A legal opinion from Attorney General Mark Shurtleff says Utah's new voucher law to send public money to private schools could go into effect even if a referendum petition drive to put the law before voters is successful. That's one man's opinion, and an extremely guarded one at that, with more qualifiers than a credit card application.

Granted, Shurtleff's opinion carries weight. But, by itself, it should not doom the referendum. The groups who want to give Utah voters a chance to strike down the controversial law should keep pressing forward. Their own lawyers take exception to Shurtleff's opinion, and if the referendum is successful, they are prepared to go to court to make it stick. And even Shurtleff believes their case would have some merit.

All those "ifs" are conjecture, and all arguments hinge on one thing: Enough Utahns have to sign the petitions.

In fact, 92,000 signatures - 10 percent of voters in the most recent election for governor from 15 counties - are needed. Utahns for Public Schools has until April 9 to gather them. We urge all registered Utah voters to sign.

Shurtleff's opinion, requested by Gov. Jon Huntsman, analyzes how the referendum might affect the voucher program that was created by House Bill 148 and then slightly changed by House Bill 174. The petitions target only the original law.

The attorney general writes that HB 174, "Education Voucher Amendments," could stand by itself to initiate the nation's first universal voucher system. But . . . Then Shurtleff outlines the opponents' case:

HB 174 restates much of the original bill's language, but omits several key sections, including one that awards "mitigation monies" to school districts to limit financial harm to public schools. That provision won over several reluctant legislators and led to the original bill's passage in the House by a single vote.

Shurtleff points out that voucher opponents could (should?) argue that eliminating the mitigation money changes the Legislature's intent.

HB 174 would let the State Board of Education regulate all private schools, including existing parochial schools, and omits a sentence in the original bill that defines the law as "neutral with respect to religion." This entanglement of government and religion raises serious constitutional questions.

In polls, Utahns have opposed a voucher law, and this one is so broad that its impact on public schools cannot be predicted. If ever there was a law that should go to a public vote, and be rejected, this is it.

Utahns have opposed a voucher law, and this one is so broad that its impact on public schools cannot be predicted.