Richards v. Cox, 450 P.3d 1074

In 2016 Utah enacted SB 78, designating State Board of Education seats as partisan and requiring candidates to follow the general partisan-election process.
Appellees (Dr. A. LeGrand Richards et al.) sued, arguing SB 78 violates Utah Const. art. X, § 8, which forbids any "religious or partisan test or qualification" as a condition of "employment, admission, or attendance in the state’s education systems."
The district court enjoined SB 78, concluding Board members hold "employment in" the state’s education systems and partisan election is a partisan test; the State appealed.
The Utah Supreme Court analyzed whether Board members are "employed in" the state’s education systems (it assumed, arguendo, the Board is part of those systems) and used dictionary, corpus-linguistic, and common-law employee tests.
The Court held Board members are not employees "in the state’s education systems," applied the presumption of legislative validity, reversed the injunction, and allowed SB 78 to stand; it did not decide whether partisan elections constitute a "partisan test."
Associate Chief Justice Lee concurred in the judgment but would ground the decision on the separate rationale that the "state’s education systems" refers to schools/colleges (not the Board), so Board members are not within article X, § 8.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State Board members have "employment ... in the state’s education systems" under art. X, § 8	Board members perform core education functions and are "employed" because they provide services, receive compensation, and oversee education—so § 8 applies	"Employment" denotes a formal legal employer–employee relationship (control, contract, economic dependence); Board members are elected representatives, not employees of schools	Held: Board members are not employees "in the state’s education systems," so § 8 does not bar partisan election (court assumed Board part of systems but concluded members are not employees)
Whether partisan election is a "partisan test or qualification" under art. X, § 8	Partisan, contested general elections function as a partisan test/qualification barred by § 8	Even if § 8 applies, its ban on partisan tests need not be read to prohibit general partisan elections (alternative defenses)	Not decided: Court did not reach this question because it resolved the case on the employment prong

Schroeder v. Utah Att’y Gen.’s Office, 358 P.3d 1075 (Utah 2015) (standard of review for constitutional interpretation)
Neese v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 416 P.3d 663 (Utah 2017) (interpreting constitution by original public meaning)
State v. Rasabout, 356 P.3d 1258 (Utah 2015) (endorsing use of corpus linguistics to assess ordinary meaning)
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1992) (use of common-law "right-to-control" test to define "employee")
Bennion v. ANR Prod. Co., 819 P.2d 343 (Utah 1991) (presumption of constitutionality and reconciliation of statute with constitution)
Univ. of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109 (Utah 2006) (resolve reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1803) (judicial duty to interpret the Constitution)