For the past week, this page has printed its recommendations as to how Utahns should vote on the ballot issues confronting them on Tuesday. This is not a comprehensive list. It includes those items the editorial board felt most strongly about. Here is a recap of those recommendations:

• Initiative 1: Much confusion has arisen since our editorial Tuesday urging people to vote no on this one. That's because the people supporting this initiative have listed us as among those favoring it.

The truth is, we initially were in favor of this initiative, which would allow the state to bond up to $150 million for worthwhile and important conservation and community projects. However, on closer inspection, and after hearing detailed arguments from people on both sides of the issue, we concluded that this measure isn't what it purports to be.

It would raise sales taxes by 1/20 of one cent, ostensibly to preserve open space, clean the water and provide for quality growth. Yet it expressly would allow some of the money to go toward construction of convention centers and recreation centers and toward the Museum of Natural History. It also raises several tricky constitution questions.

Our recommendation: Vote no.

• Amendment 1: This would allow the Legislature to call itself into session in order to consider the impeachment of the governor or other state officials. It's really nothing more than a housekeeping measure that spells out a procedure that ought to be obvious.

Our recommendation: Vote yes.

• Amendment 2: This allows state institutions of higher learning to obtain an equity interest in any private business that comes about as a result of a discovery or innovation developed on their campuses. It would allow Utah's public universities to better compete with the private ones, which already profit from their own intellectual properties, and would eventually provide money to the state that could relieve taxpayers somewhat.

Our recommendation: Vote yes.

• Amendment 3: This is a two-part amendment to the state constitution that would expressly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and would expressly forbid any other type of union from being granted the same rights as a marriage. The owners of this newspaper, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement recently saying it, "favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship." Church officials say this is not an endorsement of Amendment 3. We have decided to let this statement speak for itself and to issue no further recommendation.