The Utah Supreme Court did all Utahns a great favor last Friday.

The high court made a quick ruling that will allow citizens to vote private-school tuition vouchers clearly up or down Nov. 6.

I don't know if vouchers will pass or fail at the ballot box. But at least citizens have an easily understandable ballot question on which to decide the issue.

The justices found a simple solution: The first voucher bill, HB148, was properly before voters. And the second voucher bill, HB174, was really an amendment to HB148. So if HB148 is voted down by citizens, then HB174 falls as well.

With that settled, I turn now to a question of public pronouncements vs. legal arguments.

The voucher debate has seen two prominent legislators take one position publicly, only to have the attorneys representing their pro-voucher stands take another.

And the differences between the two — while not ending up to cause any harm because of the Supreme Court's decision — is still troubling.

Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, a member of extended GOP leadership in the House, and Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble, R-Provo, are leaders of the pro-voucher fight.

Urquhart, an attorney, was the original sponsor of HB148, the main voucher bill that would give to the parents of children in private schools between $500 and $3,000 a year per child for school tuition. Bramble, a certified public accountant, carried the bill in the Senate.

In a May 24 press conference at the Matheson Courthouse announcing a legal challenge to the ballot language on the HB148 public referendum, Bramble said that besides seeking a clear vote on the issue: "No one is debating or contesting the right of citizens for a referendum or initiative ... (we want it) absolutely clear what they (citizens) are voting on. We want a fair opportunity for citizens to be heard."

In an interview with the Deseret Morning News later, Urquhart said that the main goal of the lawsuit was not to stop the Nov. 6 vote but to clarify ballot language.

For political and public relations reasons, it would have been a disaster for the pro-voucher groups and individuals to actually say that they wanted the courts to stop the Nov. 6 election altogether.

Considering that more than 130,000 Utahns signed the HB148 recall petitions — well more than the number required to get the matter on the ballot — considering that various polls routinely have shown that about half of all Utahns don't like private school vouchers, for the pro-voucher side to say they wanted the courts to deny the referendum to voters ... well, how do you possibly defend that?