This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
It's a one word change: from "require" to "use."
But, said Amanda Smith, president of the political action committee that lobbied for that change and other changes to Utah's Voter Guide, "one word can make a difference" between a "Yes" or "No" vote in November.
Utah's Elections Office has completed the arduous task of compiling, word-by-painstaking-word, the 2004 voter guide - a nonpartisan informational packet about candidates, citizen initiatives and constitutional amendments on the general election ballot.
The guide went to press Friday and will be available Tuesday on-line at: http://www.elections.utah.gov. Paper copies will be distributed in early October inside newspapers statewide. They can also be picked up at public libraries and other government buildings.
The 78-page pamphlet contains candidate photos and platform statements, "impartial" analyses of initiatives and constitutional amendments, performance evaluations of judges, a voter registration form and other information.
And while this year's guide hasn't generated the sort of controversy seen in past election cycles, it has generated a lot of public interest, said Amy Naccaratto, state elections director.
"People aren't calling about the candidates," said Naccaratto. It's the open-space initiative and proposed amendment to Utah's Constitution meant to ban gay marriage that have captured voter interest.
Enter Amanda Smith and the significance of "require" versus "use."
President of Utahns for Clean Water, Clean Air and Quality Growth - the group that worked to get the open-space initiative on the ballot - Smith succeeded in getting legislative researchers to make last-minute changes to the initiative's "ballot title."
The word "title" is a bit misleading, considering the description (which is all that will appear on the ballot) is nine sentences long.
Nevertheless, Smith said tweaks are aimed at giving voters the skinny on "exactly" what sort of open-space projects are at issue.
"Aside from advertising and political coverage in the news, the first time many voters will learn about this is through the ballot title," said Smith. "You'd like to think that everybody reads the entire pamphlet. But people are busy."
Indeed, Smith's verbiage makes clear that the proposed $150 million bond to purchase open space will also fund projects to protect drinking water, air quality, wildlife habitat, family farms and ranches and historic and cultural landmarks throughout the state.
The bond would be paid off over 13 years with a sales tax increase of 1/20th of 1 cent.
But rather than "require most or all of the bond proceeds to be used for conservation projects," the title now reads, "use bond proceeds" for conservation, cultural and community projects.
When asked whether the new language is aimed at currying favor with a broader cross-section of the public than outdoor enthusiasts and environmentalists, Smith said, "The second draft is simply more descriptive."