Latest news with #AmendmentG
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge finds ‘Utah Fits All' scholarship unconstitutional, legislature to review options
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — Utah's Third District Court has found the 'Utah Fits All' scholarship program to be unconstitutional, in a ruling from the court earlier today. The suit, brought by the Utah Education Association, originally claimed that the scholarship program was unconstitutional because the program used funds from Utah's income tax, which is earmarked exclusively for public education funding. It further claimed that the Utah Constitution guarantees that all children will be included in public education, and that the school voucher program did not do this. PREVIOUS: UEA files lawsuit against controversial school voucher program, claims it's unconstitutional The court agreed with both points, saying, 'The legislature does not have plenary authority to circumvent these constitutional requirements by simply declining to 'designate' the program as part of the public education system. And because there is no genuine dispute that the program fails to meet these 'open to all children' and 'free' requirements, it is unconstitutional under article X of the Utah Constitutional.' 'In reaching this conclusion, the court makes no judgement as to the value of 'school choice' or private school vouchers,' The ruling continues. 'But 'school choice' or vouchers for children without disabilities was never discuss, much less debated, in connection with the legislatures passage of Amendment G. And, more importantly, the voters were never informed that Amendment G was about 'school choice' or vouchers for children without disabilities.' In a statement to UEA Communications Director Hailey Higgins said, 'The Utah Education Association celebrates today's court ruling deeming the Utah Fits All voucher program unconstitutional. This is a significant victory for public education and a reaffirmation that public money belongs in public schools.' Rep. Candice Pierucci (R-South Jordan), the original sponsor of the Utah Fits All program, called the decision made by Judge Laura S. Scott 'judicial activism,' and says she is not done fighting. 'This past year, thousands of families have had access to the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program to customize their child's learning experience,' Pierucci's statement reads. 'The decision made by Judge Scott is judicial activism; it is not the job of judiciary to set policy on the bench and infuse personal opinion and ideology into their decisions. We are not done fighting this fight and will appeal this decision to the Utah Supreme Court.' Utah legislative leadership and Governor began to weigh in after the ruling was rendered. Senate President J. Stuart Adams saying in a statement, 'It is disappointing that the court would remove parents' ability to choose the best educational path for their children. However, we remain unwavering in our commitment to providing the best education for all Utah families and kids. We will carefully review the court's decision and then determine the next steps.' Speaker Mike Schultz shared similar sentiments calling the decision a 'devastating setback' for Utahns. 'This decision is a devastating setback for Utah families,' Schultz began. 'The Utah Fits All Scholarship isn't just about choice; it's about empowering parents to secure the best possible learning environments for their children's future success. We're unwavering in our commitment to ensuring that every Utah student, irrespective of zip code or income, has equal access to the educational opportunities they rightfully deserve. We will vigorously pursue every avenue, including the Utah Supreme Court, to overturn this decision and restore hope for Utah's students and families.' In a statement on X, formerly known as Twitter, Governor Cox expressed disappointment in the decision, saying that Utah Families had a right to make choices about their children's education, and said they will be reviewing ruling with legal staff. 'While we are disappointed in the court's decision, our commitment to Utah families and their right to make choices about their children's education remains unchanged,' Cox said. 'We will be reviewing the ruling without attorneys and preparing to appeal.' At this time, details are limited on what an appeal would look like. A status conference is scheduled for the decision on April 23. It is also currently unknown how the decision will affect ongoing voucher payments to current recipients. This is a developing story. ABC4 will update this post as new information becomes available. Judge finds 'Utah Fits All' scholarship unconstitutional, legislature to review options Appeals court halts Boasberg's contempt proceedings against Trump administration Meet 'Safety Stache': UFA shares fire safety messages with a touch of humor Clearer skies arriving this weekend Utahn recalls largest Good Friday earthquake, the largest in U.S. history Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Amid complaints about big-money ballot measures, new reports show $12 million spent in 2024
A Sioux Falls resident votes in the general election on Nov. 5, 2024, at St. Lambert's Catholic Church. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) As some lawmakers complain about the amount of money influencing ballot measures in South Dakota, new numbers indicate that 2024's ballot question campaigns were among the most expensive in state history. Ballot question committees recently filed their year-end campaign finance reports. Those and earlier reports show the total amount spent to support and oppose the seven measures in last fall's election was about $12 million. There are no limits on contributions to ballot question committees. South Dakota's campaign finance system makes compiling and comparing campaign finance data difficult. Rather than entering information directly into a centralized system, candidates, committees and independent spenders submit scanned forms to the South Dakota Secretary of State's Office that essentially have to be viewed one-by-one, which is what South Dakota Searchlight did to compile its analysis. Only the state's 2006 and 2016 elections had more expensive ballot question campaigns, reaching nearly $13 million each of those years, according to historical data maintained by