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 Instead, the question is drafted as if HB 174 amended HB 148, rather than superseded it.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.