Constitutional Amendment A

Supporters argue that the current newspaper publication requirement is outdated and no longer reflects how Utahns receive information. Rep. Anthony Loubet has stated that while newspapers were once a reliable method of communication, they are no longer the primary source of public notices for most residents. Supporters believe that allowing publication “in a manner provided by statute” enables the Legislature to adopt modern, digital methods that reach more people and ensure consistent statewide access.

Supporters believe that publishing amendments as Class A Notices on the Utah Public Notice Website and the Legislature’s website will increase accessibility. They argue that digital publication allows voters to easily access amendment text, track changes, and review supporting materials. Supporters say this approach provides more transparency than newspaper publication, which may be limited in space and reach.

By placing publication requirements in statute rather than the Constitution, supporters argue that the Legislature can update publication methods as technology evolves. They believe this flexibility is important for ensuring that public notices remain accessible and effective. Supporters say that requiring constitutional amendments to be published in a specific medium—such as newspapers—limits the state’s ability to adapt to changing communication practices.

Under current rules, publishing a single ballot measure in a newspaper in every Utah county carries an estimated price tag of about $1.4 million, and SB73 (2025) extends that same requirement to citizen ballot initiatives. Amendment A swaps the print mandate for 60 days of publication on the Utah Public Notice Website and the Lieutenant Governor’s website, sparing taxpayers that expense for legislative amendments and keeping a seven-figure newspaper bill from landing on grassroots initiative sponsors. Voters still get notice, and the people’s power to legislate doesn’t get priced out of reach.

Opponents argue that the current newspaper publication requirement is a constitutional safeguard that ensures proposed amendments are publicized in every county. Removing this requirement and replacing it with a statutory standard could reduce transparency by allowing the Legislature to determine how amendments are published. For example, the statute that would replace the newspaper requirement would only require publication on certain obscure government websites that the public rarely visit. Opponents contend that constitutional publication requirements should remain in the Constitution, not be delegated to statute.

Opponents argue that newspaper publication provides local, geographically distributed notice that reaches residents who may not regularly access online platforms. They contend that relying solely on digital publication could reduce visibility for rural communities, older residents, or individuals without reliable internet access. Opponents believe that constitutional amendments should be publicized in ways that reach all Utahns, not just those who use online public notice systems.

Opponents argue that the amendment gives the Legislature complete authority to determine how constitutional amendments are published. Because publication methods would be set by statute, future lawmakers could change them without voter approval. Opponents worry that this could lead to less prominent or less accessible publication methods, reducing public awareness of proposed constitutional changes.