Rube Goldberg's Democracy Machine
Utah needs to clarify the vote that will take place in November on vouchers. Someone asked me if I find value in Rep. McKiff’s proposal to enact additional legislation stating that HB 174 (the second bill) is contingent upon a vote on HB 148 (the first bill). I don’t.
As I understand the proposal, it would only add a few more confusing elements to the Rube Goldberg machine. The proposal is to leave the two general session bills in place but pass a third bill that would make operation of the second bill (which currently is law) contingent upon a vote on the first bill. If that isn’t an accurate description, someone please clarify.
In support of his proposal, Rep. McKiff raises 3 points: (1) he’s tired of dealing with the issue, (2) voucher opponents feel duped, and (3) only a referendum on HB 148 (and no other election) will suffice. The first two points, of course, are gratuitous. Nonetheless,
Point one: Rep. McKiff has been in the Legislature 5 months; if he is tired of dealing with an issue of tremendous significance after such a short tenure, it probably says more about his approach to problem solving than it does anything on the merits of the issue. Though it would be convenient to wave away issues we don’t favor, that’s not really a best-practices solution for democracy.
Point two: if Rep. McKiff believes someone took actions to blindside voucher opponents by passing the second bill, he should name names and provide details. As an elected representative of the people, he owes the public an explanation; light not heat; tell us who did it and how, so that we can examine the evidence and, if appropriate, beat the person(s) with sticks. As I am aware of the facts, the second bill was passed at the request of voucher opponents, voucher opponents were the only ones who knew they were going to file a referendum in the next few days, and voucher opponents were the ones who chose to file a referendum against one of the bills, instead of file an initiative on the issue. Again, if that isn’t an accurate description, someone please clarify. And unless he’s just making up stuff to support a political position, I really hope Rep. McKiff will put some teeth into his accusations and let us know who blindsided voucher opponents by strategizing the second-bill scenario.
Point three: Rep. McKiff argues that a referendum vote is the only thing that honors the will of the people. Okay, what is the will of the people – to review just the first bill that was passed and later amended/superseded or to review the voucher program as represented by both bills? If just the first bill, which to some degree is no longer on the table, then let the vote be on that bill; let the second bill (HB 174) then stand on its own – whatever the courts tell us that means. If, however, the people intended to vote on the program that was passed during the session (as represented by the two bills), then a vote on just one of those bills (with the third bill running the second bill through the Rube Goldberg machine) does not honor the will of the people. Though voucher opponents’ choice of a referendum instead of an initiative was wrong, we shouldn’t have to strain too hard to realize that the intent of the people who signed the referendum is straight forward – to determine whether the voucher program should stay or go.
Rather than win-at-all-cost politics, this situation deserves clarity. To that end, I again propose that we simply convene a special session to pass one voucher bill that will be voted on by the people – yes or no.
As I understand the proposal, it would only add a few more confusing elements to the Rube Goldberg machine. The proposal is to leave the two general session bills in place but pass a third bill that would make operation of the second bill (which currently is law) contingent upon a vote on the first bill. If that isn’t an accurate description, someone please clarify.
In support of his proposal, Rep. McKiff raises 3 points: (1) he’s tired of dealing with the issue, (2) voucher opponents feel duped, and (3) only a referendum on HB 148 (and no other election) will suffice. The first two points, of course, are gratuitous. Nonetheless,
Point one: Rep. McKiff has been in the Legislature 5 months; if he is tired of dealing with an issue of tremendous significance after such a short tenure, it probably says more about his approach to problem solving than it does anything on the merits of the issue. Though it would be convenient to wave away issues we don’t favor, that’s not really a best-practices solution for democracy.
