Besides picking new mayors and city council members, Utahns will get a chance to vote on private-school vouchers in November.
But what that referendum means and how it will impact schools remains shrouded under intense politics and the intricacies of making laws.
Everyone from Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. to the most ardent voucher supporters and opponents say they want a clear up or down vote.
The problem is how to achieve that goal with so many interested parties pulling in so many different directions.
The practical options boil down to two, and each has its drawbacks - leave it to the courts or come up with some legislative fix.
One thing is clear: the status quo is unacceptable.
"We are in a messy situation," said St. George Republican Rep. Steve Urquhart, sponsor of the first comprehensive voucher bill. "Hire me a swami to tell me what the vote means at this point."
History of the debate
The governor, attorney general and legislative leaders support vouchers, which would give eligible parents some state money to offset the cost of private school tuition.
This pro-voucher group is opposed by the education establishment, including the PTA, the teachers union and the state Board of Education, because they fear vouchers would siphon money from public schools.
The Legislature narrowly passed a voucher bill earlier this year. Opponents immediately sought a referendum, hoping voters would repeal the new law before it went into effect.
They collected more than enough signatures to put the issue before voters. But here is the catch: The Legislature passed two voucher bills, not one.
The referendum only applies to the first bill and not the second, which tweaked the original proposal, but also included much of the same language.
Voucher supporters argue the second bill stands alone, impervious to the referendum. Opponents say the second bill is meaningless without the first.
The opposing views leave the November vote in question, spurring court challenges and encouraging legislators to develop some sort of fix.
Most agree voters want to have the definitive say on the controversy, but nuances, ego and political mistrust have led to a stalemate.
"I'm getting concerned that none of us will know what we are voting on in November without the court adding some clarity," Senate President John Valentine said.
The courts:
Huntsman issued a statement last weekend that said if the courts don't give voters the final say on vouchers, he will call the Legislature into a special session.
The state Supreme Court will have its first chance during a June 8 hearing, after having combined two opposing petitions complaining about the official ballot language.
There appears to be only one way the court can simplify the vote. A majority of justices would have to tie the fate of the second voucher bill to that of the original. Then if voters strike down that first bill, the voucher program would die.
But what if the court doesn't rule that way? What if the justices side with Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and say the second bill is good enough to start handing out vouchers? Or what if they come up with a ruling somewhere in the middle?
Urquhart said both sides appear to be "intent on rolling the dice."
He offers another path - one previously championed by voucher opponents, Democrats and moderate Republicans. He wants lawmakers to fix the mess.
The Legislature:
Just a few days ago, Huntsman, Valentine and House Speaker Greg Curtis issued a joint statement saying that instead of a special session they had agreed to "respect the outcome of the election."
Problem was they couldn't agree on what that meant.
Huntsman said legislative leaders bound themselves to the outcome of the statewide vote. Curtis and Valentine said they would only respond to the votes of those living in their districts.
Legislators feel Huntsman misrepresented their views. Curtis said his statements were "extremely disrespectful" to legislators' responsibilities to their home areas.
They haven't talked much since but have reached a similar conclusion - a special session may still be needed.
Curtis proposed his own solution Thursday. He wants lawmakers to kill both voucher laws and create a new unified bill with an effective date of June 2008. Voters still would go to the polls in November, but only for an opinion vote and not a binding referendum. If voters rejected vouchers, lawmakers would repeal the program in the next session.
Urquhart offered a similar proposal and Huntsman is considering the idea.
Curtis admits it will take a "leap of faith" from those who oppose vouchers, a leap some plan to avoid.
"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.
These two voucher opponents have their own proposals.
Allen wants lawmakers to simply repeal the second law, something strongly opposed by Curtis and Valentine.
McIff wants the Legislature to make the second bill contingent on the referendum vote, calling it "a trigger law."
But just like the courts, Valentine worries about the unpredictability of a special session.
"I don't think the votes are there to pass it all again," he said.
Whether a fix comes through the courts or the Legislature, Huntsman appears ready to throw those dice.
Huntsman spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley said: "We are open to different options as long as clarity is the result."
mcanham@sltrib.com
* The Legislature: Lawmakers on both sides are proposing ways to make November's vote the final say on the voucher program.
Utah's voucher debate players guide:* Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
He is a voucher supporter. But the first-term executive, who faces re-election next year, says he wants to make sure that whatever voters say guides state policy.
* House Speaker Greg Curtis
A voucher supporter. He supports a special session to create a new, comprehensive voucher law with a 2008 effective date. He says a November vote up or down on vouchers would then guide the Legislature's action in January to repeal or keep the new law.
* Senate President John Valentine
A voucher supporter. He believes the referendum is fatally flawed with complications. His preference would be to restart the debate with a simply worded initiative.
* Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
Undecided. He says the state Board of Education is legally obligated to implement a voucher amendments law that is not the subject of the referendum. But he wants lawmakers to resolve uncertainty of the November vote in a special session.
* Utah State Board of Education Chairman Kim Burningham
A voucher opponent. He joined the majority of his colleagues in voting against implementing the voucher amendments law, and believes the courts or the Legislature need to clarify what's at stake in the November vote.
