State Constitution Jerstand these very has been prepared to help you better hlet contains assistance to you m matcing y The pamphlet also contain, information on ballot -marking procedure. , as well a. registering to vote. X urge vou to study this pamphlet , ""u mbl "aoirtrSniuno.lntelligent and informed choices on these proposed changes. Best wishes. Sincerely, uJ-lfJO W. VAL OVESON Lieutenant Governor ' TABLE OF CONTENTS J i I 1 I TITLE INSTRUCTIONS FOR READING THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSITIONS PROPOSITION NO. 1 - BAIL AMENDMENT Ballot Title Final Legislative Vote Impartial Analysis Arguments , Text PROPOSITION NO. 2 - MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT Ballot Title Final Legislative Vote Impartial Analysis ' Arguments Text INITIATIVE A - TAX AND SPENDING LIMITATIONS Ballot Title Impartial Analysis Arguments Text INITIATIVE B - TAX REDUCTIONS Ballot Title Impartial Analysis Arguments Text INITIATIVE C - INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE EDUCATION Ballot Title Impartial Analysis Arguments Text INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS (Beaver, Cache, Carbon, Davis, Salt Lake, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Uintah, Utah, Washington, and Weber counties) INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS (All other counties) 3' LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S CERTIFICATION OF BALLOT ITEMS inside back' HOW TO REGISTER TO VOTE back' INSTRUCTIONS FOR READING THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSITIONS NOTE: In reading the text of the propositions the following rules apply: (1) Underlined words and numbers represent new language being added to the constitution, or current language that is being moved from another section in the constitution. (2) Bracketed and lined-through words or numbers represent current language being deleted from the constitution, or current language that is being moved to another section in the constitution. (3) All other language is the current language in the constitution, which is retained without change. Example: Sec. 8.U1 All prisoners persons charged with a crime shall be bailable by strfffefefrt sttrettesr) except for: (a! persons charged with a capital flenses offense when the proof is evident er the presttmptkm strong or were a person aeeused f the tummioaion of there is substantial evidence to sjmport the charge: or d ,r nnn. cop 8 All orisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for Present ConstUuUon: Se . &. All prisoners s or where a person is accused of the commission of . . . Proposed Revision: Sec. 8. (1) All persons charged with a crime shall be bailable except: (a) persons charged with a capital offense when there is substantial evidence to support the charge; or For O igainst () Proposition kl BAIL AMENDMENT ,,1(tst by the members of the 1988 Legislature on final passage: 101 SE (75 members): Yeas, 63; Nays, 4; Absent or not voting, 8. (29 members): Yeas, 26; Nays, 0; Absent or not voting, 3. Official Ballot Title: Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to allow bail to be denied to persons charged with a serious crime if the person may be a danger to another person or to the community, or is likely to flee the court's jurisdiction if released; and to clarify language regarding necessary evidence evi-dence to deny bail? r ..... . j IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS Estate constitution presently allows judges to deny bail to who have been charged with: (') capital offense; or G) a felony while on probation or parole or while free on bail aitng trial. , , position 1 adds one more circumstance under which bail may denied: (I W Persons who have been charged with a crime when there is ,ar aill convincing evidence that the person would constitute a lantial danger to others or the community, or is likely to flee the Jurisdiction if released on bail. Proposition 1 also requires the Legislature to designate the ; crimes for which bail may be denied under this third (( !lin.The Legislature has already passed legislation designating I as the only crimes for which bail may be denied. This watln is not effective unless the voters approve Proposition 1. ,Jr,,PKition 1 clarifies the constitutional bail language in two aitlnal ways: t,(1) It changes the phrase "accused of the commission" of a Z ! "charged with" a crime. The second phrase is more ,nrnnly used. (2) It changes the phrase "when the proof is evident or the presumption strong" to "when there is substantial evidence." The second phrase is more commonly used and understood by the courts and attorneys. Proposition 1 also adds to the state constitution the Legislature's current power to statutorily provide or deny bail for convicted persons. The current state constitution does not address the issue of bail for convicted persons awaiting an appeal. Current statute, however, allows judges to detain convicted persons if the person would constitute a danger to others or the community, or is likely to flee the court's jurisdiction if released. Effective Date Proposition 1 takes effect January 1, 1989. The implementing legislation takes effect on that same date if Proposition 1 is approved by the voters. Fiscal Impact There is no impact on state revenues but there may be some additional county jail costs of up to $13,000 statewide. j Arguments For I The right to bail of criminally accused persons granted by I the Utah Constitution goes far beyond the bail rights guaran- I teed by the U.S. Constitution. The current bail provision of the I Utah Constitution guarantees bail to ALL prisoners except those 1 charged with capital murder, parolees, and probationers. As a I result, almost any prisoner charged with a crime has the I constitutional right to bail in Utah regardless of the seriousness 1 of the crime charged and without regard for the fact that the person may be a danger to the community if allowed to roam free. These provisions of the Utah Constitution are far more liberal I than the bail rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. The Utah Constitution does not give judges the ability to deny bail when warranted. The present bail provisions of the Utah Constitution do not give Utah judges the discretion to deny bail for charges involving serious offenses such as second degree murder, criminal sexual abuse, rape, and other felonies. As a result, many dangerous persons charged with serious violent crimes are allowed to roam the streets of our cities. Judges should be allowed to deny bail to persons who present a clear and present danger to the community. While the rights of criminal defendants are important and should continue to be considered, the general public and victims also have rights that must be protected. Persons who have been charged with serious crimes should not be allowed to continue to commit crimes against innocent victims while awaiting trial. Judges should be allowed to deny bail to persons who are likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court. The Utah Constitution currently guarantees the right to bail for nearly all persons charged with a crime, even if those persons have shown in the past that they are likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court at the first opportunity. Judges should be given the discretion to deny bail in these cases in order to prevent circumvention of the criminal justice process. In addition to the arguments stated, Proposition 1 would also: 1. Give judges the right to deny bail only if certain factors and criteria are present. Bail for most offenses would still be I allowed. 2. Remove unreasonable restrictions on the discretion of judges by allowing bail to be set in Utah in a manner similar to that used by federal judges. A vote for Proposition 1 is a vote for the victims of crime and for judicial restraint and efficiency in the criminal bail process. Vote FOR Proposition 1! S Senator Winn L. Richards 5301 Old Post Road Ogden, Utah 84403 Senator Darrell G. Renstrom 1145 East 1675 North North Ogden, Utah 84404 Rebuttal to I Arguments For Proposition No. 1 Proponents of Proposition 1 beg the fundamental issues, and err in argument. Right to bail in Utah does not go "far beyond the bail rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution." The Eighth Amendment simply states that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed..." The Fourteenth Amendment applies this guarantee to the states, so that Utah, as well as Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas, must meet this minimum standard States are free to give the accused more protection than tlie federal minimum. What is of concern here is the new language, not addressed in proponents' argument, as to how a "substantial evidence" standard affects our fundamental right to be freefroi incarceration while still presumed innocent. Proponents appear to support a "police state" mentalitf where anyone the "authorities" deem "dangerous" can be locked up indefinitely in crowded, unwholesome, and often violent jails, away from their families. Often the decision to incarcerate lies more with the accused's non-conformity, poverty, appearance, or other arbitrary reason. Let's not let our fundamental freedoms get diluted ai? more. Utah has too many problems with a backward in already, even though its existing constitution and appelate courts are probably of national envy. Let's not regress to the w of the pre-sixties American South. A vote AGAINST Proposition 1 is a vote for liberty; ' constitutional law; for our great republic; and most of all ' best Utah has to offer. R. Clayton Huntsman, Attorney 2 West St. George BouM Ancestor Square, Suite St. George, Utah Arguments Against The right to reasonable bail goes back to our revolution. The cavalier manner in which the British arrested and confined our people aroused such resentment that when we finally got fee we said, "never again" and confirmed the right to bail in the Eighth Amendment to our new constitution. Stale v. Boyle defines bail's purpose: "to assure the presence of the accused at trial." Not "criminal," "guilty party," ' "prisoner" but "accused." Our courts still try to maintain hat is often forgotten: the presumption of innocence. Louisiana recently tried to abridge the right to reasonable M. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Duncan v. toaiiiana, held that Louisiana's refusal to accept certain property pledged as bail was unlawful, "in bad faith and for Purposes of harassment." Every year someone tries to erode our fundamental freedoms. Police want to abridge our right to bear arms. The 0Mt insurance companies would deny us access to the courts "rough "tort reform." And now, in a topsy turvy Alice-in-Wonderland scenario, some would have the punishment first and then trial for accused citizens, by denying bail. Read the proposed bill carefully. Consider Sec. 8(l)(a), where "substantial evidence" re-fees re-fees "proof is evident or where the presumption strong." What is "substantial evidence?" Words can be manipulated to Wan whatever anyone judge, dictator, general wants em to mean. As another odd character from Alice said before celebrated fall, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I mt it to mean no more and no less." Humpty Dumpty articulates a court's power to invent Waning capriciously: guilty is innocent, jail before trial JJn while the accused is still presumed innocent. Why? is standard is not only vague, but is also less rigorous than kyond a reasonable doubt." What is "substantial evidence?" Possession of a hunting ePon? Being a passenger in a vehicle carrying improperly d deer or untaxed jewelry? Also alarming is the prospect that one can be denied bail or My crime if the court also finds by "clear and convincing rldence that the person would constitute a substantial danger to other person or to the community or is likely to flee the "diction if released on bail." , , Adequately high bail already deters flight from the TOdiction for most crimes. But should we all be at risk just to e it slightly more difficult for a suspect to flee? Should the Possibility that the accused, when arrested, may have been in session of a fishing knife, deer rifle, prescription pills, or "evidence" of "destructive tendencies" toward others, be as pretext to incarcerate in an overcrowded jail until trial, ch may be next year or in ten years? And with Utah's financial resources dwindling along with " constitutional rights, can we really afford increased pre-tnal pre-tnal detention? Don't let the state further erode your fundamental rights, increase your tax burden. vte AGAINST Proposition 1! R Clayton Huntsman, Attorney 2 West St. George Boulevard Ancestor Square, Suite 31 St. George, Utah 84770 gaBMrjigMiffiiCTBirarF'i'""'- ' t Rebuttal to I Arguments Against Proposition Ao. I $ Proposition 1 protects the rights of victims! While we $ should all be concerned with preserving the right to bail of 'jj accused persons, we must also protect the rights of victims. Certainly a victim of violent crime, who is scheduled to be a witness in an upcoming trial, deserves the right to be free from $ fear and intimidation. Mandatory bail for the accused often results in the infringement of this right. Also, what is "reasonable" bail for one person may not be "reasonable" for another. To prevent an accused from fleeing the court's jurisdiction, one thousand dollars may be unreasonably high for someone whose total resources are the clothes on his back. But one million dollars may not be high enough for a person involved in drugs or organized crime. ;j Proposition 1 revises the Utah Constitution to bring it in i? line with bail practices allowed under federal law. Under federal law, judges can deny bail for accused persons who are 'i dangerous. Proposition 1 simply gives Utah judges the same k power. :5) Proposition 1 provides clear standards of evidence that j do not infringe upon the presumption of innocence. Under J Proposition 1, in order to deny bail a judge must find "substantial evidence" to support the charge and "clear and convincing evidence" that the accused is dangerous. These are jj much more clear standards than the present "proof is evident or i presumption strong" standard. Also, by requiring both standards to be present, the presumption of innocence is protected. Vote FOR Proposition 1! i Senator Winn L. Richards j 5301 Old Post Road $ Ogden, Utah 84403 4 il Senator Darrell G. Renstrom 1145 East 1675 North :'5 North Ogden, Utah 84404 ' : i t- Ji si ;? x I: COMPLETE TEXT OF PROPOSITION NO. 1 C BAIL AMENDMENT 1 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE PROPOSING TO AMEND THE UTAH CONSTITUTION; RELATING TO BAIL; SUBSTITUTING THIS RESOLUTION FOR A RESOLUTION PASSED AT THE 1988 GENERAL SESSION OF THE 47TH LEGISLATURE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS RESOLUTION REPEALS AND WITHDRAWS ENROLLED COPY S.J.R. NO. 3 PASSED AT THE 1988 GENERAL SESSION OF THE 47TH LEGISLATURE AND REPLACES IT WITH THIS RESOLUTION, RES-OLUTION, AND PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE UTAH CONSTITUTION CON-STITUTION AS FOLLOWS: AMENDS: ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Utah, two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses voting in favor thereof: Section 1. It is proposed to amend Article I, Sec. 8, Utah Constitution, to read: Sec.8.!) All prisoners persons charged with a crime shall be bailable by sufficient sureties; except for): a persons charged with a capital offenses- offense when the proof is evident or the presumption strong or where a person aeetreed of the commission of there is substantial evidence to support the charge: or bj persons charged with a felony while on probation A or while free on bail awaiting trial on a previous felony&i and where the proof ts evident or the presumption alwnj'iJ there is substantial evidence to support the newfejonvtfj - d (c) persons charged with any other crime, designated big as one for which bail may be denied, if there is sjfca evidence to support the charge and the court findstgfe4 i convincing evidence that the person would consWHS stantial danger to any other person or to the cpngwiiff 1 likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court if released ontk (2) Persons convicted of a crime are bajjabje pendigSi only as prescribed by law. , Section 2. Enrolled copy SJ.R. No. 3 passed at thegCg Session of the 47th Legislature is repealed andwtljajp j entirety from the next general election. Section 3. The lieutenant governor is diretgi to subjwl thereof this proposed amendment to the electors pj thl; Utah at the next general election in the mamiejeag Section 4. If approved by. the electors of the & amendment proposed hv this joint, resolution shall takeffls--Januarv 1, 1989. For O Against Proposition No.2 MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT Recast by the members of the 1988 Legislature on final passage: OLSE (75 members): Yeas, 74; Nays, 1; Absent or not voting, 0. ' MTE (29 memuer:): Yeas, 26; Nays, 0; Absent or not voting, 3. Official BaUot Title: Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to: (1) clarify the Legislature's duty to reapportion reap-portion the state after each United States census into congressional, legislative, and other districts, and clarify the number of senators and representatives; (2) clarify an exemption from a forced sale of property; and (3) delete provisions relating to the transfer of property owned by the Utah Territory at statehood, the location of the State Fair, and specific reference to certain public institutions? IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS , Provisions of Proposition 2 can be divided into three f?ories: Apportionment and Legislative Districts , 1 Apportionment The present Utah Constitution provides ' Apportionment of congressional districts after each appor-ment appor-ment made by Congress and for reapportionment of legislative Wicts after each United States census. No mention is made of Portioning state school board districts, but this is done at the elme as other reapportionment. Proposition 2 clearly establishes "Authority of the Legislature to divide the state into congressional, gislative, and state school board districts after each United States nsus. The present Utah Constitution also requires the state to conduct k ale census every tenth year beginning in 1905. This state census sever been done. Instead, Utah has always relied on the United census figures to conduct its reapportionment. Proposition i lnates this requirement of a state census. Ih( k Legislature The present Utah Constitution provides that m'rurnum number of state senators shall be 18 and the minimum " w of state representatives shall be 45. It allows the number of t "ators to be increased to 30 and allows the number of Natives to be increased, but the number of representatives of "eVerbe less than twice nor greater than three times the number nators. There are currently 29 senators and 75 representatives, p Psltion 2 limits the number of senators to 29 and retains the C, that the number of representatives can never be less than nor greater than three times the number of senators. In 1964, two sections of the Utah Constitution dealing with legislative districts were held invalid under the United States Constitution. Proposition 2 eliminates these sections. 2. Homestead Exemption from Forced Sale of Property The present Utah Constitution provides for a $1500 minimum exemption of a "homestead" from the forced sale of property. A forced sale of property usually occurs as the result of bankruptcy. A homestead generally consists of a home and improvements to it. Proposition 2 retains the homestead exemption but eliminates the specific $1500 minimum amount. The Legislature has presently set the exemption at $8000. Passage of Proposition 2 will not change this amount. 3. Other Changes The present Utah Constitution requires that the state capital and the state fair be located in Salt Lake City. It provides for the transfer of territorial property and institutions to the state upon statehood. It also provides for the support and maintenance main-tenance of several institutions, including reformatory and penal institutions and those for the insane, blind, deaf, and dumb. All of these institutions are currently provided for by statute. Utah's Enabling Act, the federal law that made Utah a state, also requires the maintenance of these institutions. Proposition 2 eliminates all of this language except the requirement that Salt Lake City is the state capital. Effective Date January 1, 1989 Fiscal Impact None Arguments For s Proposition 2 simply puts current apportionment practice into the constitution. The apportionment article has not been j changed since it was written in 1895. It contains archaic R language and practices. For example, the present constitution requires the Legislature to provide for a statewide census every ten years. The state has never conducted such a census, relying I instead on the census conducted by the United States govern- ment. Also, the present constitution requires that after each S census the Legislature must divide the state into new con- (j gressional and legislative districts but says nothing about reapportioning the state school board districts, which it has always done. Proposition 2 simply updates our constitution to r; conform with present practice. j Proposition 2 removes unconstitutional language from the state's constitution and reduces the potential size of the Legislature. The United States Supreme Court has held that ;? legislative districts within a state must contain substantially ' the same number of people to ensure that every person's vote has ;$ substantially equal influence. Under this rule, two provisions of 1 the Utah Constitution were held unconstitutional in 1964. ; j Proposition 2 simply eliminates this unconstitutional language. f) It also reduces the potential size of the Legislature by reducing the number of senators from thirty to twenty-nine. Because the !j House membership can never be more than three times the jj number of senators, the potential number of legislators is reduced by four persons, three in the House and one in the Senate. This in turn reduces potential costs to the taxpayer. j Proposition 2 eliminates an inflexible dollar amount regarding the traditional homestead exemption. The Utah Constitution has always provided for a homestead exemption J from judicial or forced sale. The amount exempted in the constitution is $1500, yet today statute provides a homestead 'I exemption of $8000! Retaining the old dollar amount restricts the flexibility of the Legislature to deal with this issue on a timely basis. Proposition 2 simply eliminates the dollar amount from the constitution but retains the exemption. i Proposition 2 provides clear, simple constitutional U language. Proposition 2 eliminates unclear and unnecessary ;; language from the Utah Constitution. For example, it now ? requires that the State Fair be located in Salt Lake City. Perhaps 41 it should be in Salt Lake City, but why say so in the constitution? :j This and other matters should be determined by law, not the constitution. Proposition 2 simply eliminates such outdated '.i language. 1 A vote for Proposition 2 is a vote for better constitutional ;i law. The Legislature voted almost unanimously to approve this ; proposition. It is also the recommendation of the Utah Con- stitutional Revision Commission, a body whose ongoing charge is 2 to modernize and streamline the Utah Constitution and remove ,j archaic provisions. With reapportionment occurring again in k, 1991, now is the time to clean up the language to facilitate the ji reapportionment process and to get rid of unconstitutional and j unnecessary provisions. Vote FOR Proposition 2! j Senator Lyle W. Hillyard 175 East 100 North Logan, Utah 84321 4 Representative Ted D. Lewis : 4505 South Wasatch Drive, Suite 310 J Salt Lake City, Utah 84124 Rebuttal to ' Arguments For Proposition No. 2 Proposition 2 deals too simply with apportionment. Thf apportionment proposal needs to have its brief statement further defined as presented in the second paragraph of to arguments against Proposition 2. In Proposition 2, the proposals relative to some betel language, the Legislature's size, and the homestead exemptioi are good, but not urgent, thus can wait for improvementsii other provisions. Those needed improvements, in addition to further defining apportionment, include retaining portions (1) which regarding state property are historically relevat (2) which delineate certain state responsibilities as the public good may require, and (3) which make for better organizations; constitional topics. Without the overcorrections presented in Proposition i, there would be even better constitutional law. Also, the talented officials support Proposition 2, the people mustwefl ideas in making their decision. The ideas in the argumrt against Proposition 2 are sufficient reasons to oppose it written at this time. There's enough time to delay changes relative apportionment. Apportionment is important, but waiting uri 1990 to approve an even better provision would still make'11 Utah Constitution ready for the 1991 reapportionment. Vote AGAINST Proposition 2. Marjorie Chi 342 Camaren Dri Brigham City, Utah 0- Arguments Against Voters should reject Proposition 2, because certain improvements need to be made in it before consent is given for this amending of the Utah Constitution. The following arguments deal with those portions of Proposition 2 which provide reasons to oppose it at this time. The brief proposal for Article IX, Section 1 is inadequate. Instead of as proposed, that section needs to have a statement of the state's responsibility in the election of members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate in keeping with federal law. The section should refer to new apportionments apportion-ments by Congress, as well as to the United States enumeration (census) in setting forth the Legislature's duty in dividing the state accordingly. It should specify that the "districts" referred ' are districts having to do with elections. It would also be a Protection of fair division to specify that each is to be one whole Parcel, not made up of separated parcels. For historical sense, Article XIX, Section 1 should not be eliminated. That section ought to be retained for its historical 'ecord of part of the transition from territory to state which is of n going consequence, not action to be reversed by repeal of the section. The responsibility indicated in Article XIX, Section 2 should not be repealed. The part of that section beginning with "institutions" and continuing on through to the end of the section ought to be retained as a statement of state responsibility. Appropriate parts of Article XIX, Section 3 should be stained. The last two paragraphs of that section should remain some modification. Use the wording change: "The seat of state government shall be at Salt Lake City;" but keep it in Art'de XIX, Section 3 where it is appropriate, rather than Jj"ng it to become one of the miscellaneous items in Article Additionally, the last paragraph of Article XIX, Section 3 J to be (with needed grammatical changes) retained in keePing with the statement of responsibility in Section 2 of the article. Voters should note that the other portions of Proposition " r desirable, but can wait for the above improvements wre being approved. Those desirable parts of Proposition 2 not urgent because they are a matter of eliminating passe lntor ineffectual wording or deal with changes that are not of Pressing need. Therefore, those revisions and the improvements suggested above can be proposed by the upcoming Legislature 7 approved by the voters at the next general election two years irom now. vte "AGAINST" Proposition 2! Marjorie Childs 342 Camaren Drive Brigham City, Utah 84302 Rebuttal to Arguments Against Proposition No. 2 Proposition 2 revises the Utah Constitution to bring it in line with current reapportionment practices. Proposition 2 provides the Legislature with the clear authority to reapportion congressional, legislative, and state school board districts. With a new census coming up in 1990, this authority is essential. It should not be cluttered by specific requirements for the number of congressmen to be elected, an unnecessary state census, and the shape and size of districts. All of these are already provided for by the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. They need not be restated in the Utah Constitution. Proposition 2 eliminates unnecessary language. Utah's constitution, like most state constitutions written in the late 19th century, contains a lot of detail about the day-to-day operations of government. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, is brief and contains very little detail. Yet it still provides I us with the basic framework of government. Following that model, the constitutions of the original thirteen states are also relatively brief, as are those of recently-admitted states such as 1 Alaska and Hawaii. Where possible, Utah's constitution should D also minimize the detail and provide for the flexibility to run the B day-to-day operations of government. Proposition 2 simply eliminates much of the unnecessary detail from the Utah Constitution. Vote "FOR" Proposition 2! Senator Lyle W. Hillyard 175 East 100 North Logan, Utah 84321 Representative Ted D. Lewis 4505 South Wasatch Drive, Suite 310 Salt Lake City, Utah 84124 I COMPLETE TEXT OF PROPOSITION NO. 2 MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT T A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE PROPOSING TO AMEND THE UTAH CONSTITUTION; PROVIDING MISCELLANEOUS MISCEL-LANEOUS TECHNICAL AND "CLEANUP" CHANGES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS RESOLUTION PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE UTAH CONSTITUTION CON-STITUTION AS FOLLOWS: AMENDS: ARTICLE IX, Sec. 1; ARTICLE XXII, SEC. 1 ENACTS: ARTICLE XXII, SEC. 3 RENUMBERS AND AMENDS: ARTICLE IX, SEC. 3 TO SEC. 2 REPEALS: ARTICLE IX, SEC. 2; ARTICLE IX, SEC. 4; ARTICLE XIX, SEC. 1; ARTICLE XIX, SEC. 2; ARTICLE XIX, SEC. 3 Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Utah, two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses voting in favor thereof: Section 1. It is proposed to amend Article IX, Sec. 1, Utah Constitution, to read: Sec. 2. One Representative tft the Congress f the United Sttttes shftH fee elected from the Stste st targe n the Tuesdtiy next sfter the first Mond&y tft November, A.D. 1805) &nd thereafter ftt such times find plsces, &nd hi such m&nner &s msy fee prescr i bed fey II fh A 1 A ft x W-Ldl wt If1" rt f. U r. 1 1 krt n jj f ku 1 " ft met n n P A t lei W . TTIICn a ITT7TT ajJJJUITIUnilTGIIl 3IIaIl tt? ITiatlt? tj VAJIIgnjSIl, I rl the session next following an enumeration made by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall divide the state into congressional! legislative, and other districts accordingly. Section 2. It is proposed to renumber Article IX, Sec. 3 to Article IX, Sec. 2, Utah Constitution, and amend, as renumbered, to read: Sec. 3 2. The Senate shall consist of eighteen members, and the Hetise ef Representatives of forty-five members. The Legislature may increase the number ef senators and representatives, rep-resentatives, btrt the senators shaH never a membership not to exceed thirty twenty-nine in number, and the number of representatives shall never be less than twice nor greater than three times the number of senators. Section 3. It is proposed to amend Article XXII, Sec. 1, Utah Constitution, to read: Sec. 1. The Legislature shall provide by law; statute for the selection by eaeh head of a family, an exemption of a homestead, which may consist of one or more parcels of lands, together with the appurtenances and improvements thereon ef the value ef at least fifteen hundred deHars, from sale on execution. Section 4. It is proposed to enact Article XXII, Sec. 3, Utah Constitution, to read: Sec, 3. The seat of state government shall be at Salt Lake City. . Section 5. It is proposed to repeal Article IX, Sec. 2, Article IX, Sec. 4, Article XIX, Sec. 1, Article XIX, Sec. 2 and Article XIX, Sec. 3, Utah Constitution. Section 6. The lieutenant governor is directed to submit this proposed amendment to the electors of the statp nf ntah at the next general election in the manner provided by law. Section 7. If approved by. the electors of the state, the amendment proposed by this joint resolution shall take effect on January 1, 1989. LANGUAGE REPEALED IN SECTION 5 OF PROPOSITI , Article IX, Sec. 2. The Legislature shall provide byls! J an enumeration of the inhabitants of the State, A.D. If : every tenth year thereafter, and at the session next is is such enumeration, and also at the session next foil enumeration made by the authority of the United States;! revise and adjust the apportionment for senators sentatives on the basis of such enumeration according! to be fixed by law. Article IX, Sec. 4. When more than one count) d constitute a senatorial district, such counties shall t tiguous, and no county shall be divided in the formation" districts unless such county contains sufficient, within itself to form two or more districts, nor shall a paj -county be united with any other county in forming an ' REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS Until otherwise provided by law, represfflWheJj1 apportioned among the several counties of we follows: Provided, That in any future apportionment -Legislature, each county shall be entitled to ai representative. The County of Box Elder shall constitute Representative District, and be entitled to one rep The County of Cache shall constitute ttafcjjj sentative District, and be entitled to three reprew The County of Rich shall constitute the sentative District, and be entitled to one represen The County of Weber shall constitute theFjj sentative District, and be entitled to four repress The County of Morgan shall constitute the F sentative District, and be entitled to one reprc The County of Davis shall constitute JJ sentative District, and be entitled to one repres The County of Tooele shall constitute the SejJ' sentative District, and be entitled to one represe The County of Salt Lake aH constitute , Representative District, and be entitled to r The County of Summit shall constitute the sentative District, and be entitled to one repr The County of Wasatch shall constitute the TJ sentative District, and be entitled to one rep , reventn " The County of Utah shall constitute sentative District, and be entitled to four rep The County of Uintah shall constitute 'J,, sentative District, and be entitled to one rep The County of Juab shall tltu Representative District, and be entitled The County of San Pete shall constituent Representative District, and be entitled The County of Carbon shall Representative District, and be entitled The County of Emery shall constitute Representative District, and be entitled lie County of Grand shall constitute the Seventeenth Repressive Repre-ssive District, and be entitled to one representative. Hie County of Sevier shall constitute the Eighteenth Repre-p Repre-p ,:alive District, and be entitled to one representative. ' The County of Millard shall constitute the Nineteenth Repre-' Repre-' native District, and be entitled to one representative. e; The County of Beaver shall constitute the Twentieth Repre-Ji Repre-Ji a;e District, and be entitled to one representative. The County of Piute shall constitute the Twenty-first Repressive Repre-ssive District, and be entitled to one representative. ! The County of Wayne shall constitute the Twenty-second ative District, and be entitled to one representative. ; i The County of Garfield shall constitute the Twenty-third 'tentative District, and be entitled to one representative. The County of Iron shall constitute the Twenty-fourth Repre-';e Repre-';e District, and be entitled to one representative. . , County of Washington shall constitute the Twenty-fifth 'tentative District, and be entitled to one representative. County of Kane shall constitute the Twer.ty-sixth Repre- tive District, and be entitled to one representative. ,. County of San Juan shall constitute the Twenty-seventh 'tentative District, and be entitled to one representative. '' Stomal districts Until otherwise provided by law, the Senatorial Districts shall be sllllltl and numbered as follows: j 11,(1 cunties of Box Elder and Tooele shall constitute the First smcUnd be entitled to one senator. Jhe County of Cache shall constitute the Second District, and be Jlll(d to one senator. jjj? Unties of Rich, Morgan, and Davis shall constitute the Dlstrict, and be entitled to one senator. County of Weber shall constitute the Fourth District, and be "lledlo two senators. The Counties of Summit and Wasatch shall constitute the Fifth District, and be entitled to one senator. The County of Salt Lake shall constitute the Sixth District, and be entitled to five senators. The County of Utah shall constitute the Seventh District, and be entitled to two senators. The Counties of Juab and Millard shall constitute the Eighth District, and be entitled to one senator. The County of San Pete shall constitute the Ninth District, and be entitled to one senator. The Counties of Sevier, Wayne, Piute, and Garfield shall constitute the Tenth District, and be entitled to one senator. The Counties of Beaver, Iron, Washington, and Kane shall constitute the Eleventh District, and be entitled to one senator. The Counties of Emery, Carbon, Uintah, Grand, and San Juan shall constitute the Twelfth District, and be entitled to one senator. Article XIX, Sec. 1. All Institutions and other property of the Territory, upon the adoption of this Constitution, shall become the Institutions and property of the State of Utah. Article XIX, Sec. 2. Reformatory and Penal Institutions, and those for the benefit of the Insane, Blind, Deaf and Dumb, and such other institutions as the public good may require, shall be established and supported by the State in such manner, and under such boards of control as may be prescribed by law. Article XIX, Sec. 3. The Public Institutions of the State are hereby permanently located at the places hereinafter named, each to have the lands specifically granted to it by the United States, in the Act of Congress approved July 16, 1894, to be disposed of and used in such manner as the legislature may provide: First: The Seat of Government and the State Fair at Salt Lake City. Second: All other institutions of the State to be located at such places as the legislature may provide except as otherwise specifically set forth in this constitution. builu nuwtj, nui JUil atuwu mi. Looks and runs great 86 KAWASAKI !S For O j Against Cj 1 s Initiative i A it TAX AND SPENDING LIMITATIONS cl til 3l :s VULCAN-750, j Official Ballot Title: Shall a law be enacted to: i ( 1 ) implement limitations on growth in: (a) state government appropriations to 85 of the difference between the total personal income of the current year and the prior year, and (b) local government revenues to W the increase in state per capita income plus the growth rate of population of the local government unit; (2) limit, except for legally-incurred debt: (a) residential property taxes to 3 4 of 1$ of fair market value, and (b) non-residential property taxes to 1 of fair market value; and (3) require voter approval of local government govern-ment proposals for new taxes or increases in non-property taxes? i IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS i Initiative A proposes three different tax and spending limitations on state and local governments. They are: 1. Spending limitation on state government and revenue limitation limi-tation on local government These limitations already exist in law. Initiative A implements them using personal income and population estimates adopted by the Department of Employment Security. Under the limitation state spending may not increase by more than 85 of the growth in personal income from year to year. Local government revenues may not increase by more than 90 of the growth in state per capita income plus the growth rate of population of the local government unit. Fiscal Impact Until personal income and population estimates are adopted by the Department of Employment Security, the impact of the spending and revenue limitations cannot be estimated. The limitation could significantly restrict some local budgets. 2. Limitations on property taxes a. Limitations under current law Property tax is used to provide a variety of services to These include police, fire, paramedic, education, neai , sewer, and garbage collection. Property tax limitations already exist. They are property's fair market value, services provided, ana p cation and hearings on proposed tax increases. (i) There are a variety of types of property, ''.j property, personal property, and homes. Each has value." Fair market value is what a willing buyer wou! Lfors seller. This fair market value is the full value of the prop ; classes of property. However, the fair market value ft small businesses includes a 20 reduction from intangible assets (like real estate fees, water T1-' residential property receives an additional 25 redu jyd a residential exemption. This means cars are taxed I on but homes are taxed on a smaller percentage of tne (ii) There is a specific limit on the tax that can be imposed for ay service provided. (iii) If there is any proposed increase in the property tax, Kpaym must be notified, and a public hearing held. b. Limitations proposed under Initiative A Initiative A limits property taxes regardless of the amount and Pt of services received. For all property, except residential operty, Initiative A limits the property tax to 1 of the fair market feotthe property. For residential property, the tax limit would be I of ISi of fair market value. However, these limitations do not rclude taxes used to pay: 0) existing debt; or (ii) debt approved at a general election, t Legal issues , Initiative A limitations are based on "fair market value ... as ed in Section 59-2-103" of the Utah Code. However, that section not define fair market value. It establishes the 25 residential lemption. fair market value is actually defined in Section 59-2-102. That WW includes the 20 reduction for intangible assets from the full of homes and small businesses. Using this correct definition of "'market value, Initiative A means: 0) the tax on a typical small business property would be limited "'WW of the property's full value; (") 'he tax on residential property would be limited to 34 of 1 "of full value; and (') the tax on other property would be limited to 1 of full There are other interpretations of the meaning of the limitation. of these alternatives would require a special session of the Bslature t0 address problems with them. For example, one JWation would not recognize the 20 reduction for intangible r0" homes and small businesses. It would limit the tax on all ; presidential property to 1 of full value and the tax on residential :tWtJto34 of 1 of full value. This means the tax reduction would :uci smaller for homes and small businesses than for large !Msses a"d personal property. Mother part of Initiative A requires tax cuts to be divided ; . 