This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Confusion surrounds a November vote on the state's private school voucher program despite actions taken Thursday by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and legislative leaders meant to clarify the situation.
If anything, things got muddier.
The leaders released a joint statement but don't agree on its meaning. Key legislators filed a lawsuit that would turn the ballot question on its head.
Neither effort answers the question at the core of this highly political fight: If voters approve the referendum, does that kill the voucher program?
The answer may come from the only other branch of the government: the courts.
The referendum aims to repeal one voucher law, but another that accidentally re-enacted major portions of the first one would remain on the books. Some say that second law can be used to give parents state money to help defray the cost of private school tuition. Others don't. And everyone, including Huntsman, expects the courts to play a big part in sorting it all out.
"Oh man, it's such a mess," Senate President John Valentine said.
Despite requests from the attorney general, education officials and some Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature, Huntsman refuses to call a special session to sort out the mess.
He feels another legislative action on top of the two that have caused the uncertainty wouldn't help. Instead, he issued a joint statement with Valentine and House Speaker Greg Curtis.
That statement ended this way: "We honor the rule of law and will respect the outcome of the election."
Huntsman said the joint statement "brings the maximum amount of clarity to this whole discussion." But the three leaders can't agree on what the statement means.
Huntsman said: The vote "will be respected as a vote up or down on vouchers."
Valentine said: "This vote doesn't give them an up or down vote on vouchers."
Huntsman said the statement means he will follow the will of the people even if one side prevails by only one vote. Legislative leaders say the statement means they will follow the will of the voters only in their legislative districts.
And while Valentine signed the statement, he doesn't even believe the vote is technically about vouchers at all.
He defends a lawsuit filed Thursday by legislators who sponsored the original voucher law that seeks to rewrite the question as it will appear on ballots.
Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble and Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, filed a petition with the Utah Supreme Court insisting the vote is not about keeping a voucher program or dumping it.
They insist vouchers are here to stay because of the second law and that a successful referendum would merely repeal mitigation money for public schools, which wasn't included in the second law.
"If the only thing that can be repealed is the hold-harmless money, that will affect the vote," said Bramble, who co-sponsored the Parent Choice in Education Act. "We need to respect the voice of the people, but you need to know what that voice is speaking to."
At a news conference announcing the Supreme Court filing, Bramble and Doug Holmes, chairman of Parents for Choice in Education, the political action committee that lobbied heavily for vouchers, said they know several people who support vouchers but signed the referendum petition because they oppose giving public school money for every student who accepts a voucher.
The Parent Choice in Education Act appropriates $9.2 million from the state's general fund for private school tuition assistance. Nearly $4 million of that money is slated to help mitigate financial damage public schools might face.
Curtis challenges his colleagues' assertion that people support the referendum because they oppose public school mitigation funding.
"People generally perceive this as a voucher vote," he said Tuesday. ''People who signed the petition, the vast majority of them are saying, 'We're not comfortable with vouchers.' Let's just vote vouchers up or down.''
The group petitioning the Supreme Court - including the lawmakers, Parents for Choice in Education and three parents - don't want that straight vote and hope the Supreme Court will side with them.
But first, they have to convince the court they even have a right to be there. Utah code says only the group behind a referendum drive may challenge the ballot language.
"These guys have no standing to challenge the ballot language at all," said Janet Jenson, who represents the referendum petitioners. She said that group has its own concerns with the ballot language, which she declined to specify, and intends to file a challenge next week.
The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, which wrote the ballot language and is the target of the legal action, declined to comment Thursday.
Citizens' State Referendum Number 1
In February 2007, the Utah Legislature passed H.B. 148, Education Vouchers. This bill will take effect only if approved by voters. The bill:
Establishes a scholarship program for:
* Qualifying school-age children who newly enroll in eligible private
schools; and
* Lower income school-age children who continue their enrollment in eligible private schools; and
* Provides for scholarships within that program of $500 to $3,000, depending on family size and income, increasing those scholarship amounts in future years; and
* Allows school districts to retain some per-student funding for scholarship students who transfer to private schools.
Are you for or against H.B. 148 taking effect?
* The issue: Whether a second law amending the voucher program could stand on its own as voters decide whether to repeal a school voucher law.
* What's new: State leaders vowed to sign a letter respecting the will of the voters while the law's sponsors challenged the ballot language at the Utah Supreme Court.
* What's next: Until the court decides if and when to rule on the case, voters are no closer to clarity on the issue.