Vouchers – Ballot Title
I’m supposed to submit the argument in favor of the Education Vouchers bill to the Lieutenant Governor by June 1st. However, that is very difficult to do, given the way the ballot question was prepared.
Though it is the attorney general’s opinion that the provisions of the second voucher bill (HB 174) supersede provisions in the first bill (HB 148), the ballot question does not reflect that effect. Instead, the question is drafted as if HB 174 amended HB 148, rather than superseded it. To say the least, there is robust dialogue whether HB 174 amends or supersedes.
Regardless on which side of the argument one falls, the amends/supersedes issue is hugely important. It controls what the vote means. Without clarification of the issue, the referendum is seriously muddled. The vote will have no meaning – until the Utah Supreme Court tells us what we voted on and what the results mean. People can be as passionate as they want that their analysis of this legal situation is correct; but they should realize that people are every bit as sincere and passionate on the other side of the analysis. That means, we’ll vote on a blank slate, and 5 individuals in robes will then tell us what we did.
Of course, we all agree to follow the rule of law – after the Court tells us what that rule is in this confusing situation. Once the rule of law is definitively expressed, I doubt anyone is going to storm the Bastille. However, to establish that rule of law – to get a “clear public decision on Utah’s Voucher Policy in November” – I believe it would be best for the Court to tell us what the outcome means before we vote, instead of after.
Let’s have a straight-forward debate and vote on this issue. To do that, let’s have clarification before, instead of after. As I wrote earlier – though I seem to be alone on this idea – I’d like to have a special session to try to hammer out an accord. Of course, it won’t be easy. Who says it should be easy? A representative democracy is designed to push difficult issues to the legislative body. I say we give it a try. Set aside a week or two. Done right, the debates, the dialogue, and the citizen participation in such a special session could be the best Utah has seen for generations. Short of that, let’s at least have the Court tell us beforehand what our “yes” or “no” votes mean and help fashion a remedy so that the people’s will can be determined and carried out.
UPDATE (later): Senator Bramble writes about the need for clarification at the Senate Site.
Ethan blogs about the statement of the Gov., Sen. President, and Speaker, opposing a special session and "honoring the rule of law." In comments, Dave B. opines, "There is an easy solution, nix BOTH bills and put a single voucher bill up for a vote by the people. That way, neither side can hide behind a AG opinion letter, or a court ruling, or waiting on one or the other."
Dave B. nails it. We should hold a special session, pass a bill with the language of H.B. 174 and with language that the new bill will only go into effect after an election in November, and repeal both bills passed in the general session. Right now, both sides are hoping the courts side with them. That is an abdication of democratic responsibilities. It is a roll of the dice. If people truly want to ascertain the will of the people at the ballot box (which I think we should do, given the 100,000+ people who signed the referendum petitions), I think this is how it should be done.
Though it is the attorney general’s opinion that the provisions of the second voucher bill (HB 174) supersede provisions in the first bill (HB 148), the ballot question does not reflect that effect. Instead, the question is drafted as if HB 174 amended HB 148, rather than superseded it. To say the least, there is robust dialogue whether HB 174 amends or supersedes.
Regardless on which side of the argument one falls, the amends/supersedes issue is hugely important. It controls what the vote means. Without clarification of the issue, the referendum is seriously muddled. The vote will have no meaning – until the Utah Supreme Court tells us what we voted on and what the results mean. People can be as passionate as they want that their analysis of this legal situation is correct; but they should realize that people are every bit as sincere and passionate on the other side of the analysis. That means, we’ll vote on a blank slate, and 5 individuals in robes will then tell us what we did.
Of course, we all agree to follow the rule of law – after the Court tells us what that rule is in this confusing situation. Once the rule of law is definitively expressed, I doubt anyone is going to storm the Bastille. However, to establish that rule of law – to get a “clear public decision on Utah’s Voucher Policy in November” – I believe it would be best for the Court to tell us what the outcome means before we vote, instead of after.
Let’s have a straight-forward debate and vote on this issue. To do that, let’s have clarification before, instead of after. As I wrote earlier – though I seem to be alone on this idea – I’d like to have a special session to try to hammer out an accord. Of course, it won’t be easy. Who says it should be easy? A representative democracy is designed to push difficult issues to the legislative body. I say we give it a try. Set aside a week or two. Done right, the debates, the dialogue, and the citizen participation in such a special session could be the best Utah has seen for generations. Short of that, let’s at least have the Court tell us beforehand what our “yes” or “no” votes mean and help fashion a remedy so that the people’s will can be determined and carried out.
UPDATE (later): Senator Bramble writes about the need for clarification at the Senate Site.
Ethan blogs about the statement of the Gov., Sen. President, and Speaker, opposing a special session and "honoring the rule of law." In comments, Dave B. opines, "There is an easy solution, nix BOTH bills and put a single voucher bill up for a vote by the people. That way, neither side can hide behind a AG opinion letter, or a court ruling, or waiting on one or the other."