8 Programs "as provided by law." Since no such law currently ;j is, the Legislature or local governments, or both, would by law 'o decide how budgets are cut. Fiscal Impact In 1987, $724 million of property taxes were levied. Initiative A limitations would initially lower this amount to $470 million. This is a gross reduction of revenue for education and local governments of $254 million, but with the following adjustments: (1) The Utah Constitution requires that property be taxed at a uniform and equal rate. This will add at least $20 million to the loss in revenue, according to the State Tax Commission. (2) Initiative A exempts from the limitation all taxes established estab-lished to pay interest and principal on debt. Based on different interpretations of the meaning of debt, the amount of debt exempt from the limitation varies between $90 - $144 million. This must be subtracted from the gross reduction in revenues. Given these and other complications, an accurate projection of revenue loss cannot be made unless Initiative A passes and final decisions are made on: (1) the impact of the uniform and equal rate of taxation principle; and (2) the kind of debt exempt from the limitation. Even then, the revenue loss will change yearly because of increases and decreases in fair market value of property, payments on debt, and the application of the uniform tax rate principle. 3. Requirement that new taxes or increases in non-property taxes for local government be approved by voters Local governments have only that taxing power given to them by the Legislature. For example, the Legislature allows the business franchise tax and the local option sales tax to be charged. Initiative A would prohibit local governments from imposing any new tax, or increasing an existing tax, without approval of the voters. These taxes could be voted on at special elections. Debt could only be approved at general elections. Fiscal Impact The cost of an election on tax proposals depends on the size of the government holding the election. Forexample, the current cost of an election in Salt Lake City is about $90,000. Effective Date Initiative A would take effect five days after the date of the official proclamation of the vote by the governor. Arguments For 1. Utahns will Anally be protected from unreasonable property taxes which threaten our homes and businesses. Passage of this initiative will ensure that property taxes will be reduced by about $80 million or 1.5 of total state and local spending as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Property taxes will then be prevented from increasing beyond 34 of 1 of the value of a home and 1 of the value of a business. The cuts will be equally shared among all types of property. 2. Future local tax increases and new taxes cannot be adopted without voter approval. This puts the power back into the hands of the people, where it belongs. The tax collector will no longer be able to ignore the wishes of a majority of the voters. 3. Bonding by local governments must be decided by voters at regularly scheduled general elections if bond payments are to be exempt from the limitation. No longer will bond elections be slipped past the public at low-turnout special elections held at odd times during the year. Since bonding represents future tax obligations, voters have a right to decide the merits of each bond proposal during a high-profile election. 1 4. State and local taxes and spending will be prohibited from growing faster than our economy. This is the tax limitation law enacted by the Legislature ten years ago which was never implemented. Government will be able to increase its budget only as our population and personal income increases. During the last ten years, state and local taxes in Utah have grown 196, while population has increased only 30 and per capita personal income has increased only 99. This "tax and spend mentality" has contributed to Utah's present economic crisis and threatens the very future of our state unless Initiative A is adopted in November. Initiative A has been carefully written over a four-year period after studying the tax limitation measures passed in other states and after considering the needs of Utah's governments, schools, and taxpayers. The measure is considered con-sidered by many experts to be the most reasonable, yet comprehensive tax limitation initiative ever to be voted on anywhere in the nation. If this initiative passes, we can expect to see economic growth and a renewed hope in the future of the state and our I ability to hold on to our homes and businesses. State and local government will once again be responsive to the will of the people. If the initiative fails to receive voter approval, we can expect to see a flood of tax increases at the state and local level and a continuation of the exodus of families and businesses from our state. Utah may well become a "ghost town" state with the remaining Utahns paying the high cost of educating our young people, only to send them to other states to find employment. VOTE FOR THE FUTURE OF UTAH VOTE "FOR" INITIATIVE A Jack A. Olson Utah Taxpayers Association 1578 West 1700 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Rebuttal to Arguments For Initiative A Supporters claim Initiative A "will ensure property taxes will be reduced by about $80 million." Supporters are entitled to their opinion, but not to create their own facts. Actual facts show that, as written, Initiative A will cost at least twice that muck under current law. This amount has been verified by the Tax Commission and the Utah Foundation, a private, non-profil corporation. Initiative A would force average cuts in local government budgets of at least 15, and cuts of over 25 for some counties and school districts. This impact is far greater than stated b) initiative supporters. They now say that a mistake was made in the petition. They didn't mean to cut funding for education arid local services so deeply. The Legislature, they claim, can change the petition so taxes will be cut less. Voters must understand that the supporters' proposed change means much smaller las reductions for homes and small businesses. Their interpretation of Initiative A ignores a law I sponsored that now gives a benefit to homeowners and small businesses. Under their interpretation, interpre-tation, only large businesses would really see significantly low taxes on real property. Initiative A gives voters a choice: drastic budget cuts far larger than those claimed by initiative supporters; or tax cuts for large businesses that generally oppose the initiative anjw!-Initiative anjw!-Initiative A hasn't been well thought out, would be difficult ' not impossible to administer, and goes too far! Vote AGAINST Initiative A! Representative Franklin W.KnowlW Chairman, Appropriations Commits Layton, Utah 84011 Arguments Against Initiative A forces cuts in police, fire protection, and road repair! Your property taxes pay for local services you need: police, paramedics, firefighters, roads, libraries, garbage collection, sewer, and water. By eliminating $184 million from the money available for these essential services, Initiative A forces drastic cuts in these essential services. You will feel those cuts! Initiative A cripples education! Besides the essential services already mentioned, over half of the money raised by the property tax is used for education. If you cut the property tax, as Initiative A would, you cut the money that goes to education. Utahns believe in good education, but Initiative A makes deep cuts in education funding! If Initiative A passes, school districts will have to eliminate sme classroom teachers. It will increase classroom size and school fees. It could reduce the length of the school year and funding for kindergarten and busing. If Initiative A passes, Utah's children will suffer! Utah voters have already rejected a similar proposal! In 1980, Utah voters rejected Initiative B, the Tax Limitation Limita-tion Act, which limited property taxes to 1 of the property's vaue. They knew it would have led to unacceptable cuts in local services and education. Initiative A cuts even more deeply residential property taxes would be limited to 34 of 1! Initiative A will actually encourage debt! By excluding debt from the tax limitation, Initiative A encourages borrowing! Schools and local governments will lose mney if Initiative A passes. They may have to borrow money to Pay for basic, ongoing services. As any consumer knows, using wrowing money for everyday expenses is bad business! Initiative A will lead to higher bills for you! Because it limits taxes, Initiative A forces schools and local Swernments to use fees to pay for basic services. You now pay ees in the form of school fees, and water, sewer, and garbage blls. If Initiative A passes, fees will increase. The increase could actually cost you more than taxes. You would certainly have to Pay more for water, sewer, libraries, and garbage service. Parks, nsl"ng, and hunting would undoubtedly cost more, too. Initiative A will reduce your control of property taxes and government! The power to tax is the power to govern. The property tax system responds to local concerns because it is a local tax. "'t'ative A does not say which programs school districts and local governments must cut. So, the state will have to settle local conflicts over how cuts should be made. If that happens, the dec'sion of how property taxes are used will be taken from 8vemment that is closest to the people. Initiative A takes Pwer away from you! And further - an unelected Department of Employment Security, instead of your elected officials, will "etermine the size of local government budgets. The choice is clear we want a quality future for Utah. 10 to that we must continue providing a high quality of local services and education for ourselves and our children. V0TE AGAINST INITIATIVE A! Representative Franklin W. Knowlton Chairman, Appropriations Committee Box 426 Layton, Utah 84041 I Rebuttal to b Arguments Against Initiative A ;1 8 The scare tactics used by opponents are the same ones Hi used in numerous states where tax limitation has been adopted. The ridiculous claims of cuts in essential services and the & overused exclamation marks insult the intelligence of Utah f voters. Opponents make absurd claims instead of proposing to $ cut administration, consolidate services, eliminate duplication, and privatize government agencies. f This initiative does not encourage debt; voters must B approve future debt. Bonding will not be used for day-to-day operations; this is unconstitutional. It does not give Employment Security budgetary powers; they merely provide the economic figures to activate the spending limitation. 1 Initiative A is only a statutory change; it is not a change to ft the constitution. If horror stories happen, the Legislature can i amend the limitation by a simple majority vote at any time. l Proposition 13 cut California property taxes by 56. j Utah's initiative cuts property taxes only 11 and cuts total state and local spending only 1.5. The ideas in this initiative have been supported by reasonable people for years, including Nobel laureate Milton I Friedman and noted economist Arthur Laffer. Even Governor Matheson proposed a 1 property tax limitation. Most of the fjj wording of this initiative was actually enacted by the Utah a Legislature ten years ago but was never activated. jp Opponents say high taxes are for our own good. These are the people who got us into our present economic and tax mess. Why should we trust them to get us out of it? jSj VOTE FOR YOUR FUTURE $ VOTE FOR INITIATIVE A Jack A. Olson 3 Utah Taxpayers Association : 1578 West 1700 South u Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 ,4 ,0 $ vi V. COMPLETE TEXT OF INITIATIVE A TAX AND SPENDING LIMITATIONS (The People's Tax and Spending Limitation Amendments) fi AN ACT LIMITING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAXES TO 34 OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AND ALL OTHER PROPERTY TAXES TO 1 OF FAIR MARKET VALUE, EXEMPTING CERTAIN TAXES LEVIED FOR PAYMENT OF LEGALLY INCURRED INDEBTEDNESS FROM THE LIMITATION, PLACING LIMITATIONS ON STATE GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS AND REVENUE AND UPON THE TAXING AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS BASED UPON CHANGES IN UTAH PERSONAL INCOME AND THE POPULATION OF UNITS OF GOVERNMENT, REQUIRING A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE TO IMPOSE NEW TAXES AND INCREASES IN TAXES OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAX BY LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT, AND REQUIRING RE-QUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY TO ADOPT PERSONAL INCOME AND POPULATION FIGURES FOR IMPLEMENTION OF REVENUE AND APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATIONS. LIMI-TATIONS. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF UTAH: SECTION 1. Section 59-17-101, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as enacted by Chapter 197, Laws of Utah 1979, and renumbered by Chapter 2, Laws of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to read: 59-17-101. PURPOSE OF ACT. It is the purpose of this Chapter to place limitations on state government appropriations and revenue and upon the taxing authority of local governmental units based upon changes in Utah personal income and the population of units of government. The limitations imposed by this chapter shall be in addition to limitations on tax levies, rates, and revenue otherwise provided for by law. SECTION 2. Section 59-17-102, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as last amended by Chapters 21 and 47, Laws of Utah 1985, and renumbered by Chapter 2, Laws of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to read: 59-17-102. