Tiny | B

Utah Amendment B debates are overwhelming my timeline and I’m getting sick of it. So I am going to try to help out while trying to be completely nonpartisan on this. UTAH AMENDMENT B: THE PROS AND CONS There are legitimate arguments on both sides. WHAT IT DOES: Amendment B would require a 60% supermajority instead of a simple majority for citizen-led ballot initiatives that increase taxes or prevent certain property tax reductions. In other words, getting 50% + 1 of the vote would no longer be enough for these particular initiatives to pass. WHY SOME PEOPLE SUPPORT IT: • It provides an additional safeguard against tax increases being approved by a narrow majority. • It requires broader public support before citizens can vote to impose additional taxes. • It could make it more difficult for outside organizations and special interests to push tax increases through with relatively slim voter support. • Supporters argue that tax increases should require a stronger consensus because they affect everyone. WHY SOME PEOPLE OPPOSE IT: • It creates two different standards: citizens would need 60% approval for certain tax increases, while the Legislature could still approve tax increases with a simple majority. • It makes citizen-led ballot initiatives more difficult to pass, even when a majority of Utah voters support them. • It potentially weakens one of the most important tools voters have to hold their elected officials accountable. • It could prevent initiatives supported by a clear majority from becoming law simply because they don’t reach that 60% threshold. HERE’S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF HISTORY: Utah voters approved Medicaid expansion through Proposition 3 in 2018 with approximately 53.3% support. The medical marijuana initiative also passed that year with approximately 52.7%. Under a 60% requirement, neither would have passed. That doesn’t automatically mean Amendment B is good or bad, but it does demonstrate how significantly the threshold could change the outcome of future ballot initiatives. SO WHAT’S THE REAL DEBATE? This isn’t simply a question of whether you support lower taxes. It’s a question of whether protecting taxpayers from narrowly approved tax increases justifies placing a higher voting threshold on citizens than the one required of their elected representatives. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. Personally, I think people should understand the constitutional implications before voting based solely on a campaign slogan or party affiliation. Read the amendment. Understand what it changes. Then decide whether the additional protection is worth the potential loss of direct voter influence. An informed vote is always better than a reactionary one.