Point two: if Rep. McKiff believes someone took actions to blindside voucher opponents by passing the second bill, he should name names and provide details. As an elected representative of the people, he owes the public an explanation; light not heat; tell us who did it and how, so that we can examine the evidence and, if appropriate, beat the person(s) with sticks. As I am aware of the facts, the second bill was passed at the request of voucher opponents, voucher opponents were the only ones who knew they were going to file a referendum in the next few days, and voucher opponents were the ones who chose to file a referendum against one of the bills, instead of file an initiative on the issue. Again, if that isn’t an accurate description, someone please clarify. And unless he’s just making up stuff to support a political position, I really hope Rep. McKiff will put some teeth into his accusations and let us know who blindsided voucher opponents by strategizing the second-bill scenario.
Point three: Rep. McKiff argues that a referendum vote is the only thing that honors the will of the people. Okay, what is the will of the people – to review just the first bill that was passed and later amended/superseded or to review the voucher program as represented by both bills? If just the first bill, which to some degree is no longer on the table, then let the vote be on that bill; let the second bill (HB 174) then stand on its own – whatever the courts tell us that means. If, however, the people intended to vote on the program that was passed during the session (as represented by the two bills), then a vote on just one of those bills (with the third bill running the second bill through the Rube Goldberg machine) does not honor the will of the people. Though voucher opponents’ choice of a referendum instead of an initiative was wrong, we shouldn’t have to strain too hard to realize that the intent of the people who signed the referendum is straight forward – to determine whether the voucher program should stay or go.
Rather than win-at-all-cost politics, this situation deserves clarity. To that end, I again propose that we simply convene a special session to pass one voucher bill that will be voted on by the people – yes or no.
posted by steve u. at 6/04/2007
Subscribe
13 Comments:
Rep. Urquhart,
I find this post troubling. Straw dummy arguments, false premises, and ad hominem attacks do not advance the debate.
I'm going to post an entry on UtahAmicus responding to this most recent strategy.
Happy blogging.
Thanks...Craig.
Craig,
Sorry if it rubbed you wrong. Rep. McKiff raised a proposal, and I thought I was pretty direct at discussing it. If you think I raised straw(man) arguments and false premises, please correct me -- with facts.
As far as ad hominem attacks do, I'd guess you're saying I was wrong to point out that it is silly for Rep. McIff to be "tired of" an issue after serving just 5 months in the legislature and to ask for names and details to his blanket ad hominem on "those guys" who "blindsided" the public. We disagree. I think democratic process deserves some patience and details.
I don't get to be "tired of" Rep. McKiff's arguments, but I do get to point out the flaws with his proposal. Again, sorry if it rubbed you wrong.
Rep. Urquhart,
I am not going to argue with you on point number one. I tend to agree, any elected official who claims to be tired of any issue before the public does a disservice to his constituents.
As for point 2, I do have a couple of questions. While I am aware that voucher opponents asked for HB 174, who actually wrote it? Is it a normal practice to have most of a previous bill reenacted in a bill to amend the prior bill? Since it was basically a foregone conclusion that the amending bill was going to pass putting all the extra language from the original bill was one way to thwart a referendum if it might come, even if 174 didn't pass by a 2/3rds majority there would still be the possibility that anyone doing a referendum would only petition on the original. Of course, no one knew that a referendum was coming but as much as I might sometimes argue against, the legislature is filled with a lot of very smart indiviuals who are thorough and contemplate every contingency. So I would be willing to believe that at least one person thought of the possibility that opponents would try a referendum.
As for point #3, the retoric that is out there leaves me in the position of not trusting virtually anyone from either side. I totally agree with you that most people signed the petition thinking they were going to be putting the whole issue of vouchers on the ballot not what voucher proponents now claim is on the ballot, ie. those parts of 148 not repeated in 174, basically the mitigation money.
Voucher opponents don't trust voucher proponents to keep their word and follow a non-binding vote, and I can understand why based on what voucher proponents are saying the current situation is. And voucher proponents feel they are in a fairly good legal position in that the current vote could very well go against them, yet they come out winners with vouchers still in place.