Dave B. nails it. We should hold a special session, pass a bill with the language of H.B. 174 and with language that the new bill will only go into effect after an election in November, and repeal both bills passed in the general session. Right now, both sides are hoping the courts side with them. That is an abdication of democratic responsibilities. It is a roll of the dice. If people truly want to ascertain the will of the people at the ballot box (which I think we should do, given the 100,000+ people who signed the referendum petitions), I think this is how it should be done.
posted by steve u. at 5/24/2007
Subscribe
8 Comments:
Unfortunately your proposal in this post is preceded by the statement the Governor, Speaker, and Senate President put forth today stating that there will be no special session. I think you are right...what we are voting for should be a settled issue before we vote. I especially think this because of statements by Rep. Curtis indicating that he intends to disregard the outcome of the referendum election if vouchers are turned down.
I am a voucher opponent but my point here isn't to argue against vouchers. I'm commenting here to say that I agree with you that we need to know that the referendum election is actually meaningful before it is held.
Do you agree with Rep. Curtis opinion that vouchers should be implemented using HB 174 as the vehicle if voters object to the voucher plan as it has been described in the ballot language? Do you think proceeding in that situation is legally possible? I know your answer to the second question would be speculation but it would be nice to know the opinion of the legislation's chief sponsor on these questions.
It seems to me that the only people making this a complicated issue are the ones who insist that they can implement vouchers no matter what the result of the referendum.
Thanks for your willingness now and in the past to discuss complicated issues like this online with other Utahns. Your willingness to do so is admired by many...including those of us opposed to your voucher plan.
Ugh...nevermind. I just read Sen. Bramble's post at The Senate Site. I guess I should now ask that you consider that this comment supersedes my last one instead of amending it.
Do you agree with Sen. Bramble that the referendum shouldn't be on the voucher program itself but instead about mitigating funds for public schools? Are you, like Sen. Bramble, unhappy with the idea of a referendum election on the voucher plan itself or do you agree with me that it would be nice to get the final word on this voucher plan from the electorate?
Sorry if I now sound a little more cynical than before but I'm bummed that it seems you voucher supporters aren't arguing in good faith like I obviously thought you were when I posted that last comment. My mistake I guess.
Jeremy,
Don't worry about it. I'm dizzy myself.
You and I were crossing over blog posts. After I read the Senate Site post and your comments, I added the update to my post. At that time, you were posting your retraction here.
I think I addressed your retraction with my update.
If you now retract your retraction, it will scientifically prove that the slate must be wiped and that a clean bill should be passed for the voters to take a crack at.
:-)
Consider the retraction retracted. Thanks for your clear and very fair views. Sorry to have ever questioned your motives.
Rep. Urquhart--
It's interesting that you'd agree with Dave's comment re suspending HB 174, and making it effective contingent on the HB 148 referendum. The Democratic leadership has asked for that. Republican legislators who didn't vote for HB 148 have requested it. The State Board of Ed requested it. The Trib has run a couple of editorials advocating the idea. I think it would have been a good route to take, and am a bit disappointed that's not the way things will happen.
I can forsee a problem with the special session idea, though. If the issue comes up for debate, legislators might be tempted to add language to the current (unsuspended) statute similar to HB 148 language, thereby circumventing the petition. It's good to not be faced with that ethical dilemma. At least we'll save money by not having a special session.
Unlike the Democratic response to the Huntsman/Valentine/Curtis announcement, I'm willing to take the Governor's statement at face value. In the handful of times I've had the pleasure of meeting with him (both before and after his election), he's always come across as a very straightforward and honest guy. I believe he'll side with the will of the people in this matter, even if he's disappointed in the outcome. It helps, I think, that he's politically disconnected from lobbyists on either side of the debate.
Tom,
I've appreciated your ongoing open-minded approach to this issue. I hope you don't mind me jumping in when your comments were directed to Rep. Urquhart. There is one comment that might be good to clarify. You said:
"It helps, I think, that he's politically disconnected from lobbyists on either side of the debate."
For several months, Governor Huntsman's picture graced the front page of the PCE web site choiceineducation.org. To my untrained eye that implies a tacit endorsement of their efforts.
Additionally, he received (if memory serves me correctly) a $75,000 contribution from voucher idealogue Patrick Byrne. Byrne also gave PCE an additional $80,000. It takes 3,100 teachers each giving $50 just to match his single contribution.
I respect the Governor and hope he will stand by his word to repeal vouchers entirely, should the people so choose.
Thanks...Craig.
Tom,
Dave's comments actually were to nix both bills and put a clean one before the voters. I'd like the people to have an up or down vote on the provisions of HB 174. It doesn't make sense to vote on HB 148; that's not where we ended up.
I think the strategy that the Speaker and Senate President seem to be taking could backfire on them.
I pushed a referendum in my city and one of the things I think cause it to succeed by nearly a 2/3rd majority, was the seeming arogance of the elected officials.
I did not sign the petition but would have if presented the opportunity. Not because I am against vouchers because I am probably more favorable than unfavorable, but because I wanted to see the people's voice after a vigorous public debate on the issues.
Comments like those of the Speaker and the Senate President, come off as smug and condecending. It would not surprise me to see those comments influence some who would vote for vouchers to vote against them just to make a statement that the will of the people should never be disregarded.
Post a Comment
<< Home