The high court slapped that idea down Friday, saying that HB174 was only an amendment to HB148 and so could not stand on its own. And though it is not subject to a referendum vote, it is subject to the consequences of a referendum on HB148.

"The courts agree with me maybe half the time, disagree with me half that time. That's how it goes," said Shurtleff.

Shurtleff also said this week that he had terminated the "special attorney general" status of Jean Hill and Carol Lear, attorneys who work for the State Board of Education, saying they had given the panel advice counter to his.

Also within the past few weeks, voucher supporters and critics had both appealed to the Supreme Court to change the language on the 100-word ballot written by the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to more "accurately" explain the issue.

Up for referendum vote is HB148, the original voucher law that 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 fiscally unharmed 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, the companion bill that passed by two-thirds majority, making a few minor changes to the original law.

Voucher supporters had argued that HB174 would also implement a voucher program and therefore voters wouldn't be voting for or against vouchers by being asked to repeal HB148. They argued that the best way to solve the problem 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.

But voucher opponents wanted the ballot to say that if HB148 is repealed, then no other voucher legislation would be enacted. And above everything they felt the public had a right to vote on the issue

Nonetheless, under the court's ruling, the Office of Legislative Research was correct in the ballot language and both challenges were rejected.

---

E-mail: terickson@desnews.com; bbjr@desnews.com