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter: (1) "Local governmental unit" means any city, town, county, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision of the state. (2) "Unit of government" means the state or a local governmental unit. (3) "Legislative body" means the Legislature or the governing body of a local governmental unit. (4) "Personal income" means the total personal income of the state as measured and estimated by the Department of Employment Security. By September 1 of each year, the Department of Employment Security shall adopt final estimates of personal income. (5) "Population" means the number of residents of the state or local governmental unit, but in respect to school districts, "population" means the number of students in average daily membership. "Population" of special districts or special improvement districts shall be determined by the county in which the district is located, or in the case of districts encompassing more than one county, by the most populous county within the district. "Population" of all other units of government shall be estimated by the Department of Employment Security. By September 1 of each year, the respective school districts and counties and the Department of Employment Security shall adopt final population estimates. (6) "Per capita personal income" means the result obtained for the state by dividing personal income of the state by the state's population as pursuant to Subsections (4) and (5). (7) "Fiscal emergency" means an extraordinary occurrence requiring unanticipated and immediate expenditure to preserve the health and safety of the people. (8) "Appropriation" means appropriation or budget, whichever is appropriate. (9) "Revenue" means the revenue of the unit of governed ; every tax, penalty, receipt, and other monetary exaction and iP ; connected with it, except as specifically exempted by this cto (10) "Security" means any bond, note, warrant, or s . evidence of indebtedness, whether or not such bond, note, wan' other evidence of indebtedness is or constitutes an "indebted within the meaning of any provision of the Constitution orlW state of Utah. SECTION 3. Section 59-17-103, Utah Code Annotated 1953,astf by Chapter 197, Laws of Utah 1979, and renumbered by Laws of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to read: 59-17-103. STATE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT -HP FOR CALCULATION. There is established a state app limit for each fiscal year beginning after June 30, these fiscal years the annual legislative appropriations to B its agencies, departments, and institutions shall not exceed determined by the following formula in which "B" recent year's personal income for the state, "P" equal year's personal income for the state, and "A" equals the pn . appropriation for the state, its agencies, departments, an tions, as adjusted by the exemptions provided in sections A .85 (R-l) A maximum appropriations The recommendations and budget analysis prepared by the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, as required by Chapter 12 oil be strictly in compliance with the limitations impo Chapter. SECTION 4. Section 59-17-104, Utah CodeAnnotated 1953, by Chapter 197, Laws of Utah 1979, and renumbered ny Laws of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to. 59-17-104. LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT Bt" FORMULA FOR CALCULATION. There is limit for local governmental units for each fiscal year m December 31, 1988. For each of these fiscal years revenuesof eac ft (olf unit shall not exceed the sum determined by the foll ,,(!: which "R" equals the current year's per capita person state, "P" equals the prior year's per capita persona state, "A" equals the prior year's revenue n governmental unit, as adjusted by the exemption pro 59-17-109, except forthe first year in which the limiw; local governmental unit, "A" equals the pnor year ns p the local governmental unit, as adjusted by the exe j for in section 59-17-109, "X" equals the current. the prior f the local governmental unit, and "Y" equal population of the local governmental unit: A .90 (R-l) AX maximum revenues. SECTION 5. Section 59-17-104.5, Utah Code Annota enacted to read: ,nW oN STATED 59-17-104.5. PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION "anajic-LOCAL "anajic-LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS. There is estw ,c ad valorem tax on any property in the State o rfv three-fourths of one percent (34) of the f-residental f-residental property, as defined in Section 5H-: - ffS,oV (1) of the fair market value of property '" daSpro property. The tax shall be collected and aPP'usha not law. The limitation provided for in this sectio mi Med for the payment of principal and inter est on legal y tadbonds, notes, leases or other indebtedness mcun d pnor o passage of this act or incurred after the passage of this act win pval of a majority of the qualified electors vot.ng thereon at a petal election. : SECTION 6. Section 59-17-104.6, Utah Code Annotated 1953, is ! "SSSS TAX INCREASES OTEERABVAEM IUE8 REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO BALLOT 0 mlimM New taxes and increase's in the rates of any non-ad SSSSsSSSSS": applicable, provisions of the Municipal Bond Act. NOTE: See Utah Code Annotated 1953, Section 59-17-105 thru Section 59-17-112 for the complete act. For O Against Q Initiative TO U TAX REDUCTIONS Fisc Official Ballot Title: Slob vJttd Shall a law be enacted to reduce: (1) the individual income tax rates, depending on income, from 2.6 to 2, from 3.55 to 3, from 4.5 to 4, from 5.45 to 5X, from 6.4 to 6, and from 7.35 to 1; (2) the state sales tax rate by 12; (3) the tax on motor and special fuels by 5t per gallon; and (4) the tax on cigarettes by IK per pack' IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS Initiative B reduces four different tax rates: individual income sales, cigarette, and motor and special fuels. 1. Income Tax The Utah Constitution requires that all income tax revenues be used for public education. In 1987 federal and state tax reform changed the Utah income tax base so that it generated more revenue. All of the proposed increase in revenue from his reform was budgeted for public education (kindergarten through 12th grade). In 1988, when actual income tax revenues from the reform exceeded budgeted revenues, the Legislature refunded $80 million and also reduced income tax rates. Initiative B further reduces re-duces the indmdual income tax rates on state taxable income from: 2.6 to 2 for individuals with incomes not over $750 and for married persons filing joint returns with incomes not over $1,500; ti nn55. t n fr iJndividuals witfi incomes between $750 and Sent,5fo;:d$3dOOPorSOnS filingjint M wn5ir4 fr individuals with incmes between $1,500 and befwe0enan$d3,0fO0r0 170 MnnntfV? 5 forindividuals w'th incomes between $2,250 and brenaHSrdToop0rsons fiiing joint returns with j m4Lt0fM f0f .individuals with '"comes between $3,000 and Z"lS"7 m"" Join' "ilh Fiscal Impact reducedfmE" ' PUbHc educati" wi" be 2. Sales Tax State sales tax is used for the ge; operations of state government. A portion is also used to fund put'--education (kindergarten through 12th grade) because the rev from state income tax is generally not enough. In 1987 thel4 increased the state sales tax rate by 12. In addition toastates; tax there is a local sales tax. Under current law, on January 1, the state sales tax rate will be reduced from 5-332 to5Stoaw the local sales tax rate to be increased by an identical amount, it to 1. The overall rate paid by consumers will not change. Ho Initiative B reduces the state sales tax rates by an additional making the state sales tax rate 4-12. Initiative B does not change the rates of the local sales also does not change the public transit tax (paid by resident ' Lake, Utah, Weber, and Davis counties), resort communities tax W by residents of certain resort towns), or transient room W (paid by hotel guests). These are all part of the overall sales tax p Fiscal Impact State sales tax revenue used to fund general state govern operations will be reduced by $59.3 million. 3. Cigarette Tax In 1987 the Legislature increas cigarette tax by lit per pack of cigarettes. Part of this incre st)), designated to fund a prenatal care program. Initiative B re" tax on cigarettes by 1 It per pack from 23 to 12'. Fiscal Impact Cigarette tax revenue used to fund general state gornl operations will be reduced by $10 million. 4. Motor and Special Fuels Tax The Utah cn. requires that all taxes on motor fuels be used for high W P b. In 1987 the Legislature increased the motor and special' iu 0j 5t per gallon. The increase was designated solely reconstruction and repair. Initiative B reduces the tax on motor and pal fuels by 5 per gallon from 19r to 14c per gallon. Fiscal Impact Motor fuel tax revenue used for highway purposes will be died by $34 million. Special fuel tax revenue used for highway imposes will be reduced by $7.2 million. Effective Date December 31, 1989 Total Fiscal Impact The Legislative Fiscal Analyst estimates that, if Initiative B passes, the total amount of state revenue reductions will be $145.5 million. Arguments For The 1987 tax hike was passed with little public discussion, and the people were arrogantly denied an opportunity to vote on it. It was so poorly planned it raised $110 million more than it was supposed to. The July special session corrected the mistake by only $60 million and left taxpayers with a "secret" $50 million tax increase on top of the authorized tax increase. Approval would: (1) Roll back the 1987 tax increases on income, sales, cigarettes, and gasoline. (2) Eliminate the "secret" $50 million dollar tax increase imposed by mistake. Costs would be: (1) The State Tax Commission estimates that approval of this act would cost $141 million dollars. This would be a 5 cut in the state budget of $2.8 billion dollars or a 2.5 cut from total government spending (state and local) of $5.5 billion (1985-86). (2) Tax Commission estimates did not consider that putting money in the hands of taxpayers would boost the economy and generate revenues, thus making the rollback significantly less than predicted. (3) This initiative combined with Initiative A would cut total state and local spending by 6 using Tax Commission figures, or by less than 4 using figures developed by the Utah Taxpayers Association. Discussion: Utah, based on the ability of its citizens to pay, has some of the highest taxes in the nation. We were 9th highest BEFORE the largest tax hike in the history of the state. We have the highest state and local taxes per household of any of the 10 western states. We rank 48th in per capita income. Relief now will free resources for economic growth. Opponents claim that passage of Initiatives A, B, & C will cause "catastrophic damage to all government services." If a 4-6 cut will do this, what is the remaining 94-96 of the budgets spent on? Opponents say if we cut taxes we must cut services Not necessarily so. The rollback would force improved efficiency more cost-effective ways of providing services or revised priorities. Last December the State Auditor General could not complete an audit of the State Office of Education because he could not determine what was being spent on the hundreds of programs. Yet, we are told our children are short of textbooks and supplies although these essentials represent only 1 of the state budget. Why aren't these critical items purchased first? Despite claims of efficiency, Utah ranks 6th in the nation in the number of government employees per 1 ,000 households-has households-has numerous organizations not being audited (Timp Mental Health was being audited, but not effectively) and 60 of state agencies contracting for services do so on a non-competitive basis. Every homemaker knows the savings achieved from comparison shopping. Opponents to Initiatives A, B, & C, have used every stare tactic in the book. The same things were said in Californiaand yet in June of this year Californians, after 10 years under ? Proposition 13, voted to retain tax limitation. j Vote FOR Initiative B. J. Bracken Lee, Former Governor Tax Limitation Coalition ( P.O. Box 26246 Salt Lake City, Utah 84126 Rebuttal to Arguments For Initiative B Proponents claim these tax cuts won't cut basic services. They claim our education system, roads, and economy will improve. If these claims were really true, wouldn't the people who would supposedly receive these benefits support the initiatives? HERE IS WHAT PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE INITIATIVES SAY: PTA "The children are hit the hardest by the initiatives. We nw spend less than any state per pupil. We dare not risk their future by passing these initiatives. " American Association of Retired Persons "For many retired persons, any modest tax savings art more than offset in Medicaid losses, service losses, andftt increases. " Police ChiefsSheriffs AssociationFire Chiefs "We want to provide a safe and healthy community!0' Utah. The passage of these initiatives would seriously jeopardize our ability to do so. " Utah Chamber of Commerce ' Farm Bureau Cattlemen's Association "Our organizations have always supported efficMt government and low taxes, but we oppose these iniwM' because they go so far in cutting education and basic seri'K tliat they threaten our economic future. " AFL-CIO "Working men and women and their families u"11, real losers. Ultimately, these in itiatives will result in thetos jobs. " These people realize that supporters' claims are too good to be true. The Initiatives GO TOO FAR! Please join with me and the people of Utah in ens""nga bright and prosperous future for our children and ourselv VOTE AGAINST INITIATIVE B. For O AgaiMSt ScottM.Matheson Taxpayers