When voters go to the polls in November's general election, they will find among propositions on the ballot three amendments to the Utah Constitution. For the most part, the items have little significance but merely clean up, clarify and simplify some language in the state document.

All three propositions were approved by the Legislature earlier this year, thus clearing the way for inclusion on the ballot.Proposition No. 1 deals with the constitution's Legislative Article, but only tinkers with minor wording, eliminating some "ands" and "therefores" and substituting "may" for "shall" in some instances.

The chief change spells out that if lawmakers wish to reconvene after the governor disapproves any measure, they shall meet within 60 days after the adjournment of the session that passed the bill.

Proposition No. 2 deals with the Corporation Article and eliminates many outdated sections referring to business practices at the time the state constitution was adopted in 1896. Many of the sections have no meaning in today's business world; others have long since been overtaken by judicial decisions and changes in national law.

The most significant of the proposed changes eliminates the section prohibiting price fixing.

In its place is an expanded section supporting the free market system and prohibiting commercial monopoly or restraint of trade, except as otherwise provided by statute.

Proposition No. 3 deals with the Executive Article and makes small changes in the qualifications, eligibility, functions and duties of certain state offices. Most are minor and amount to little more than tinkering with language and sentence structure.

The section providing for the governor, attorney general and state auditor to function as a Board of Examiners would be eliminated.

At one time, that might have been a significant move, since the Board of Examiners was once a powerful body that approved all expenditures and claims against the state.

Prior to 1980, the board consisted of the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. Holding the purse strings as they did, they were a powerful group.

But a 1980 constitutional change removed the lieutenant governor and replaced him with the auditor. And it gave the Legislature power to define the board's duties.

Those 1980 changes, in effect, removed much of the power of the Board of Examiners and the body met infrequently after that. The latest change merely recognizes that the board has no compelling reason to continue to exist.

In effect, the three propositions on the ballot amount to little more than fine tuning and tightening up loose language. Voters should approve all three without hesitation.