Progress???
Speaker Curtis (and I understand the Governor also) might favor the idea of a special session to wipe out both voucher bills and pass a new one (which would be the same as the final product from the session) with a delayed implementation date to allow for a vote by the citizens. Cool.
However, I see that some of the more zealous voucher opponents are still positioning for procedural advantage. ("I think it is a very bad idea," said Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful. "It is a way to actually prevent a binding vote," said Rep. Kay McIff, R-Richfield). Two steps forward, one backward, I guess.
At this point, the win that really matters isn't on vouchers; it is on democratic process. Give people a clear vote, and let's live with the outcome. I hope the Gov. jumps in with both feet. He has a great ability to bring people together, and that is clearly needed. If our leading citizens call for a clear path, I believe it will emerge. Again, call me naive, but I believe this exercise can lift political dialogue and participation in Utah to new levels.
Speaking of good political dialogue, this post at the Wasatch Watcher impressed me.
However, I see that some of the more zealous voucher opponents are still positioning for procedural advantage. ("I think it is a very bad idea," said Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful. "It is a way to actually prevent a binding vote," said Rep. Kay McIff, R-Richfield). Two steps forward, one backward, I guess.
At this point, the win that really matters isn't on vouchers; it is on democratic process. Give people a clear vote, and let's live with the outcome. I hope the Gov. jumps in with both feet. He has a great ability to bring people together, and that is clearly needed. If our leading citizens call for a clear path, I believe it will emerge. Again, call me naive, but I believe this exercise can lift political dialogue and participation in Utah to new levels.
Speaking of good political dialogue, this post at the Wasatch Watcher impressed me.
posted by steve u. at 6/01/2007
Subscribe
7 Comments:
I absolutely find it sad that even legislators don't trust legislators. What confidence does that give to the rest of us? Unfortunately I think anything the legislature does to remove the binding nature of the vote of the people will be seen as self-serving, by people on both sides and people in the middle. Even those voucher supporters will have to wonder about the commitment of legislators next time they say "Trust me".
I like Rep. McIff's proposal, the same one I made earlier :-). And I have not agreed with all of his pronouncements in the past.
Politics isn't easy. Nor is it pure. I believe on just about any important issue, there always will be people on both sides who are willing to win at all cost. The issue will be given more weight than the process's democratic underpinnings. Every fan of democracy should fight to preserve democratic process, for the long-term good.
To me, the "simply repeal HB 174" argument is a polemic and, in any event, it is too simplistic. Without more, it means turning the November vote into a vote on an incomplete product -- a product that more than 2/3rds of the Legislature said could be improved (by the provisions of HB 174). That isn't what people were sold during the referendum signature gathering. And, yes, I believe that win-at-all-cost types, then, would use those "omissions" to campaign against HB 148.
Also, without more, HB 174 can't simply be repealed and leave HB 148 intact. HB 174 wiped out parts of HB 148. Yes, it then replaced them, but simply repealing HB 174 doesn't make those provisions suddenly reappear in HB 148. My point is -- more legislation would be required in any event.
But isn't McIff's proposal to be a contingent repeal of 174 based on the result of the vote on 148?
Maybe that isn't possible for legal or constitutional reasons, if that is the case say so, and I will agree to move on. But no one has yet given an argument as to why McIff's plan fails. It is not a 'simply repeal HB 174' argument. It is basically allow the legislature to link the fate of 174 to the fate of 148. If the people accept 148 they are accepting the final 148 & 174 product and we have the voucher program that 2/3rds of the legislature thought was best. But if 148 fails then 174 fails as well and then voucher proponents start over again at the legislature or in an inititive.
I agree with you that 'simply repeal HB 174' is not a logical option for all the reasons you state. I just don't thing what McIff is proposing is that.
As for politics, I am involved at the local level and so while understand how difficult politics is and how 'unpure', it does sadden me that there are those who are more interested in their own proposals than democracy.
Solving the "Voucher Dilemma" really isn't rocket science - either the folks who put their hard-earned tax money into the public coffers want a share of those monies to go to private schools, or they believe public monies should be spent entirely on public education. Put it to a vote and institute vouchers or don't, according to the vote . . .period. The only people who made this issue so complex and fodder for litigation are the pro-voucher folks who suspected that the narrowly-passed HB148 would be voted down by a referendum - so they created HB174, thinking they had pulled a "fast one" and would still have a voucher program, regardless of a public outcry and vote on HB148. I think they misjudged the citizens of Utah in believing that most families would choose to "lock their children away from the 'real world' and educate them in a cocoon."
kjh,
You're making up history to match your opinion on the issue. HB 174 was passed at the request of voucher opponents, not the proponents. Only the voucher opponents were the ones who knew that the next day they would file a referendum against HB 148. While it makes for a fine conspiracy theory, arguing that HB 174 was passed as some sort of ruse has no basis in reality.
Steve,
I will ask again, I know the voucher opponents pushed for 174 but who drafted it reenacting all of that extra language? If you tell me that the bill was drafted in it's entirety by the voucher opponents and none of the language was put in by voucher proponents, then I will think about taking off my tinfoil hat.
Stacey
Again, the real question is why weren't the "amendments" included in the original bill? It was because voucher supporters were so afraid that the bill, which had previously passed the House by only one vote, would be voted down upon reconsideration.
As a result, I think it's unfair to pin this mess on voucher opponents because if the amendments had been incorporated into the original voucher bill as they should have been to begin with since they were "amendments", then that bill would have either been voted down on the floor or it would have been subject to the referendum. The legislators pushing vouchers this past legislative session have only themselves to blame for the mess we're in today.
Post a Comment
<< Home