for Salt Lake City. W ; Arguments Against j Ton need the facts to understand the consequences of Initiative B! FACT Basic services we need will be cut! ' Initiative B forces large cuts in services. Of the state operating budget, 52 is for public education, 19 for higher education, 8 for Social Services, 5 for Corrections, and 5 for Health. Administrative costs are low. Utah's state, city, and county governments have fewer employees per 10,000 population to any state in the nation. If Initiative B passes, the large reductions required cannot be made only through cuts in administration. Basic services will be cut! The cuts will cause Utah to lose substantial federal fading! Federal dollars fund many state programs. Most federal grants require the state to "match" with some state dollars. In many programs, for every state dollar cut, three federal dollars "ill be lost. In the interstate road construction program, for every six state dollars cut, ninety-four dollars will be lost! FACT - To prosper, businesses need the basic services Initiative B would cut! Businesses, like people, grow in good places to live. The Grant Thornton study shows that businesses demand good schools, highways, and police services. These things are more important to business than just lower state taxes. If basic services are cut, Utah will not be attractive to business. Utah will not be a place where businesses or people can grow or prosper. FACT Initiative B goes too far! No other state has approved such massive tax cuts. Lven California refused to approve an income tax reduction. Now you being asked to pass Initiative B, which goes far beyond he one rejected by California. It reduces cigarette, gasoline, sales, and income taxes. The total impact is over $141,000,000. A tax M of this size requires budget cuts of 13 in state services. Initiative B goes too far! pACT - Initiative B cuts taxes needed to pay for education, health, prisons, and roads! ... Our taxes provide the funding for education, roads, neaitn tare, prisons, and other vital services. If Initiative B passes, '""fog for these essential services will be cut! FACT Supporters are not responsible to you! Tax protestors refuse to admit that cuts will hurt Utanns. They refuse to answer how services will be maintained. Exactly what programs will be cut? What services will be lost? ,r How can over $330,000,000 be cut in Initiatives A, B, ana o vithout hurting children, elderly and families? Unlike officials you elect, the supporters of Initiative B do nt answer to you. pACT - People who understand the consequences oppose the initiatives! Every responsible business, community, education, civic a"l Political leader who understands the consequences w WWicly against Initiatives A and B. These are leaders who nave answer your questions about what tax cuts will do to you. i ney wow these tax cuts will cripple Utah for years! These facts are not scare tactics. They are just plain scary. INITIATIVE A AND B GO TOO FAR. KNOW THE FACTS! UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES! Vote AGAINST Initiative B! Scott M. Matheson Taxpayers for Utah 1030 South 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah Rebuttal to Arguments Against Initiative B QUESTION Why cut basic services before cutting waste? The Governor's Commission on Cost Effective Government Govern-ment found $40 to $60 million dollars waste in only three tax-supported organizations. (Sept. '88) How much waste would a similar commission find if it examined all government organizations? QUESTION Why make cuts where they would cause loss of federal funds? The 1987 tax hike brought no additional federal funds; why should we lose them when it is repealed? FACT Businesses need a tax break. In a KSLDeseret News poll late last year, 49 of businesses said high taxes were the majorobstacle to expansion. 21 said their greatest concern was staying in business. QUESTION Since the 1987 tax hike was sold as a 5 increase, why when repealed does it become a 13 cut? $ 1 4 1 million dollars is 5 of the total state budget of $2.8 billion. FACT Initiatives A & B are about making government responsible to the voters, not about voting for supporters of A, B, &C. Initiatives A & B allow voters to set limits on government spending. FACT Almost every organization, union, and individual opposing passage of A, B, & C has interest in government any, including the major media and the labor unions (UEA and UPEA), have given huge amounts of money to oppose the initiatives. Threats to cut essential services are typical of those protecting bureaucratic turf and inefficiency. ROLLBACK OF THE 1987 TAX INCREASE IS ESSENTIAL TO UTAH'S ECONOMIC RECOVERY. Vote FOR Initiative B. J. Bracken Lee, Former Governor Tax Limitation Coalition P.O. Box 26246 Salt Lake City, Utah 84126 COMPLETE TEXT OF INITIATIVE B TAX REDUCTIONS I (The People's Tax Reduction Act) a AN ACT REDUCING THE RATE OF STATE INCOME, SALES, MOTOR FUEL, AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAXES TO 1986 LEVELS-PROVIDING LEVELS-PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OR BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF UTAH: SECTION 1. Section 59 10-104, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as renumbered and amended by Chapter 2, Laws of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to read: 59-10-104. A tax is hereby imposed on the state taxable income, as defined in Sections 59-10-111 and 59-10-112, of every resident individual, determined: (1) In the case of every individual, other than a husband and wife or head of household required to use the tax table set forth in Subsection (2), a tax in accordance with the following table: If the state taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $750 2 of the state taxable income Over $750 but not over $1,500 $15, plus 3 of excess over $750 Over $1,500 but not over $2,250 $38, plus 4 of excess over $1,500 Over $2,250 but not over $3,000 $68, plus 5 of excess over $2,250 Over $3,000 but not over $3,750 $105, plus 6 of excess over $3,000 0ver $3'750 $150, plus 7 of excess over $3,750 (2) In the case of a husband and wife filing a single return jointly, or a head of a household (as defined in section 2(b), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as hereafter amended, redesignated, or re-enacted) re-enacted) filing a single return, a tax in accordance with the following table: If the state taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $1500 2 of the state taxable income Over $1,500 but not over $3,000 $30, plus 3 of excess over $1 500 Over $3,000 but not over $4,500 $87, plus 4 of excess over $3,000 Over $4,500 but not over $6,000 $147, plus 5 of excess over $4 500 Over $6,000 but not over $7,500 $222, plus 6 of excess over $6,000 0ver $7'5fl0 12, Plus 7 of excess over $7,500 SECTION 2. Section 59-12-103, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as last amended by Chapter 148 and 221, Laws of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to read: 59-12-103. (1) There is levied a tax on the purchaser for the amount paid or charged for the following: (a) retail sales of tangible personal property made within the state; (b) amount paid to common carriers or to telephone or telegraph corporations as defined by Section 54-2-1 whether the corporations are municipally or privately owned, for all transportation, transpor-tation, telephone service or telegraph service; (c) gas, electricity, heat, coal, fuel oil, 'or other fuels sold or furnished for commercial consumption- (d) gas, electricity, heat, coal, fuel oil, or other fuels sold or furnished for residential use; (e) meals sold; (0 admission to any place of amusement, entertainment, or recreation .ncluding seats and tables reserved or otherwise, and other similar accommodations; (g) services for repairs or renovations of tangible personal property or services to install tangible personal property in connection with other tangible personal property; (h) cleaning or washing of tangible personal property- (.) tourist home, hotel, motel, or trailer court accommodations and services for less than 30 consecutive days; (j) laundry and dry cleaning services; (k) leases and rentals of tangible personal property if 2 property situs is in this state, if the lessee took possession in lii '; state, or if the property is stored, used, or otherwise consumed; state; and (1) tangible personal property stored, used,orconsumedta state. (2) Except for subsection (1) (d), the rates of the to Is . under Subsection (1) shall be: (a) 5-332 from July 1, 1986, through December3I, If (b) 4-12 from and after January 1, 1990. (3) The rates of the tax levied under Subsection (l)(d)sl (a) 2-332 from July 1, 1986, through December31,W;- (b) 1-12 from and after January 1, 1990. SECTION 3. Section 59-13-201, as last amended by Chapter Bt: 139, Laws of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to read: 59-13-201. (1) A tax is imposed at the rate of 14 cents pe:&' upon all motor fuel that is sold, used, or received for sale or use instate. in-state. (2) No tax is imposed upon: (a) motor fuel which is brought into and sold in this sU-original sU-original packages as purely interstate commerce sales; (b) motor fuel which is exported from this state, if I actual exportation on forms prescribed by the commission is 1 within 180 days after exportation. The commission may either no tax or upon application refund the tax paid; (c) motor fuel which is sold to the United States, this, the political subdivisions of this state, where sale and del,-made del,-made in quantities of 750 gallons or more; or , (d) motor fuel or components of motor fuel, which is sow used in this state and distilled from coal, oil shale, rock aspi bituminous sand, or solid hydrocarbons located in this statt :. (3) All revenue received by the commission under this pan be deposited daily with the state treasurer and creditea Transportation Fund. All of the state's increase of such revenue this part shall be used for the reconstruction and repair of w roads, and streets. An appropriation from the Transportation shall be made to the commission to cover expenses lncurre i administration and enforcement of this part and the collect! motor fuel tax. . totfe (4) The Division of Finance shall place an amount eqw amount received from the sale or use of motor fuel used in m ( registered under the provisions of the State Boatinuntii,tin determined by the commission, as a restricted revenue acco -General Fund of the state. The funds from this account snw for the construction, improvement, operation, and mair 1 , state-owned boating facilities and for the payment 0 ' tn expenses of the Division of Parks and Recreation in aam and enforcing the State Boating Act. oiivinto (5) (a) The State Tax Commission shall refund annuaii Off-Highway Vehicle Account in the General Fund anamow the lesser of the following: (i) .3 of the motor fuel tax collected under Section 41-11-6, or (ii) $250,000. . 41.221! (b) This amount shall be used as provided in been 139 SECTION 4. Section 59-13-301, as last amended by Chapter of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to read: f oergal!o 59-13-301.(1) A tax is imposed at therate of HcemsF on the sale or use of special fuel. (2) No tax is imposed upon special fuel which: (f (a) is sold or used for any purpose other than 1 propel a motor vehicle upon the public highways of the wption applies only in those cases where the purchases or the Kisol special fuel establish to the satisfaction of the commission iit the special fuel was used for purposes other than to operate a ro!or vehicle upon the public highways of the state; (b) is sold to the United States Government or any of its Mentalities of this state or any of its political subdivisions; or I; (c) is sold and delivered into a motor vehicle for which the c 'iieror operator possesses an unexpired special fuel tax exemption p atibte issued to that owner or operator by the commission as "d in Section 59-13-304 for vehicles powered by certain special (3) The special fuel tax shall be paid by the user-dealer in all ;i; where the special fuel is sold within the state and delivered wllyinto the fuel supply tank of a motorvehicle unless the motor : le has a current special fuel permit or a special fuel exemption anit as provided in Sections 59-13-303 and 59-13-304. In all other , , the tax shall be paid by the user of the special fuel and shall be : : puted on the amount of fuel used which shall be calculated from ;!t average number of miles per gallon obtained by the user's ;ttes. W All revenue received by the commission from taxes and fees under this part shall be deposited daily with the state wurer and credited to the Transportation Fund. All of the state's increase of such revenue under this part shall be used for the reconstruction and repair of highways, roads, and streets. An appropriation from the Transportation Fund shall be made to the commission to cover expenses incurred in the administration and enforcement of this part and the collection of the special fuel tax. SECTION 5. Section 59-14-204, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as renumbered and amended by Chapter 2 and 79, Laws of Utah 1987, is repealed and re-enacted to read: 59-14-204. (1) There is levied a tax upon the sale, use, or storage of cigarettes in the state. The rates of the tax levied under Subsection (1) are: (a) .6 cents on each cigarette, for all cigarettes weighing not more than three pounds per thousand cigarettes; and (b) 1.2 cents on each cigarette, for all cigarettes weighing in excess of three pounds per thousand cigarettes. (2) The tax levied under Subsection (1) shall be paid by the manufacturer, jobber, distributor, wholesaler, retailer, user, or consumer. . (3) The tax rates specified in this section shall be increased by the State Tax Commission by the same amount as any future reduction in the federal excise tax on cigarettes. SECTION 6. This act shall take effect on December 31, 1989. For O Against () Initiative C INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE EDUCATION ,...,.,.,,. ---in -- i -i-i ii.it fc "-- -Mr'- ri ---ri - - Official Ballot Title: Shall a law be enacted to allow individuals