the national nonprofit Open Secrets. Republican legislators cited last year's spending as part of their motivation to file bills this year that would tighten restrictions on citizen-initiated ballot measures. One major bill that passed will move the deadline for submitting petition signatures from May to February, shortening the petition-gathering window by three months. Gov. Larry Rhoden vetoed a bill that would require constitutional amendment petitions to have signatures from registered voters in every state Senate district, and legislators will consider that veto on Monday. Legislators put a measure on the 2026 ballot that will ask voters to raise the approval threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60%. Governor vetoes effort to restrict constitutional amendment process with geographic rule Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, sponsor of the 60% proposal, said during the legislative session that last year's ballot measures resulted in 'millions of dollars in out-of-state money coming for deceptive, emotionally charged ads stating half-truths.' Open Secrets reports that about 70% of the money contributed to last year's South Dakota ballot measures came from South Dakota residents. Last year's most expensive ballot measure campaign in the state appears to have been Amendment G, an abortion-rights measure that voters rejected. It's difficult to determine exactly how much was spent in the Amendment G campaign, because the main group supporting the amendment, Dakotans for Health, also supported another unsuccessful ballot question that would have repealed sales taxes on groceries. Dakotans for Health spent a combined $1.32 million on those campaigns and did not separate expenses in its reports. Opponents spent $2.74 million against the abortion-rights measure. The grocery tax measure was Initiated Measure 28. Besides the amount spent to support it by Dakotans for Health, groups spent about $240,000 against it. Another big-dollar campaign was Referred Law 21, a set of carbon dioxide pipeline regulations that voters rejected. Spending totaled $3.15 million, with $2.87 million by supporters and $275,000 by opponents. The majority of funds in support of the measure came from ethanol producers hoping to build a multi-state pipeline to capture and sequester carbon emitted by their production plants. An unsuccessful effort to legalize recreational marijuana use, Initiated Measure 29, was nearly a $2 million campaign with $1.4 million in spending by supporters and about $468,000 by opponents. Constitutional Amendment F, which legislators sent to the ballot and voters approved, authorized the state to consider imposing work requirements on people eligible for expanded Medicaid benefits. All $587,000 of spending on the amendment was by the no side. Amendment H, which would have established open primary elections but was rejected by voters, was a $1.95 million campaign with most of that amount spent by supporters. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
09-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SD Democratic lawmakers forgo abortion exception legislation as ballot measure brews
Nancy Turbak Berry participates in an election forum at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell on Sept. 19, 2024. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight) South Dakota Democratic lawmakers say they're not proposing abortion-ban exceptions during this year's legislative session due to a lack of necessary support from Republicans, but a Democratic former lawmaker hopes to put an abortion measure on the ballot again next year. 'I just don't think there is an appetite for any pro-abortion or pro-women's rights bills, unfortunately,' said House Minority Leader Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls. 'I think that's really unfortunate, because we do know that the language needs to be cleaned up, but the reality is that kind of bill would not pass in this body.' South Dakota law allows abortions only when necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The law does not define a life-threatening condition, although the state Department of Health made a Legislature-mandated video last year attempting to clarify it. Abortion-rights measure loses in South Dakota The ban is a trigger law passed in 2005 that went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Opponents of the ban tried to restore abortion rights with a ballot question in November, but 59% of voters rejected it. In some advertisements leading up to the election, anti-abortion groups said South Dakota's laws may need to be changed — a possible reference to the lack of exceptions for a mother's health and for instances of rape and incest — but said Amendment G was 'too extreme.' Dakotans for Health was the group that supported Amendment G. Chairman Rick Weiland issued a statement after the election calling attention to the exception allusions in the anti-Amendment G advertisements, and calling on anti-abortion lawmakers to introduce exception legislation. 'This is no small task, but it's one they've committed to,' Weiland said. 'Now, it's their responsibility to keep it.' But no such legislation has been forthcoming in the Legislature, where there are 96 Republicans and nine Democrats. Nancy Turbak Berry is an attorney and Democratic former legislator from Watertown who campaigned for the 2024 ballot question. She and Erinn Williams, of Sioux Falls, who also campaigned for last year's ballot question, are in the early stages of organizing a ballot measure campaign for 2026. 'The Legislature refuses to do anything about it — even those Republican legislators who are pro-choice, but refuse to admit that they are,' Turbak Berry said. Republican lawmakers see support or opposition from anti-abortion activists as making or breaking their primary campaigns, she added. The language of the 2026 ballot measure is still in the works, Turbak Berry said, but the goal is to create some level of access to abortion. She said the coalition is looking at measures passed in other conservative states. The deadline for submitting signed petitions to place a constitutional amendment or initiated law on the ballot is May 5, 2026. Constitutional amendment petitions needs signatures from 35,017 registered South Dakota voters, and initiated measures need 17,508. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
