Are Utah Board of Education members employees for constitutional purposes? Richards v. Cox Explained

In Richards v. Cox, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether partisan elections for State Board of Education members violate Article X, section 8 of the Utah Constitution, which prohibits partisan tests as conditions of employment in the state’s education systems.

Background and Facts

The 2016 legislature enacted Senate Bill 78, making State Board of Education positions partisan offices requiring candidates to participate in partisan elections. Dr. A. LeGrand Richards and other appellees challenged this law, arguing it violated Article X, section 8’s prohibition on “religious or partisan test or qualification” as conditions of “employment” in the state’s education systems. The district court agreed, finding partisan elections constitute partisan tests and that Board members hold employment within the state’s education systems.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two constitutional interpretation questions: (1) whether Board members enjoy “employment” in the state’s education systems under Article X, section 8, and (2) whether partisan elections constitute “partisan tests or qualifications” prohibited by that provision. The court focused on the first question as dispositive.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Using corpus linguistics analysis and examining historical usage, the Utah Supreme Court determined that “employment in” requires a formal legal relationship between worker and employer, not mere service provision. The court analyzed the phrase “employment in” using contemporary language databases, finding it almost exclusively referred to formal job relationships rather than broader service arrangements. Applying common law employment tests focusing on control and economic dependence, the court concluded Board members lack the traditional employer-employee relationship characteristics within the state’s education systems.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates the Utah Supreme Court’s willingness to employ corpus linguistics as a tool for constitutional interpretation, examining real-world usage patterns to determine ordinary meaning. Practitioners challenging election laws should carefully analyze the employment status of targeted officials rather than assuming compensated service equals constitutional employment. The court’s analysis reinforces that governance roles, even when compensated, may not constitute employment relationships for constitutional purposes when officials lack traditional employee characteristics like direct supervision and control within the relevant systems.