a . credit against state income tax for tuition, textbook, and transportation costs they incur when their dependents attend a private elementary or secondary school within the state? " ' J IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS Initiative C allows an income tax credit for a student's tuition, textbook, and transportation costs to attend a private elementary or secondary school in Utah. In order to be eligible for the tax credit, the student's parent or guardian must have paid a third party for the costs of attendance at the private school. The initiative requires that attendance at the school must satisfy the state's compulsory attendance atten-dance law. Home schools, where students are taught in their homes by their parents, may qualify as private schools for the purpose of the tax credit. This initiative could allow one parent to pay the other for attendance at a home school, and claim a credit for those costs. Initiative C limits the credit for each student in kindergarten through sixth grade to 50 of the amount of the state-supported funding unit for public education. For each student in seventh through twelfth grade, the credit is limited to 60 of the amount of the state-supported funding unit. The Legislature sets the state-supported state-supported funding unit amount each year. Currently, it is $1 204 Using this amount, the parent or guardian could claim up to $602 for each student in kindergarten through sixth grade and up to $722 40 for each student in seventh through twelfth grade. Initiative C limits the types of costs that may be claimed asa tax credit. Allowable textbook costs are for books and other materials and equipment used to teach subjects legally and commonly taught in public elementary and secondary schools. Costs for books and other materials and equipment used to teach religious doctrine or for worship are not allowed. Allowable transportation costs do not include travel to extracurricular activities or for driver's education programs. If the claimed tax credit exceeds the tax liability for the tax year, the initiative requires that the parent receive a payment For example, if a parent owed state taxes of $1,000 and was able to claim the maximum credit of $602 for a student in second grade and an additional $602 for a student in fifth grade, the parent would be entitled to a payment of $204. Constitutionality Initiative C raises a constitutional question. Does il religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment to tne States Constitution? This question has been raised bysimilar another an-other states. In 1 973, the United States Supreme Court stm New York law that allowed parents a deduction against ' income tax for each student for whom they had paid '"'j10";. a private elementary or secondary school. The Court declare program rewarded parents for sending their children V schools. In most cases these were church-affiliated schoo . law had the primary effect of advancing religion. It declared unconstitutional. Committee for Public Ew Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973). However, in 1983, the Supreme Court upheld a M"1" benefit program that allowed parents of students to : income tax deduction for the educational expenses ol e in a public or private elementary or secondary s ft Allen, 676 F.2d 1195 (8th Cir. 1982), aff'd, 463 U.S. ' lqfs Court ruled that the Minnesota law was not unconstitu . parents of public or private elementary and secon . students could claim the deduction. Initiative C, like the New York law that was AiA tutional, applies only to parents of students in pnva " .s tax benefit is not available to parents of students in puM : it is in Minnesota. Therefore, the Supreme Court wo fjp. declare Initiative C unconstitutional as violating Amendment to the United States Constitution. Effective Date t, The initiative becomes effective at the ben"ingslat)iisM(; year following its passage. There is no uniform date commi5'1 school to begin in Utah. The Legislature or the State i ' 't the intent -would probably have to set a beginning date to carry the initiative. 1 fiscal Impact Itis estimated that the tax credit provided by Initiative C would reduce revenue to public education by approximately $3.6 million mally, if the amount of the state-supported funding unit stays at tl.204.This estimate is based on the 1987 enrollment of students in agnized private elementary and secondary schools and assumes ait the maximum credit of $602 would be claimed for each elementary student and the maximum credit of $722.40 would be claimed for each secondary student. It does not include the loss that may occur from students in home schools. If enough students leave the public schools, the amount of revenues needed to fund public education would be reduced. There is no way to reasonably estimate how many students would leave the public schools if Initiative C passes. Arguments For This initiative could be called "The Public Education Survival Act," because it was designed to provide greater potential for helping the public education system than for helping private education. APPROVAL OF THIS ACT WOULD: (1) Provide a $600 to $700 tax credit to parents who send a child to private school. This is not an additional education cost but is taken out of the much larger amount that would otherwise be spent on the child's public education. (2) Release for the possible use of public education all fluids except the tax credit that would have been spent on the child's public education. This saving amounts to between $1500 and $1600 per child per year. (:!) Encourage enrollment in private schools which would: ( a) reduce pressure on the public education system; (b) lower the average class size; (c) provide almost $40 million additional dollars a year in funds that could be used for public education (if Utah reached only half the national average in j private school enrollment) ; ( d) provide lower income parents i the opportunity to choose the kind of education their child j needs; and (e) introduce a small amount of healthy com- ! petition into Utah education. I THE COSTS OF PASSING THE ACT: a The costs of passing the act are estimated to be $3.1 million I dollars. But what is seldom mentioned is that for each of the I 5,300 children currently enrolled in private school the taxpayers I are already saving $1500. If, as a result of this act, another 3,500 I students move to private schools, the $3.1 million start-up costs will be paid for and future private school enrollment would start I generating funds that could be used to support public education. 1 DISCUSSION: I Utah has the lowest percentage of private school enroll- 1 ment in the nation, a little over 1. The national average is close n to m. The tax credit would be paid only to parents who enroll their child in a school which allows that child "to fulfill the stale's compulsory school attendance law." This act would not permit funds to be used for books or instructional material of a religious nature, transportation to "extracurricular" activities or driver education. By giving parents increased choice in selecting the school their children attend, the act encourages greater commitment on the part of families and brings more accountability to the public education system. j Rich parents have always had the opportunity to send their i children to private schools. This act will allow less well-to-do ( parents to consider that option when they have a need. To those whose income is so low they have no tax obligation a tax refund j will be given. Choice in education is one of the real education reforms that will benefit all students. With the passage of4his act ' Utahns have the opportunity to be leaders in real education ' reform in the United States. i Vote FOR Initiative C. I Senator Bill Barton j 3940 West 4100 South West Valley City, Utah 84120 Rebuttal to Arguments For Initiative C Initiative C is unconstitutional because it violates u important provision in the U.S. Constitution that govemmenl should not act to promote religion. In fact, a New York lawvei) similar to Initiative C was declared unconstitutional by the U Supreme Court in Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973). It is nous wasting money to defend a law that has already been shown tot unconstitutional! Initiative C also provides a cash payment if a parent to more of a credit than taxes due, allowing the state to give cash subsidies to some parents for sending their children to private or home schools. As chairman of the Senate Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the need to allow greater flexibility and choice in education. But Initiative C is not reasonable. Supporters claim it will not reduce education funding. Thej "hope" that enough students will choose to leave the schoolsto make up for the losses incurred from the tax credit. In fact, rw of our school districts cannot reduce fixed expenditures -utilities, maintenance, or even teachers in some of our raw districts if students leave. Yet they would have less money"' schools if this passes. Education is important to me, just as it is to you. Wet developed a fine educational system that already faces P challenges. If we need to make changes to education, lets" right. If you don't want education to suffer, vote AGATXSI Initiative C! Senator Haven J- Barlow P0 Box 626 Layton,Utah Arguments Against Initiative C does not help Utah education or Utah taxpayers! Initiative C costs taxpayers $ millions! Initiative C would give parents a tax credit of up to $722 a '' yearfor each child taught in a private school. Over 5,500 children J V to private schools already, which could cost the state over $3.5 ' million in the first year alone. If a person doesn't owe any taxes ( orenough taxes to cover the credit, taxpayers would have to pay ' that person the difference! Initiative C destroys equality in education! Utah has long been committed to giving children an equal education in tax-supported, free public schools. To guarantee equal education throughout Utah, the state insures that districts have about the same amount of money per child. Initiative C would damage the whole school funding process. If it Passes, it may destroy Utah's ability to guarantee every child an equal education. By giving a tax credit for parents to take their children out of the public schools, it creates at least a two-level system of education. The wealth of a child's parents would determine the quality of education a child gets! Parents able to put their children in private schools and caim the tax credit are usually well-off. Because the tax credit uld reduce education funding, it would decrease the quality education in public schools. The students continuing in ! Plic schools would suffer while the wealthy benefitted. Initiative C increases the percentage of difficult students in Public schools! Private schools can refuse students who have discipline Problems, or who need specialized programs. Public schools roust educate every child. Research has shown that a core of W highly-motivated students can "lift up" an entire school. 411 of society benefits from good schools. The initiative takes "any of the best students out of public schools. The quality of education in public schools will suffer, native C is unconstitutional! . In 1973, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Ne York law almost identical to Initiative C. The court declared lha' since the program rewarded parents only when they sent tfW children to private schools, which include religious schls, it promoted religion. Initiative C is probably also unconstitutional. If it is approved by the voters, it could be cstly to the state to defend the law! That money could be spent " education for our children. Initiative C encourages home schools! Few parents have the time or skills to teach the subjects Quired in public schools. Many would start home schools Warily for the tax credit and not for the purpose of seeing children receive a quality education. Unregulated opportunists co'd take advantage of unsuspecting parents and students! state would need a new bureaucracy to supervise private schools! Utah currently has no way to set or enforce standards for private schools. But if Initiative C passes, the state will have to Pervise private schools to prevent fraud and abuse. Initiative 1 makes a new bureaucracy necessary! U,'s not destroy education! Vote "AGAINST" Initiative C! Senator Haven J. Barlow P.O. Box 626 Layton, Utah 84041 Rebuttal to Arguments Against Initiative C Opponents to Initiative C reflect an arrogant "big government knows best" attitude toward education. They say: parents can't be trusted to look out for the education of their children; "unregulated opportunists" must be controlled; and, a new bureaucracy will be needed to supervise private schools. Claiming an initial expenditure of $3.1 million dollars out, of a billion dollar budget would damage the "whole school funding process" is ridiculous. So is the idea that public education is "free." Those already in private schools save the state about $12 million dollars a year. A tax credit would open a window of opportunity for less well-to-do parents and children. Difficult students would not be left in the public schools. Many parents with children with special problems would have the option, with the tax credit, to seek the special help they need. Initiative C is not unconstitutional. President Reagan and the Department of Education have supported similar plans. Minnesota has a similar plan which was judged constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983. The Utah Attorney General found no unconstitutional aspects in the initiative. Opponents, whose goal is "equality" in education, instead of providing each child the opportunity to reach his or her 1 greatest potential, would use this initiative to justify "super- I vising" private schools. Utah's private schools have done an exemplary job in the past with minimal state "supervision." Passage of Initiative C should not be a license for increased state involvement. A Vote FOR Initiative C can improve ALL education. Senator Bill Barton 3940 West 4100 South 1 West Valley City, Utah 84120 ) i t COMPLETE TEXT OF INITIATIVE C INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE EDUCATION (Tfee Utah Family Choice in Education Act) AN ACT PROVIDING PARENTS A LIMITED TAX CREDIT AGAINST INCOME TAXES IMPOSED BYTHE STATE OF UTAH FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN FOR TUITION, TEXTBOOKS, AND TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN ATTENDING A PRIVATE SCHOOL. