Honorable members of the Utah House Education Committee,
On behalf of the American Booksellers Association, the not-for-profit trade association of independent bookstores including 41 small businesses in Utah, I urge you to oppose HB 197 and its recent substitute.
HB 197 extends Utah’s content-based vendor restrictions to include digital service providers, adds additional red tape to LEAs acquisition of instructional material, and requires the use of a state-chosen book reviewing service (not directly specified) to screen materials added by LEAs to their curricula and library collections. In an attempt to avoid the overwhelming cost of reviewing books accurately, the substitute version of the bill specifies that these services must be provided free of cost and removes references to the Utah Procurement Code that ensures these “book reviewers” are chosen fairly. You will likely hear from many Utahns about the significant First Amendment concerns raised by this bill, and we share those concerns.
In addition, we would like to draw your attention to the due process and business concerns this raises for local independent bookstores who contract with school districts or would like to. Many aspects of the bill could make it prohibitively difficult for independent bookstores to form vendor relationships with LEAs, including:
-
Civil liability for vendors based on unclear criteria
-
The necessity of employing AI book review technology and contracting with a third party to provide book reviews will introduce delays and uncertainty into book sales to schools
-
Prohibition on including links or advertisements is not practical when many publishers include ads for other books in the frontmatter and backmatter of their books
Vendors or prospective vendors could find it impossible to guard themselves against liability with enough certainty to work with school districts.
The specification of a single, unnamed book review service is especially concerning, particularly as the provider is generally understood among concerned Utahns to have already been chosen: RatedBooks.org. First, removing references to the Utah Procurement Code raises concerns that “donors” — really, vendors — will be considered fully and fairly. If the vendor in question is indeed RatedBooks.org, the vague and ideologically motivated nature of their rating system is as concerning as it is subjective. Though the site falsely compares its ratings to MPA movie ratings, their rating scale includes undefined categories like: “justification of hate,” “discriminatory equity ideology,” and “gender ideology.” None of these would likely pass First Amendment muster, but from vendors’ perspectives, it is also unclear and creates uncertainty about the approval process for instructional and library material sales.
A bill is not ready for prime time if it is vague, overbroad, and those impacted by it would not know how to comply. This one should not be allowed to move forward — if for no other reason, then for the sake of small businesses who create jobs, keep local spending in the local economy, and understand their communities’ values.
Sincerely,
Philomena Polefrone
Associate Director of Advocacy and Public Policy
American Booksellers Association