Two opposing Supreme Court challenges to ballot language written for the November referendum vote on vouchers will be consolidated and heard June 8.

Both supporters and critics of the controversial private school voucher program have filed appeals to the high court to change the 100-word ballot title to more "accurately" explain the issue.

The trouble is the two groups have vast differences in opinion on what is accurate language to use when it comes to the two voucher laws passed by the Utah Legislature last session.

Parents for Choice in Education filed a motion early Thursday to intervene in the challenge filed this week by voucher opponents. In response, the Supreme Court ordered that a June 8 hearing will be held on the consolidated appeals.

The original voucher law stood to provide Utah families with a private-school tuition voucher, ranging from $500 to $3,000 per student based on the parents' income.

It also would appropriate $9.2 million for mitigation money to hold schools harmless for five years after a student leaves and goes to a private school.

The anti-voucher group Utahns for Public Schools pursued a referendum, which put that law on hold pending a vote.

But HB174, an amendment bill, also passed. It increased funding to run the program and made other minor changes. But the "guts" of the first bill was also included in HB174, so voucher supporters say that bill alone should create a voucher program.

Voucher critics say HB174 is only a fragmented amendment and has no power, if the original bill is not enacted.

In late May, the Office of General Research and Legislative Counsel submitted a ballot title for the referendum vote that neither side is happy with.

The ballot language describes the parameters of the voucher program and then poses the question of whether the voter is for or against HB148 taking effect.

Voucher supporters, including Parents for Choice in Education, said referring to the entire voucher program in the ballot title is inaccurate because the sections of the original that are also duplicated in HB174 aren't on the chopping block — they are already in code.

So voters would basically be voting on the mitigation funding and a few other sections that weren't copied in HB174.

On the other side, voucher proponents want the ballot to say that if HB148 is repealed, then no other voucher legislation will be enacted.

---

E-mail: terickson@desnews.com