This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Another reason why these vote-by-mail elections are such a good idea is that, when voters have a chance to consider the whole ballot at their leisure, the sudden appearance of a surprise question isn't so much of a problem. People have a chance to research and reflect.

Such is the case in Utah this year, as voters will be confronted with three proposed amendments to the state Constitution.

No. We didn't know about them, either. But detailed information is available in the 2016 Voter Information Pamphlet, to be found at vote.utah.gov.

All three of the questions were placed on the ballot by an act of the Legislature, meaning a majority of both houses thought the changes were a good idea. The argument here is that they were right two out of three times.

Constitutional Amendment A — Yes

This one makes a very minor change to a symbolically important part of the Constitution: The oath people take when they become state officials.

Now, incoming or returning office-holders pledge to "support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State." If Amendment A is approved, that will change to "support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah."

It's a step to clean up the language of the oath and the Constitution that deserves to be approved. If for no other reason than that reading the question might serve to remind some of our elected officials that their promise includes loyalty to the federal Constitution as well as our state's.

Constitutional Amendment B — Yes

This one is intended to keep the State School Fund, which is so important that it is laid out in the Utah Constitution, up with the times.

Today, the fund is directed to turn over to local schools a portion of proceeds of the "interest and dividends" it receives each year. But, like most investors, the fund receives income that isn't interest or dividends. The most obvious other income stream is the profit it makes when it sells a stock for more money than it paid for it.

The amendment would also set a limit on the portion of the fund that can be distributed in any one year. Not that there is much worry that it would ever give it all away at once, but there is no constitutional provision to prohibit that.

The proposal would cap the distributions at no more than 4 percent of the fund's balance. It also says the fund should be managed "prudently," instead of the current command that it be managed "safely." Some fear that "safely" could be interpreted to mean "without risk," which doesn't exist in the real world of investments.

The proposal passed both houses of the Legislature overwhelmingly and has the support of advocates for public and charter schools. It should be approved.

Constitutional Amendment C — No

This proposal would allow the Legislature to, by statute, exempt from property taxes certain kinds of property that is owned by private businesses and leased to public jurisdictions such as cities, counties and school districts. The exemption would apply to such things as vehicles and office equipment and furniture, not buildings or real estate.

While the impact on local budgets and overall tax burdens would be slight, there seems little need to further clutter up the tax laws — and the Constitution — with yet another special-interest exemption.

The theory of the idea's proponents, that businesses automatically pass along the taxes they pay to their customers, in this case the taxpayers, is based on the assumption that no business would elect to absorb those costs as a way of offering their customers a more competitive price.

This idea deserves to be rejected by the voters.