selectiveecho

My best effort to solve for duck: Amendment B is straightforward: citizen initiatives that increase taxes relative to current law should need 60% support instead of a bare majority. The sponsors (including Sen. Fillmore) have been consistent about this purpose. Clause (D) exists specifically to stop an initiative from freezing or otherwise preventing the automatic rate reduction that occurs under Truth-in-Taxation when property values rise; i.e., from locking in higher revenue than current law would produce. That is a tax increase, and it properly triggers the higher threshold. There is no “poison pill” that blocks actual tax reductions. Any initiative that lowers total revenue collected still passes with a simple majority. Rate-cap or revenue-limit proposals that do not increase collections relative to the certified-rate glide path are likewise unaffected. The homestead exemption is already constitutionally capped at 45% and cannot be raised by citizen initiative in any case; even if it could, shifting more of the burden onto businesses (who pass the cost through in higher prices) reduces transparency rather than solving the problem. Claims that this is a developer-lobbyist conspiracy lack supporting evidence. No campaign finance filings or lobbying disclosures show homebuilder or developer interests as the primary drivers. Groups such as the Utah Taxpayers Association and fiscal conservatives concerned about tax increases are the ones publicly backing it. The Legislature has also passed multiple taxpayer-protection measures in recent sessions, so the assertion that relief bills fail “nearly every single time” is incomplete. Legislators remain accountable to voters and can still cut, reform, or restructure property taxes by simple majority at any time. Voters who disagree with that record can replace them at the next election. Voters themselves face no equivalent accountability for the long-term effects of an initiative. Utah already applies a higher threshold (two-thirds) to certain wildlife initiatives without controversy; a 60% bar for statewide tax increases is a reasonable parallel, even if some of us would have preferred two-thirds. Comparisons to Prop 13, TABOR, and similar measures in other states do not show that Amendment B uniquely blocks needed reform. California-style constitutional changes must first clear a legislative supermajority before reaching voters. Colorado-style revenue limits would not be treated as tax increases under this amendment and could still pass at 50%. Several of the states Pierce cites adopted their limits under Republican control and are now under Democratic majorities; it is an open question whether the same measures would pass there today. The official ballot title accurately describes the measure: citizen-proposed laws that increase taxes compared to existing law need 60%. The technical reading that turns every structural adjustment into a forbidden “poison pill” is not what the text or the title says. Tax increases should require broader support than 50.1%. The Legislature retains full ability to cut or reform taxes. Clause (D) simply prevents initiatives from locking in higher revenue than current law would produce. That is the point, not a conspiracy.