I disagree with your Rube Goldberg Machine argument. The legislature can clear things up following McIff's plan. Personally, I think either option your's or McIff's would work because I think the people would be less likely to forgive a legislator for going back on his word (either side) after a vote by the people than to forgive a lawmaker for doing nothing and letting the vote end up being basically meaningless.
Would McIff's method be messier? Yes, but it would mean the vote of the people had some kind of binding effect and I believe it would accomplish the same thing as yours. And the fact that it would have a binding effect I believe would increase voter turnout (and I would guess that favors opponents if the polls are correct). Your method would be cleaner but without the binding effect, I believe that there will be people who have enough distrust in the legislature that they would be less inclined to vote and that would probably favor the voucher proponents.
I would prefer McIff's method but would be satisfied with your method. But I think some in the legislature would like to try winning at the SC level to basically see if they are forced to let the people have that up or down vote.
Stacey
Stacey,
I don't know you, but I sure am glad that you are participating in the dialogue. You are a gifted thinker, and you bring good things to the table.
On point 2, legislative research and general counsel (LRGC) drafted HB 174 (for Rep. Brad Last who spent 10 years on a school board before joining the legislature). I'd be interested to know if anyone disagrees with my observation that LRGC does not push policy agendas. From my viewpoint, they keep their fingers off the scale. I will ask LRGC why the bill was drafted as it was and post an entry on that. But, as you can tell, I believe that anyone who alleges that anyone else was working to blindside or hoodwink anyone with the second bill should bring some facts to support the statement. I don't think there is a shred of truth to it.
As you correctly observe, trust levels are not high right now on either side. But, with few exceptions, it would be fairly easy to lock in legislators on the issue. Though many people would share my level of concern about locking in legislators, I don't think anyone would exceed it. To some degree, the special session bill is my idea and my stand for democratic process. The idea that something might go wrong and that democratic process would suffer is not a possibility that I want to flirt with. Therefore, I don't want to proceed with anything, unless we have enouch legislators willing to sign a pledge to follow the exact protocol that is developed in order to bolster democratic process. If we don't have enough statesmen step forward to put the political issue aside, in favor of the overall process, I want no part of it. In such case, let's all, proponents and opponents alike, admit we aren't up to the task, and let the courts determine the issue.
Though the tendency exists to dehumanize a faceless body like a legislature and assume "they" are all corrupt, elected officials' currency with each other and with their constituents is honesty. Sure, there's the highly publicized what is "is" stuff and broken term limit promises and the like, but I believe that is the exception, at least at the state and local levels. No matter how much we might disagree on an issue, if House members (voucher opponents and proponents) sign a pledge that they'll take a certain action, I'd believe them. The issue is whether they'll come forward to agree on a solution.
As you note, McKiff's plan is messier (I'd say much messier). Something only works if it promotes absolute clarity. Look at the Bush/Gore debacle. Many argue that voting rights were abused by the way simple names were listed. The very real possibility of confusion emerging from a "vote for X but it's really a vote for X + Y" scenario does not seem like a step forward to me; it is simply a retread of voucher opponents' legal argument of what would happen if the legislature did nothing at this point.
Rep. Urquhart,
You said, "Something only works if it promotes absolute clarity."
I am suprised a lawmaker, and especially a lawyer, could say something like that with a straight face. ;-)
If it was strictly LRGC alone without input from those on the side of vouchers, I will set down my tin foil hat but I intend to keep it close.
With the quote of Speaker Curtis that I posted from the Out of Context blog, I am probably more on the side of believing that there was no diabolical plan hatched in the deep recesses of the capital.
I look forward to watching the debate and like you will be very interested to see who the statesmen are that step forward to protect the rights of the people.
Stacey
Tired of the issue? It may be a short way of saying tired of the bickering, divisiveness, politicking, conspiracy theories, and impasse. It's certainly something worth being frustrated over.
(I mentioned it at the Senate Site, but I find the "initiative" argument as disingenuous as the mention of legislative conspiracy.)
