UCC Update on 2024 Utah Legislature: Issues Concerning Imbalance in Utah Governance.
UCC followed several specific issues of concern during the 2024 legislative session. We are providing updates on those we mentioned in our “Growing Concern About Imbalance in Utah Governance” distributed just prior to the beginning of the 2024 session. Click on the links below for the updates:
-
Description tAs expected, after Governor Cox’s budget recommendations proposed ending all new hiring in the state’s merit-protected career service, legislation to achieve this was introduced in the 2024 legislative session. HB 429 called for almost all new hires in the executive branch to be at-will employees (subject to being fired for any reason and without independent review), starting January 1, 2025. The only categories of employees exempted would have been law enforcement and those administering federal programs, such as Medicaid. Federal rules require traditional civil service protections for the latter.
Fortunately, in the view of UCC, the bill did not become law. UCC spoke against the bill before the House Government Operations Committee. The bill passed there by a vote of 5 (yes)-4(no)-4 (absent) The bill then passed the full House, despite all House members receiving UCC’s written rebuttal to the sponsors’ rationale in committee. However, 14 Republicans joined all the Democrats in opposing the bill. The Senate then sent the bill to its Business and Labor Committee, where UCC again spoke against the bill, joined by a big turnout of organized labor members. The bill failed 2-3-3, with one Republican joining the two Democrats on the committee. Failure in committee meant it was not voted on by the full Senate.
UCC cannot know, of course, if a similar bill will return for a third year in 2025, but we will watch and alert you if it does. We are gratified that there is bi-partisan opposition to weakening the professionalism of Utah’s public employees and making them more vulnerable to political pressures.ext goes here
-
UCC is happy to report that, at least for now, a proposed constitutional amendment to limit voters’ rights to pass statewide legislation by initiative failed to receive approval by the 2024 Legislature. House Joint Resolution 14 (HJR 14) and its implementing statute (HB 284) would have required 60% voter approval for any statewide initiative that included a new tax or tax rate increase. Such a super majority disrespected the people’s right to pass legislation by majority vote, as provided in Utah’s Constitution. It was intended to substitute rights of a minority of voters for rights of voter majorities by allowing 40% plus one of the voters to, in effect, overrule 60% minus one of the voters.
UCC testified against these measures in the House Government Operations Committee and joined in a coalition press conference against the measures. Others in the coalition included Better Boundaries, the League of Women Voters, and Let Utah Vote. Despite significant opposition from these groups and others, the House Committee and the full House supported the legislation. The measures also passed the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee, but the full Senate declined to vote on the measures, citing concern that there would be too many proposed constitutional amendments on the 2024 ballot, which would be confusing to voters.
If, as expected, these measures are reintroduced next year, lack of clarity and inconsistencies in the wording between the language of the proposed constitutional amendment and the implementing statute would be reason alone to oppose them. The issue is not dead, just postponed, so UCC will maintain its strong opposition.
The 2024 Legislature also slipped a substantive provision into a supposed election clean-up bill, Senate Bill (SB) 37, which could have serious implications if HJR 14 is revived in a future legislative session. It removes a requirement that voter information about proposed constitutional amendments contain an “impartial analysis” by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel that “fairly describes” the language of the amendment. Instead, the Senate President and House Speaker will prepare the analysis, without the need for impartiality or fair description, which obviously could result in an explanation that tips the scale toward passage of the amendment or any future amendment.
On a more helpful note, House Bill 79 passed both Houses and has become law. It provides the same mechanism for individuals with disabilities that is found in other Utah voting laws so that individuals who are unable to write their signature and other required information on an initiative or referendum petition are able to use an alternative method of having their information verified. The measure also eliminated the requirement for signature gatherers to certify that signers “understood” the petition they signed, recognizing that signature gatherers are not in a position to ascertain a signer’s understanding, i.e., read the minds of petition signers.
-
Housing and land use policy, which in recent years has seen increasing state encroachment on traditionally local authority, took a somewhat different tack in the 2024 legislative session. Changes were made to the requirements for moderate-income housing plans, other housing programs, and local land use policies and procedures, but these were successfully negotiated so that the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) supported passage of the two major bills—HB 465 and HB 476.
UCC had expressed concern about HB 13, which created Infrastructure Financing Districts that give developers access to the municipal bond market and allow them to “tax” future homeowners directly for infrastructure costs rather than waiting for local governments to create infrastructure like roads and sewers for a new housing development. This bill passed without opposition from ULCT. The bill was representative of the general approach to housing legislation this year–the creation of new financing mechanisms to incentivize more development of affordable housing rather than reducing municipalities’ ability to impose fees and zoning standards. Two bills, SB 168 and SB 268, authorize cities to create “Home Ownership Promotion Zones” and “First Home Investment Zones,” respectively. These allow, but do not require, cities to use their increased property tax revenue that comes from successful development to incentivize the building of more affordable homes.
The bills that perhaps most concerned local governments were HB 502 and SB 172. Both would have facilitated a massive expansion of gravel mining, especially in Parley’s Canyon, increasing air pollution and using a great deal of scarce water. The Salt Lake County Council had unanimously tried to circumvent the expansion through its zoning ordinances, but the state legislation would have overridden this. By the end of the session, with serious opposition to the bills, SB 172 had stalled, and HB 502 was rewritten to require a study of the need for gravel and other building materials. This study must be finished by November 1, 2024, in time to inform possible new legislation in the 2025 session. UCC will be keeping a close watch on this study and its results.