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF UTAH. SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as "The Utah Family Choice in Education Act." SECTION 2. It is the purpose of this act to provide parents the greatest opportunites and flexibility to secure for their children an education, and it shall be presumed that the parents are best capable to decide what is best for their children. To this end this act shall be liberally construed. SECTION 3. There is allowed to resident individuals as a credit against the income taxes imposed by the State of Utah an amount paid to others, not to exceed 50 of the weighted pupil unit for the current school year for each dependent in kindergarten through grade six and 60 of the weighted pupil unit for the current school year for each dependent in grades seven through twelve, fortuiti textbooks, and transportation of the dependent in attendancet elementary or secondary school, other than a public school, Irt-Utah Irt-Utah and which allows the dependent to fulfill the state's compile school attendance law. As used in this section (1) "texttat includes books and other instructional material and equipment to teach only those subjects legally and commonly taught in pa-' elementary and secondary schools but does not include bools i instructional material and equipment used in teaching idif tenets, doctrine, or worship; and (2) "transportation" does ii include travel to extracurricular activities such as sporting musical or dramatic events, speech activities, driver's eduat' similar programs. A refund is allowed to the extent that the tac exceeds the income tax payable by an individual claimant to taxable year. SECTION 4. This act shall take effect at the beginning of the year following passage. Instructions to Voters In Beaver, Cache, Carbon, Davis, Salt lake, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Uintah, Ctah, Washington, and Webt Co.l. '.. FOR VOTING BALLOTS STEP 2 Be sure the two holes at the top of the card fit over the two r on the vote recorder. ., , v.. I-Plrrn hh go !T hrr -." to next HOW TO OBTAIN A BALLOT FOR VOTING 1. Give your name and address to an election judge. 2. If your name is on the official register, and your right to vote has not been challenged, the election judge will give you one or more ballots. NOTE: If an election judge has reason to doubt your identity, the judge is required to either, (a) request identification from you, or (b) - have a known registered voter of the district identify you. HOW TO VOTE YOUR BALLOT DO NOT vote a ballot that has been marked, spoiled, or defaced. Identification marks or a spoiled or defaced ballot will make your vote invalid. If you make a mistake, or if you have a spoiled or defaced ballot, return it to the judge, who will cancel it and issue you a new ballot. When you have received a ballot from the election judge, immediately go alone to one of the voting booths and vote your ballot as follows: STEP1 Using both hands, slide the ballot card all the way into the vote recorder. STEP 3 To vote, hold the punch straight up and push down through: in the box next to each of your choices. Follow the 'n5'0'-vote 'n5'0'-vote all pages as instructed. Use the punch provided. Do now or pencil. 'o ; wtK I. .r ' r j go STEP 4 (f. Voting for candidates of more than one party. Ifyou wanUo candidates from more than one party, you may do this byp ballot in the box next to the desired candidate's name Wig for candidates of one party. If you want to cast a "straight art)'" vote for all the candidates of one party, punch the box next to ;e desired party on the first page of the ballot. If you vote "straight B arty" you vote for each candidate of that party. If you have already d "straight party" and want to vote for a candidate of another ty, you can do that by punching the ballot next to the candidate's '. HEP5 -('voting, slide the card out of the vote recorder and place it under jj -Hp of the write-in envelope. -1.3 X'- . '"--JJ WRITE-IN VOTING You may also vote for a valid write-in candidate. You do this by either writing the office title and the name of the candidate on the write-in ballot envelope, or by placing a sticker with the candidate's name and office printed on it on the write-in envelope. When voting a write-in candidate, DO NOT punch a hole in the punch card ballot for the same position. NON-PARTISAN CANDIDATES Judicial, state school board, local school board, and similar offices are non-partisan contests. They are on the last pages of your ballot. The copy of the ballot attached to the vote recorder contains instructions telling how many persons should be voted for each office. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND INITIATIVES In case of a constitutional amendment or initiative submitted to a vote of the people, you punch the ballot by the answer you want to give. The amendment or initiative will be in the form of a question. Vote "FOR" if you want to answer "yes", and "AGAINST" if you want to answer "no." HOW TO GET HELP TO MARK YOUR BALLOT If you are blind, disabled, unable to read or write, unable to read or write the English language, or physically unable to enter a polling place, you may be helped by someone you choose. The person helping you cannot be your employer, an agent of your employer, or an officer or agent of your union. The person helping you cannot in any way request, persuade, or induce you to vote for or against any particular candidate or issues. STEP 6 Hu have voted the ballot and placed it in the write-in ballot , RETURN IT TO THE ELECTION JUDGE. Give your name. 7 will remove the stub from your ballot. Deposit the write-in """envelope, which contains the ballot card, in the ballot box. You enw finished voting. I Instructions to Voters AH Counties Except Beaver, Cache, Carbon, Davis, Salt Lake, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Uintah, Utah, Washington, and Weber " FOR VOTING BALLOTS . VOTING FOR CANDIDATES OF I MORE THAN ONE PARTY ; If you want to vote for candidates of more than one party, you ma;' ; mark in the squares by the names of the candidates for whom s ! want to vote without marking in any party's circle. You may also "straight party" by marking in the circle above one party's list, to 1 marking in the squares by the names of the candidates ofyourchoift ' of other parties. HOW TO OBTAIN A BALLOT FOR VOTING 1. Give your name and address to an election judge. 2. If your name is on the official register, and your right to vote has not been challenged, the election judge will give you one ormore ballots. NOTE: If an election judge has reason to doubt your identity, the judge is required to either, (a) request identification from you, or (b) have a known registered voter of the district identify you. HOW TO VOTE YOUR BALLOT DO NOT vote a ballot that has been marked, spoiled, or defaced. Identification marks or a spoiled or defaced ballot will make your vote invalid. If you make a mistake, or if you have a spoiled or defaced ballot, return it to the judge, who will cancel it and issue you a new ballot. When you have received a ballot from the election judge, immediately go alone to one of the voting booths and vote your ballot by marking it with an X as follows: VOTING FOR CANDIDATES OF ONE PARTY If you want to cast a "straight party" vote for all the candidates of one party, you may mark in the circle at the top of the list of that party's candidates, in the squares by the names of each candidate of that party, or in both the circle and the squares. j:"z I il! iE i'Jl jCT !s c vi' i' " I ft ' -'ii . v"" U " 1 J?-?fl',w (Kan. im si'-'" L.... '.' v ., 'nli -nr 3 NON-PARTISAN CANDIDATES Judicial, state school board, local school board, and similar offices are non-partisan contests. They are located in the extreme right-hand column on the ballot. Just above the voting squares are instructions telling how many persons should be voted for each office. ou vote "straight party" by marking the circle above a party's list, - may draw a line through the name of any candidate of that party id for whom you DO NOT want to vote. However, when an office is ed that requires more than one person to be elected, you must a line through all the names of the persons of that party ticket 1wn you do not want to vote (leaving only those for whom you a to vote). f ' 1 Nr.";- A' i nw Rf wt r& --":ir-: - ; . tr" .3 i . .t r , I ' r 'I - 'l AX 1 JLm ' " II .." - .' Hi rr .-'s X '- -J -5ai4t --s "'fin.... - '! , . K A i " i ;'.""" . ; t i iv.. I .3 WRITE-IN VOTING ay also vote for a valid write-in candidate. You do this by either fjting the name of the candidate on the ballot or by placing a sticker p h the candidate's name and office printed on it on the ballot. an write-in candidates should be listed or stuck in the correct "ce space of the blank write-in column. Non-partisan write-in "Jidates should be listed in the blank space for that non-partisan ' If you write in a name or put a sticker on the ballot, you have 7 ' that person, even if you do not make an X by the write-in Hit. "1 NONPARTISAN NONPARTISAN Vole One Vole One SiniQTiiic m punt mm Yes ii'i'iiiiiifi n nnnrngYes H be lelamed in the ollice o! i i be retained m Ihe ollice ol i i Justice ot Ihe Supreme Court frt I I Judge ol tfie Circuit Court Un 1 I 4 olUlih) l ol the Fifth Circuit' L-J For D,s.nct Judge 1! . Six Yeai Term. Ih.rd Distf.ct Vole for One Shj) mftjjUQ r t jOLunn0TriiiiiBwin m rn mmmm Yes U hnnimbent) 1 1 be letained in Ihe ollice ol i ma ii urn M "h"1""""" " L 1 I , 1 1 Vote One ..... Foi District Judge " ' Fom Tear letm, third District Vole 'or One gggfffgggg Y6S j0&M&tMto&tttMiG& I I rje retained in the ollice . . (inCUmbent) I 1 Judge ot the Circu.lCourl Nn I I ol the Filth Ctrcuil' t I A i"!" Yps rn shan I I mKKmmmmm 1 ca I I , fW I -J Judge 01 the Circuit Court IVl I I fi be retained m the otticeol I 0I Ihe F.tlh Circuit' 0 1 Judge ot the District Court ol (he IU I I Third Judicial District' nu I I Local School Board ' voiTone No,lh Summil School District Wo 1 Vole lor One ; ? S'llllltl-T Yps Q iinimii mtm I I be retained m the olltce ol i i I 1 ' .' Judge ol the District Court ot the N f I I """"'"' I I I hud Judicial District' L-J ' j ' Vote One I I ' -I s;;''.. i. --- S be retained m the ollice ol i i Judge ollhe District Court ot the Nn I I Third Judicial District' llU L-J 'i' Vote One !a' " t Zmmmmmmm Yes Q V- be reiameO m the othce ol l Judge ol the District Court ol the No I I thud Judicial District" L-J Vote One ' Shall r"-1 -i mmmmmmmm Yes J be retained in the ottice ol r 1 a Judge ol the District Court ot the N A I I Thud Judicial District l,u I J ' Vote One h- n Oe reiamed m me ollice ol i- I Judge ol the Distncl Court ollhe Nrt I I third Judicial Oislnct L J Vole One 09MMWtPHM9fl Y6S f I De retained in me olhce ol i i Judged the Oistnct Court ollhe Nfl I I Third Judical Oistnct I J Vote One Yes rje retained m ine ottice ol r I Judge ot the District Courl ol the N O I I Ih.rrj Jud.cai OMncl' 11 v I 1 ' Vote One iaiiirn r -i "T Yes Q ' judge ol me Oistncl Coun ol the N n I I H..0 luoii DM'tl' I 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND INITIATIVES In case of a constitutional amendment or initiative submitted to a vote of the people, you make an X in the square by the answer you want to give. The amendment or initiative will be in the form of a question. Vote "FOR" if you want to answer "yes", and "AGAINST" if you want to answer "no." i , ' - - I , HOW TO GET HELP TO MARK YOUR BALLOT If you are blind, disabled, unable to read or write, unable to reaJsi write the English language, or physically unable to enter a polling place, you may be helped by someone you choose. The person helpipg you cannot be your employer, an agent of your employer, oranotfa or agent of your union. The person helping you cannot in anyw request, persuade, or induce you to vote for or against any particular candidate or issues. I, W. Val Oveson, Lieutenant Governor of the State of -jt 1-v.p foreeoine measures will be Utah, do hereby certify that the toregoi g n? t-he State of Utah at the election to submitted to the voters of the btate o v, state on November 8, 1988, and the be held throughout the state hlPt is complete and correct according to law. foregoing pamphlet is com Witness my hand and the t0f?'o"T Great Seal of the State of IV'WW Utah, at Salt Lake City, Utah fat SS this 26th day of September, 181 W7 &WAM&tWl SS 1988. "V ' ""r- ' t" W. Val Oveson Vjf 8 9 Lieutenant Governor e Soon you will have the opportunity to make decisions which will likely have a tremendous impact, not only on your individual life, but on the future of our state and nation. NOVEMBER 8, 1988 IS ELECTION DAY However, in order for you to express your opinions at the ballot box, you must be registered to vote. I have listed below the simple ways of registering to vote . in Utah. I am very proud of Utah's tradition of being among the nation's leaders in voter , turnout each election year. I hope we can continue that tradition. Remember be informed, be registered, and be sure to vote on November 8. See you at the polls. Thank you, W. Val Oveson Lieutenant Governor HOW TO REGISTER TO VOTE If you will be 18 or older and will have been a resident of the State of Utah for 30 days preceding the election on November 8, 1 988, you may register to vote by one of the following methods. You may register with the registration agent of your election district between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on November 1, 2, and 3. You may register at the County Clerk's office in your county during regular working hours until October 18. You may register by mail at any time before October 18 by mailing in the Utah Election registration form. These forms may be obtained at any bank, post office, library, county clerk's office, or political party office. |