SALT LAKE CITY — Votes will still count for two of the four proposed amendments to the Utah Constitution that are on the general election ballot. But unlike amendments A and D that were both voided after separate court challenges, voters haven’t been hearing much about amendments B and C.
Instead, the focus has been on the pair of now-rejected amendments, Amendment D, which would have given lawmakers the express power to immediately change or repeal voter-approved initiatives, and Amendment A, which would have ended the earmark on state income taxes for public schools, higher education and some social services needs.
Plus, no opposition has surfaced publicly to amendments B or C. That includes from lawmakers, who unanimously approved both proposed constitutional changes during the 2023 Legislature. However, the Alliance for a Better Utah had enough questions about Amendment C that the progressive organization briefly considered going to court to try to stop it.
What are amendments B and C on the Utah ballot?
Here’s the ballot language for amendments B and C, along with an explanation:
- Amendment B: Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to increase the limit on the annual distributions from the State School Fund to public schools from 4% to 5% of the fund? The amendment seeks to raise the cap on annual distributions made through a formula from the Permanent State School Fund. The fund established at statehood uses revenues from trust lands to support public schools and has grown from $50 million three decades ago to more than $3.3 billion.
- Amendment C: Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to have the office of county sheriff be elected by voters? Utah’s county sheriffs have been elected since before statehood, so nothing would change whether the amendment passes or fails. But the sponsor of the resolution putting the proposal on the ballot, then-House Speaker Brad Wilson, a Republican from Kaysville, told lawmakers last year it “does send a strong signal and reflects the importance” of the sheriff’s role.
Amendment C, sponsored in the state Senate by Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, had the backing of both Republican and Democratic county sheriffs as well as the Utah Eagle Forum during last year’s legislative hearings. Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka said at one hearing she thought there would be “a whole bunch of people to speak for this.”
Another Amendment C supporter is a former Arizona sheriff, Richard Mack, who heads the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officers Association. The association has been criticized by the Anti Defamation League and others for promoting the false claim that a county sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement authority who can choose not to enforce laws.
In April, NBC News covered a meeting of the association in Las Vegas, saying it wants sheriffs “to form posses to patrol polling places, seize voting machines and investigate the Democrats and foreign nations behind what they claim is a criminal effort to rig the vote by flooding the country with immigrants who vote illegally.”
Mack told the Deseret News the association backs the amendment to the Utah Constitution as a needed protection.
“We’re absolutely for that and sure hope it passes,” he said. Mack said right now, the association “is pushing for two things.” One is Phil Lyman’s write-in campaign for Utah governor, launched after Lyman lost the GOP nomination to Gov. Spencer Cox and failed in an attempt to have a court remove Cox from office.
The other effort underway by the association, Mack said, is an attempt to get every sheriff, attorney general and governor in the U.S. to “start investigating federal employees, this administration, for aiding and abetting illegal immigration. Those are crimes, and bringing those people in, bringing illegal immigrants in intentionally, is borderline treason.”
He described a “constitutional sheriff” as “a sheriff that keeps his oath of office and protects the people from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It’s his job to ensure that they’re safe and that their rights are not violated.” A sheriff reports only to the people, Mack said, adding, “That’s his only boss, and that’s the way it should be.”
Electing rather than appointing a sheriff “strengthens the power of the people to make sure he stays accountable to them,” he said, and putting that in the Utah Constitution “creates a barrier between bureaucrats and other politicians controlling the sheriff. That’s the big issue here, and if you guarantee the people stay in charge, that’s what this constitutional amendment does.”
Ruzicka said she’s not aware of any connection between the constitutional sheriff’s association and the amendment.
“Most Republicans, most conservatives, support that idea of electing our sheriffs. It really is a constitutional issue. But as far as that group is concerned, I have no idea of any connection there at all. I think they’d have been there testifying if there was,” the Utah Eagle Forum leader said. “I don’t know that they saw a need. It was supported by most everybody there.”
She said the Eagle Forum nationally supports electing sheriffs.
“We believe in states’ rights,” Ruzicka said. “We don’t think that the federal government has a right to come into our state and exert power” that’s not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. She said “putting this in the (Utah) Constitution was just a good idea that the legislators supported so that it will always be that way.”
Jeff Merchant, executive director of the Alliance for a Better Utah, said his organization looked for ties between the amendment and the constitutional sheriffs movement and, at one point, even weighed filing a lawsuit to try to keep it off the ballot. But Merchant said Better Utah ended up dropping the idea of legal action.
“We don’t see it as overtly harmful,” he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s anything wrong with having all the sheriffs elected. But why did the Legislature feel like it needed to make sure all of the county sheriffs are elected? They already are. There doesn’t seem to be any inherent danger of that not happening.”
Merchant said Better Utah believes “unless there’s an absolute need to change the constitution, that you don’t change the constitution.” He said he still doesn’t “have a full understanding as to what the deep meaning and purpose of this amendment is. But on face value, it also doesn’t seem to be inherently detrimental to the state.”
What about Amendment B?
Amendment B is a different story.
The biggest issue being brought up about Amendment B is that it could fail to pass because of voter confusion. Because of the timing of the court rulings, all four amendments remain on the ballot, but votes cast for the voided amendments A and D won’t count.
Amber Bonner, the Utah PTA’s education commissioner, said she’s hearing concerns that some voters who opposed Amendment A could end up voting against Amendment B, without realizing that raising the spending cap from the state fund “is really good for schools and doesn’t cost the taxpayers anything.”
The Utah PTA was part of the coalition behind the Utah Education Association-led Utahns for Student Success, a political issues committee that received nearly $400,000 from the nation’s largest teachers union that helped fund commercials opposing Amendment A on Utah TV, cable and streaming channels.
It was the UEA that filed the court challenge to Amendment A. Like Amendment D, the court voided Amendment A because it was not properly noticed to voters as required by the state constitution. Amendments B and C were also apparently not properly noticed, but that was not challenged and so not affected by the rulings.
