The Utah Supreme Court ruled today that the public will have a straight up or down vote on a universal voucher program in November.

If voters repeal the voucher program under HB148 then a second voucher bill. HB174 also falls, said Associate Chief Justice Michael J. Wilkins.

"The voucher amendment is dependent on HB148 and ... it was clearly the intent of the Legislature that the provisions of HB174 were to modify HB148," said Associate Chief Justice Michael J. Wilkins. "HB174 was not intended by the Legislature to stand alone ... although HB174 is not subject to referendum by the voters it is subject to the consequence of the referendum."

The ruling came just hours after the high court heard arguments from both voucher supporters and opponents on what the ballot language should be.

Both voucher supporters and critics appealed to the high court to change the 100-word ballot title, written by the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, to more "accurately" explain the issue.

But Harold Christensen, attorney for the voucher critics who are members of Utahns for Public Schools, said some in legislative leadership have been against holding a special session to clear up the issue.

HB148, original voucher law, would 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 ballot language describes the parameters of the voucher program and then poses the question of whether the voter is for or against voucher bill HB148 taking effect. But the language does not mention anything about HB174, a companion bill that passed by two-thirds majority making a few minor changes to the original law.

Christensen said obviously the lawmakers who were opposed to vouchers thought "we have vouchers now, lets make it more palatable.

Voucher supporters, including Parents for Choice in Education, say HB174 also implements a voucher program and therefore voters wouldn't be voting for or against vouchers by being asked to repeal HB148.

Clark Waddoups, attorney for voucher supporters, said that the "straightest most correct way" to solve the problems would be for the court to declare the referendum petition constitutionally flawed since voters who signed the petition thought they would be voting on a voucher program.

Then the recourse for voucher opponents would be to go back to the Legislature and try to get vouchers repealed in the political process.

But voucher opponents want the ballot to say that if HB148 is repealed, then no other voucher legislation will be enacted. And Christensen told the court that the people have a right to vote on the issue. Plus he said the Legislature intended the amendment bill to be a companion to HB148, not to stand alone.

But under the ruling the Office of Legislative research was correct in the ballot language and both challenges were rejected.

---

E-mail: terickson@desnews.com