From Deseret News archives:
Lawmakers may dodge the voucher bullet
Parents for Choice in Education, several leading GOP state legislators and individual parents went to court asking to change the voucher ballot language. The ballot wording — written by the Legislature's own attorneys — says that a vote against the main ballot bill, HB148, would repeal vouchers.
But pro-voucher advocates say that is not the case. A second voucher bill, HB174, passed by referendum-proof two-thirds majorities. And that bill alone imposes the new voucher system, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has opined. Thus, the pro-voucher advocates say, even a public vote to repeal HB148 does not repeal vouchers, and the Utah Supreme Court should recognize that.
Regardless of the legal issues, the lawsuit is a risky public-relations move.
Basically the pro-voucher groups are saying citizens shouldn't get a chance to vote vouchers up or down. And historically citizens hate it when someone tries to tell them they can't decide an issue or election at the ballot box — long a cherished American right.
Meanwhile, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Senate President John Valentine and House Speaker Greg Curtis signed a letter Thursday that says however citizens vote Nov. 6, the will of the citizens will be honored.
Vote for vouchers, and Utah has vouchers. Vote against vouchers, and the GOP-controlled Legislature and Huntsman will do whatever is needed to remove vouchers from the books — is how Huntsman sees it.
How pro-voucher GOP legislators see it may be otherwise.
While the pro-voucher advocates probably would have gone to court anyway, the timing of the court filing and the inclusion of some of the state's most powerful GOP lawmakers clearly sends several messages.
• First, joining the lawsuit, the GOP lawmakers are clearly telling Huntsman not to call a special legislative session to try to "fix" the two-voucher law problem. (Huntsman says he won't call such a session, saying there is "not the political will" to act on vouchers now.)
• Second, the lawsuit gives Huntsman cover to duck the difficult voucher issue. He can say it is inappropriate for him and legislators to try to deal with the voucher mess in a special session when the matter is before the courts.
• Third, it takes a critical political argument away from Democrats and the public education community, who oppose vouchers.
• Fourth, a court action may well stall for time. If there is no court ruling before the Nov. 6 vote, then pro-voucher groups can make the public argument that citizens should vote "no" on the ballot to allow the courts time to rule on the controversial subject.
