• 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.

• Finally, a court may actually side with the pro-voucher argument, and the Nov. 6 vote may be postponed or the ballot language rewritten to say that the vote is not binding on Utah lawmakers.

Considering that most public opinion polls over time show more Utahns oppose vouchers than favor them, the pro-voucher advocates have little to lose legally over this new lawsuit. But the real advantage of this lawsuit is political.

Huntsman seemed to be on his way to calling for a special legislative session — a session that the pro-voucher GOP legislators clearly do not want. Already, Curtis, R-Sandy, has been saying that an overall vote by citizens against vouchers doesn't necessarily mean that most legislators will follow suit and repeal the second voucher law.

That's because, Curtis says, within legislators' individual districts vouchers may pass at the polls. If, he supposes, in 38 or 40 House districts the vouchers measure passes but loses by huge margins in the other districts — and so loses overall — why should legislators vote to repeal vouchers if their own individual constituents (even by a close margin) actually voted for them?

While Curtis is signing the promissory letter with other leaders promising to repeal vouchers should citizens vote them down, in reality the House may not be willing to do that.

If a court ruled that the second voucher bill, HB174, actually does create a state voucher program, and should Curtis' scenario actually play out, GOP lawmakers could well refuse to do anything on vouchers in their 2008 general session.

And we would be faced with the actuality of voting down vouchers at the polls and yet still having a voucher program go forward.

Huntsman, who faces re-election next year, is so far dancing a careful step on vouchers. He hasn't used his bully pulpit to fight for them, even though he signed both voucher bills into law. He's said that should citizens vote vouchers down, he won't be fighting hard to get the Legislature to repeal HB174. Even his new letter may not swing enough anti-voucher votes in the 2008 Legislature.

The great irony over all the vouchers arguments is this: Utah's GOP legislators love to argue against so-called "activist" judges, both at the federal and state level. The Legislature is ultimately responsible for this voucher mess. And it should be the Legislature — perhaps with a guiding hand of the governor — that fixes the mess its members created and make way for a clear and definitive up-or-down vote by citizens.

But that apparently ain't going to happen.

So lawmakers will just wait to see if the judicial branch of government decides this touchy political issue for them before the Nov. 6 vote.

---

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