This joint resolution finds that the short titles that appear next to section numbers in the published Utah Constitution are typographical conveniences added after adoption and carry no substantive legal effect. It declares bracketed titles to be non‑substantive and treats removing the surrounding brackets as a technical edit rather than a change in meaning.
The resolution directs the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel (OLRGC) to stop including brackets around section titles in constitutional amendment resolutions beginning with the 2027 General Session and to remove brackets when it next prepares the published Utah Constitution. It also sends notice of this determination to the Attorney General, the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, and the major legal publishers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution formally declares that section titles and the brackets around them were added for convenience and have no substantive effect, and it instructs OLRGC to omit brackets in future amendment resolutions and in the next published copy of the constitution.
Who It Affects
Primary actors affected are the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, publishers of the Utah Constitution (including Westlaw and LexisNexis), courts and attorneys who cite constitutional sections, and legislative staff who draft amendment joint resolutions.
Why It Matters
The change alters how constitutional section headings will be presented in official materials and future amendments, potentially affecting citation practice, editorial standards, and how drafters and publishers format and distribute constitutional text.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution records a short history: the Utah Constitution originally had no section titles, titles first appeared in 1967, and since 1990 bracketed titles have accompanied joint resolutions to amend the constitution and the published constitution. Using that background, the Legislature declares that the titles and the surrounding brackets were added for convenience and were never meant to alter the substance of constitutional provisions.
Rather than amend the constitution itself, the joint resolution directs the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to change its drafting and publication practices. Specifically, OLRGC must prepare constitutional amendment resolutions during and after the 2027 General Session without brackets around titles and must remove the brackets when it next compiles the published Utah Constitution.
The resolution does not allocate funds; it simply issues a legislative determination and an administrative directive.The resolution also communicates the Legislature’s conclusion to a set of recipients: the Attorney General, the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, and the commercial publishers Westlaw and LexisNexis. By doing so the Legislature signals that it expects official and commercial publications to follow the new formatting convention, while leaving legal effect and interpretive questions to courts and future documents.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution declares that bracketed titles beside section numbers are editorial conveniences added after the constitution’s adoption and have no substantive meaning.
It states that removing the brackets constitutes a 'technical edit' rather than a substantive constitutional change.
The Legislature directs the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to prepare amendment resolutions without brackets beginning with the 2027 General Session.
The Legislature directs OLRGC to remove brackets from titles when it next prepares the published Utah Constitution.
Copies of the resolution are to be sent to the Utah Attorney General, the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, and the publishers Westlaw and LexisNexis.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Factual background and drafting history
This section compiles the historical findings the Legislature relies on: no titles existed at original adoption, titles first appeared in 1967, and bracketed titles have been included in amendment materials since 1990. Practically, these recitals supply the factual predicate for the Legislature’s conclusion that titles are editorial rather than substantive, which is the legal posture the rest of the resolution adopts.
Legislative determination on titles and brackets
Here the Legislature formally determines that titles and their surrounding brackets were added for convenience and carry no substantive meaning. That determination is declaratory: it states the Legislature’s view of how titles should be treated for drafting and publication purposes rather than changing the operative text of the constitution itself.
Instruction to stop using brackets in future amendment materials
This provision instructs the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to prepare constitutional amendment joint resolutions for the 2027 General Session and thereafter without the bracketed titles. Operationally, that means the standard templates and forms used to propose ballot amendments will omit the brackets moving forward, affecting how future amendment texts are presented to legislators, voters, and recorders.
Instruction to remove brackets in the next published copy
The Legislature directs OLRGC to remove brackets surrounding titles when it next prepares the published Utah Constitution. This is an instruction to change the editorial presentation in the official published compilation; it does not purport to alter the authoritative constitutional text adopted by voters, but it will change the appearance of the version OLRGC distributes.
Notifying key legal actors and publishers
The resolution orders that copies be sent to the Attorney General, the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, and to Westlaw and LexisNexis. That step is intended to align official and commercial publications with the Legislature’s new formatting preference and to put legal actors on notice of the declared editorial status of titles and brackets.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel — gains a clear legislative instruction that standardizes future drafting and publishing practice, reducing internal ambiguity about whether to include brackets.
- Commercial legal publishers (Westlaw, LexisNexis) — receive an explicit request to update their editions and can align commercial texts with the Legislature’s preferred presentation, improving consistency across sources.
- Legislative drafters and staff — benefit from a uniform formatting rule for constitutional amendment resolutions going forward, simplifying template maintenance and proofreading.
Who Bears the Cost
- Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel — must revise templates, published compilations, and internal procedures without additional appropriations, creating unfunded administrative work.
- Commercial publishers and law libraries — may incur editorial and production costs to update annotated and published versions to match the new format.
- Legal researchers, attorneys, and courts — face a transitional period where citation styles and cross‑references may mismatch across older, bracketed materials and new, unbracketed publications, potentially increasing research friction.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between typographic clarity and legal certainty: the Legislature seeks cleaner, more consistent formatting by removing brackets, but editorial changes—however labeled 'technical'—can disrupt citation practices, historical references, and the patchwork of published constitutional versions that courts, lawyers, and the public rely on.
The resolution is an administrative and declaratory action, not a constitutional amendment. It instructs OLRGC on formatting and labels the removal of brackets a technical edit, but it does not purport to change the operative constitutional text as ratified by voters.
That distinction matters because formatting changes can still affect how people cite and locate provisions; discrepancy between published presentations and historical ballot language may create short‑term confusion.
Another unresolved implementation issue is consistency across sources. The Legislature can direct OLRGC and notify major publishers, but private or third‑party repositories, older print volumes, and citations embedded in prior judicial opinions will continue to include brackets.
Without a coordinated conversion plan or authoritative guidance on citation changes, the state will run a transition in which different versions coexist. Finally, the resolution contains no funding.
The administrative burden of reprinting, updating electronic texts, and training staff falls on OLRGC and affected publishers, who must absorb the work within existing budgets.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.