Proposition No. 1 entitled “Elections and Suffrage Article Revision” obviously is the least controversial of the special propositions to be decided by Utah voters in the Nov. 2 election. Its principal effect would be to amend now-obsolete sections of the Utah Constitution to bring them into conformity with current federal constitutional requirements regarding age minimums, residency requirements, and property qualifications for voting. The official Utah Voter Information Pamphlet summarizes the present Article IV requirements that are pertinent to the issue, as follows; That the voter be 21 years of age; that he reside in the state six months and in the county 60 days except for election of the president and vice president in which case he need reside in the state for only 30 days prior to the election; and’ that a “property qualification” is permitted for voting in elections levying a special tax or creating indebtedness. g But, as already indicated, these provisions no longer mesh with federal law. The age requirement was superseded by adoption of the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the other two provisions have been declared unconstitutional by federal courts. The proposed amendment on which Utahns will vote brings Article IV into agreement with the U.S. Constitution and case law interpreting it by lowering the minimum voting age to 18 years; reducing the residengg requirement for voting to 30 days in the state preceding the election or “for such other period as required by law”; and eliminating the property requirements in elections levying a special tax or creating indebtedness. In addition, the proposed amendment would modernize various sections of Article IV by changing the term “electors” to “voters,” something that is quite perfunctory since the two words have about the same meaning. When the amendment was passed by the Utah Legislature, the Senate vote was 24 for, I against, and 4 absent. In the House, 52 were for, Z2 against, and 1 absent. Elimination of the “property qualification” feature will raise some questions. Years ago it was not uncommon in certain elections, wherein the tax burden would be increased, for voting to be restricted to property owners. However, as noted in the voter information pamphlet, this provision was declared unconstitutional by federal courts. All in all,.the reasonable thing seems to be to vote for Proposition No. I. It makes sense that our Utah constitutional provisions should be in conformity with those at the federal level. So They Say “The patriotic obligation of all Chileans is to contribute to the end of the dictatorship. We do it as members of a nation and as inheritors of a tradition of freedom to which the Pinochets do not belong,” -From a New York Times article written by Orlando Letelier, former Chilean foreign minister, before he was killed by an exploding bomb recently in Washington.