To put things in a bit of context, estimates suggest vouchers will affect ~2% or Utah children. I, for one, want to skip to the end where we as a state figure out whether we want 'em or not, and return our attention to solving what I believe are bigger problems that affect a greater number of students. (Although I understand there are good reasons for government to move slowly.) The voucher issue may be important, but it's distracting us from the essential.
Imagine what our schools would be like if we spent this much energy on adult education?
Stacey,
It’s always a good idea to have the tin foil hat close by (but out of sight).
Tom,
Wouldn’t you say that most people are tired of the bickering, divisiveness, politicking, conspiracy theories, and impasse that play such a big role in government these days? I believe it turns most people away from any participation at all. It’s like touching a hot stove; sane people say, “That wasn’t enjoyable. I’ll avoid that at all costs.” I appreciate how you carry out your role (state school board) in an open, straight-forward manner – always working to avoid such ugliness (and reminding folks like me to do the same).
I don’t understand your “initiative” point, though(?). Do you conclude that an initiative would not have been the correct way to challenge the voucher law?
Your point is on the money. Let’s take care of vouchers so that we can move on to more important issues. Issues of appropriations, curriculum, differential pay, and merit pay likely will have a bigger effect on the overall quality of the system. (And those fights will be every bit as big as this one). I have a difficult time understanding the energy burned on keeping a few individuals from benefiting from vouchers. But, of course, opponents are equally puzzled by the energy burned in favor of vouchers. Ah, democracy!
I don’t think vouchers are distracting us from other tasks, though. The State School Board is addressing the issues it needs to address and the Legislature is addressing the issues it needs to address. It’s just democracy getting some exercise.
Yes, I believe most citizens are disenchanted with their government. I think it leads to either a) apathy [as you point out] or b) extremism. Grrr.
I hope I didn't come off too snarky in my last comment. I was feeling a bit contrary this morning.
Regarding the initiative/referendum: One major difference between the two is immediacy.
Many voucher opponents give a _moral_ reason for their position. (Economic or ethnic segregation, brain drain, public money for private purposes, etc.) Although I mostly disagree with the logic that leads to those conclusions, their intent is honorable. Thus, they believe it would be immoral to allow vouchers, even for the short time (nearly two years and $20M before the next general election) between an initiative and a public vote--vouchers wouldn't be suspended as they are under a referendum.
An initiative doesn't match that moral imperative. A referendum, which suspended HB 148 (and had brought the HB 174/HB 148 sufficiency argument to the fore) meets that (perceived) moral purpose.
Tom,
In all respect, I completey disagree with your "moral imperative" argument.
Don't school choice advocates have moral reasons for their support of vouchers, too?
As a voucher supporter, I think that the moral thing to do is to make sure that every child has access to a quality education NOW and vouchers would help do that. We don't have another year or another generation to wait for the public schools to figure out how to fix themselves, we've been trying to do that for well over 30 years!
Those 2% of kids that you say vouchers will help are still kids who need help. From what I've heard,the estimates are that anywhere from 3 to 9% of kids will eventually switch to private schools because of vouchers, but regardless, the 2% of kids who you think would be helped by vouchers would only be using a quarter of 1% of the funds we'll spend on the other 98%. That sounds like good economic policy to me.
But what upsets me the most about your comments, is your suggestion that since there is a moral imperative behind the anti-voucher folks, it's acceptable that they play any political card to meet their ends, which is to stop vouchers at all costs.
I completely disagree. By giving any side a free pass to play any political card they can because of "moral imperatives" directly contributes to the disenchantment you say you're against!
It was the voucher opposition's push for a possibly illegitimate referendum that gave rise to the public's belief that they were entitled to a vote on the entire voucher program this fall.
Ironically, even if the court's agree with the Attorney General that HB 174 stands on it's own, the public will STILL have a right to vote down the voucher program, but it will have to be through an initiative, not a referendum.