Another bill that seriously encroaches on local governmental authority—in this case school districts—is HB 29, Sensitive Material Review Amendments. This bill passed both chambers and goes into effect July 1, 2024. If three school districts statewide or two school districts and five charter schools decide to ban a given book from their school libraries, that decision will be imposed on every district, unless the State Board of Education overturns statewide application of the removal requirement. Individual districts had already generated their own community-based procedures for reviewing challenged books, and HB 29 effectively canceled those local procedures under the conditions specified above.
As UCC wrote in its report on Growing Imbalance of Power in Utah Governance, the balance between state and local authority bears constant watching by the public. We continue to monitor this area.
-
Last year, the 2023 Legislature significantly eroded the roles of the state judiciary and the Utah State Bar, and again this year the 2024 Legislature encroached on the judiciary’s role. It passed what is often referred to as a “judge shopping” bill. In House Joint Resolution 8 (HJR8), the litigants (plaintiffs and defendants) in a civil suit in larger Utah counties are allowed to disqualify a randomly assigned judge for no stated reason (“without cause”) and have a different judge assigned to the case. Previously, the standard for disqualification had been for “good cause,” namely a motion and evidence of a conflict of interest, demonstrable bias, or other good cause for a judge’s recusal.
Under the Utah Constitution, amending a rule of civil procedure like the above requires passage by 2/3 of all members of both houses of the Legislature. After the bill’s passage in the full House, UCC testified against it in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The vote was 3-2 in favor, with one absent member. A tie vote would have killed the bill. Subsequently, the Senate passed it by a 2/3 majority, and it was signed by the Governor. Undermining our independent judiciary this way serves no good purpose.
UCC is concerned about HB 344 (Judicial Rules Review Amendments), which disbanded the Legislature’s Judicial Rules Review Committee and combined its role with that of the Administrative Rules Review Committee. The latter committee had been active in reviewing agency rules in recent years while the Judicial Rules Committee had been inactive, so the legislative sponsor argued for merging the two Committees. The Administrative Rules Committee’s role to review, evaluate, and make recommendations about existing or proposed agency rules now has been expanded to include court rules, although it cannot examine internal judicial policies, procedures, and practices. Nonetheless, the merged Committee (renamed the Rules Review and General Oversight Committee) appears able to insert itself into the work of the judicial branch far more than before. The impact is uncertain, but UCC will be watching.
SB 200 (Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission Amendments) shrank the membership of the Commission from 26 to 17 members by removing the Chief Justice of Utah’s Supreme Court or designee, the Utah State Bar designees from the criminal defense and juvenile defense bar, the head of the Salt Lake Legal Defenders, the Salt Lake County District Attorney, the citizen representative, mental health and civil rights designees, and others, leaving the commission weighted more heavily toward state department/agency directors, corrections officials, and police and sheriffs’ associations.
Finally, a note of interest: In 2023, the Legislature eliminated the need for bipartisan representation on judicial nominating commissions. (Also eliminated were the Utah Chief Justice, representatives of the judiciary, and attorneys nominated by the Utah State Bar.) Now, the first group of judicial nominees under the reconfigured commission were nominated to fill 2 vacancies on the Third District Court in Salt Lake County. Of the six names sent to the Governor to fill two vacancies, five were prosecutors and one was a criminal defense attorney. The Governor appointed two of the prosecutors, who are now subject to Senate confirmation.
-
UCC continues to oppose the 2023 proposed constitutional amendment that would remove the income-tax earmark for public and higher education and some social services. The Utah Education Association (UEA) also is opposing the amendment, which will be on the 2024 general election ballot for voter approval.
The State argues that it needs the flexibility to allocate funds without the limitations of the earmark. If it needs more freedom with respect to spending income tax revenues, one wonders why it keeps cutting the income tax rate (and in a way that continues to benefit wealthy Utahns). The 2024 Legislature reduced the rate to 4.55% from the previous rate of 4.65%, which was an earlier cut from Utah’s 5% flat rate. Also, why doesn’t the Legislature remove other budget earmarks as well?
Although the Utah Legislature has been enticing UEA to support the amendment—by providing substantial increases the last few years that incorporate inflation and growth in student populations—it has also created financial incentives for alternatives to public education, creating suspicion about its long-term support for public education. It doubled the amount of money (now over $82 Million) from income tax revenues that can be tapped by parents to offset the costs of educating their children in home schools and private schools, including religious schools. Over 10,000 children can now receive an $8000 annual scholarship (voucher) to help cover tuition and extracurricular expenses. This diversion of support away from public education undervalues priority needs such as class size reductions, more teacher salary increases, expanded programs for at-risk and preschool students, and more nurses and mental health counselors.
The Legislature has taken steps to enhance its ability to persuade the public to vote for the amendment. One is passage of a law that will remove the state portion of the sales tax on food (1.75% of the 3% total tax) but only if the voters approve the proposed amendment. Some would call this incentive close to holding voters hostage.
Voter understanding of proposed constitutional amendments will be significantly harmed by removal of the requirement for an “impartial analysis” by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel that “fairly describes” the language of the amendment. Instead, under SB37, the Senate President and House Speaker will now write an explanation of the amendment without a requirement for impartiality. This shift occurred on the final day of the 2024 session in what was supposedly a clean-up bill.
We also note a number of newly enacted laws that are controlling public schools in ways that encroach on the traditional authority of local school districts and the state board of education. We will be providing a longer brief in the future documenting these encroachments and providing further reasons to retain the income-tax earmark.
If you missed seeing our earlier document on “Growing Concern About Imbalance in Utah Governance” and would like to read it, here is a link to that document and its accompanying briefs.