November Voucher Vote and Democratic Process

Utah is in a bad situation regarding the voucher referendum. Confusion abounds. In response to that, some say, “No special session.” Some say, “Special session to repeal HB 174 (the second bill, which is not subject to referendum).” And some seem to say both.

The citizens need to say what they want. If this poll is accurate, Utahns want a special session to clarify the mess. I believe we need a special session. Depending on how the situation is handled, the next 5 months either will be horribly divisive and tear at the democratic underpinnings of Utah (all for nothing, since courts will resolve things in any event) or this period will illustrate that the system is alive and well and still capable of handling our most pressing controversies.

Two observations:

1. The “no special session” position misses an opportunity to promote democratic process. At this point, people don’t know what they’re being asked to vote on. The situation requires clarification;
2. The “repeal HB 174” position could be used as a polemic. HB 174 is the product of a more collaborative effort, forwarded by voucher opponents, to fix some perceived shortcomings in HB 148. If HB 174 were repealed and those fixes were erased, those perceived shortcomings would become a centerpiece of the anti-voucher campaign.

Our response should be guided by 3 principles:

1. The people must have a chance to vote on vouchers;
2. The vote should be on the final draft (HB 174); and
3. People must agree to be bound by the vote of the people (no lawsuits to challenge that decision).

Here’s my suggestion for achieving clarity, while adhering to those principles:

1. Hold a special session to repeal HB 148 and HB 174;
2. Pass a new bill (HB 1001) with the same language of HB 174;
3. Delay the implementation date of HB 1001 until June 2008;
4. Before it takes effect, require that the people have an opportunity to vote whether they want HB 1001; and
5. Based on the vote, implement or repeal HB 1001.

The vote on HB 1001 would be a vote for or against democratic process – clarifying things for the voters. The vote to hold legislators responsible on vouchers clearly was HB 148. That being the case, people (including citizens, legislators, and education officials) should agree to be bound by certain principles before the special session. This is especially true, since – as I understand it – the ballot question would need to be a non-binding opinion question. It would have to be made binding by some type of agreement made beforehand. I’ve drafted the following, in the form of a petition, in an attempt to get the discussion going.

“Utah needs clarity for the November vote on vouchers. It is a matter of fundamental democratic process and voting rights. We, the undersigned, call on the Governor, the Legislature, the State and Local School Boards, and all citizens to work toward providing clarity – and we commit ourselves to the principles and actions stated herein. A special session must be called, wherein HB 148 and HB 174 will be repealed in their entirety. In their place, a new bill (HB 1001) will be passed, with the exact language of HB 174 and additional language specifying that the matter will be put up for a vote by the people in November 2007. As indicated by that vote, the governing bodies will either implement the provisions of HB 1001 (if the voters approve it) or repeal HB 1001 (if the voters reject it). Signers of this petition agree to oppose any lawsuit challenging the outcome of the people’s decision.”

“Legislators signing this petition further agree to vote to repeal HB 148 and HB 174, to vote for legislation as outlined above, and, if a majority of the people vote against the new legislation, to vote to repeal it. We specify that we regard a vote to repeal HB 148 and HB 174 and to enact HB 1001 to be merely a vote for democratic process; nothing more. The “voucher vote” took place on HB 148.”

“State school board members signing this petition further agree to implement necessary rules and regulations for HB 1001 to go forward, if a majority of the people vote for the new legislation.”

I’d love for people to provide input on (1) how to better handle the situation and (2) how to get the process moving.