But that's not what we'll hear from the voucher opposition and the opinion makers in the media. If the courts do agree with the AG, the voucher opposition will successfully broadcast to the entire state that because of the Legislature, the courts, and Parents for Choice in Education, the public has been robbed of their right to have a say on vouchers.
But this of course, would simply be untrue. If the courts do agree with the AG's arguments, it will mean that the public never had the right to repeal the voucher program through a referendum to begin with. It will mean that their right to repeal the voucher program must be accomplished through an initiative instead.
And after the anti-voucher folks have convinced some of the public that they have been robbed of democracy, what will be the end result? Even more voter disenfranchisement.
And it will be at the hands of those who you say have a "moral imperative" to stop vouchers at all costs.
Dave,
I think you may be misinterpreting Tom's comments. He's more on your side than you are giving him credit for.
I'm nervous you're going to pop a blood vessel or something...
Utahns for Public Schools has done their job respectfully and admirably. They've been above board, honest about their intentions, and professional in their interactions with public officials and the media.
I have a hard time believing you are actually accusing the referendum folks of playing dirty politics! A referendum is not a dirty trick or a sleight of hand.
I've been reading your various posts and can clearly tell you have a passion to see vouchers enacted. I hope that in the future you can advocate your position without such vitriol for your opponents.
Thanks...Craig.
Craig,
Is it wrong to say that I disagree with someone and then explain why? I think saying that I disagree with someone is less vitriolic than telling someone that their ideas are troubling.
And after taking a few moments to look over your blog, The Utah Amicus, I'm amazed that you have the nerve to go around telling other people to not be vitriolic. The Utah Amicus can't mention the word voucher without throwing insults at conservatives and your favorite organization of all time, Parents for Choice in Education (or "Segregation" as you call them). If that's not vitriolic then I don't know what is. Give me a break.
I will admit that after looking back over Tom's comments, he doesn't say that the "moral imperative" of the voucher opposition excuses them for their actions, so there's no real disagreement between his post and mine on that point, but that doesn't change the facts of what the voucher opposition is doing with the referendum.
Can you tell me where my conspiracy theory (as you like to call it) is wrong?
Did they or didn't they choose to file a referendum instead of an initiative? Have they not positioned themselves as being pro-democratic and any0one who questions the referendum as being anti-democratic? Do you not think they'll say that the people were robbed of their rights if the Supreme Court disagrees with their legal argument?
And if I seem upset, it's partly because I am. The voucher opposition gets a free pass on any action they take; whereas everyone who's fighting for what I see as the rule of law, gets slammed for being dirty.
Just read a few Tribune editorials from the past few weeks and you'll see what I mean.
And one other item (Sorry Rep. Urquhart for this back and forth. I'll stop after this one)
Are you actually serious when you say that Utahns for Public Schools was "honest about their intentions" on this whole petition thing?
Is that why when I asked the person getting signatures whether the petition was for or against vouchers, they would only respond that it was just for letting people have a vote on it?
Come on. I'm not Pollyanna and the teachers union isn't either.
Most of my friends are pretty darn conservative. I'm socially and fiscally conservative myself. Ironically, many of the conservatives I talk to are opposed to vouchers because it is an entitlement program with little accountability and oversight.
Darn right we were honest when we got those signatures! The referendum is simple - to allow people to have an up or down vote on vouchers. I imagine most of the signatories are opposed but that is not universal. I saw some signatures come through of folks I KNOW who are huge supporters of vouchers. They're bright people who aren't going to be hoodwinked by a PTA volunteer going door to door with petition in hand. Consider that a recent DesNews poll indicated that 80% of folks would have signed the petition if it were presented to them and yet the numbers for support or opposition for vouchers is fairly close right now. So I don't see evidence of people being duped into signing something they didn't understand. I don't think that a bunch of PTA parents and humble public school teachers really have the mind-bending control over the electorate you are implying.
I don't think you're being dirty for bringing up the "rule of law" argument. I just think it's a narrow argument that you're going to have difficulty proving out in court.
Later.
Craig.
Post a Comment
<< Home