If you tell citizens that they can't vote on something, even if maybe they're taking your side in that vote, people will naturally resent that denial. And they may switch sides and vote against you because of your arrogance in trying to deny them the vote in the first place.

In short, pro-voucher advocates — and especially Urquhart and Bramble — stayed away from that argument and stressed that they wanted just a clear ballot language and a clear vote.

But what the pro-voucher attorneys argued, in both the written pleadings before the Supreme Court and in oral arguments, was that the high court should just cancel the Nov. 6 election.

Here is some of the pro-voucher brief language, asking the Supreme Court to: "strike the referendum petition"; "no question the referendum should be stopped"; "strike the petition"; "do not allow this defective referendum to go forward."

And in one conclusion to a brief: "enjoin the referendum on HB148 or redraft ballot language."

In oral arguments before the court last Friday, the pro-voucher attorney used words like "the election can't go forward"; "stop the election ... is the only right answer"; and "a vote on vouchers — can't have that."

Urquhart sees the issue as one of emphasis — that he wanted clear ballot language, even if his attorney may have stressed canceling the vote — which was not Urquhart's "preferred outcome."

Bramble says his attorneys' argument not to hold the referendum was in reply to the anti-voucher advocates' Supreme Court pleadings and "there is no discrepancy" between his desire for a clear vote in the referendum and his stated wish that should the referendum election be struck down by the high court, anti-voucher advocates could then come back through the initiative process to have a better challenge to the voucher laws. So there still would have been a voucher election, if perhaps a year later.

Bramble said: "My highest priority was not to go into an election without a meaningful vote, and that has been solved" by the Supreme Court's decision.

Thankfully, the high court justices gave us a clear vote in November, no delays, and citizens can decide for themselves if we have private-school vouchers or not.

---

Deseret Morning News political editor Bob Bernick Jr. may be reached by e-mail at bbjr@desnews.com.