This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated.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.
Updated: 2:58 PM- In a win for voucher opponents, the Utah Supreme Court decided today that Utah's two voucher bills are joined at the hip -- and should live and die on the outcome of a Nov. 6 referendum vote.
The court said the referendum-proof law remaining in Utah code will also die if voters reject the original voucher law.
"If the voters choose to reject [the original voucher law, the amending voucher law] will not create an additional voucher program," said the court's written decision.
The decision came just hours after the court heard oral arguments on the issue from four separate parties, who each got 20 minutes. Justices asked all of them, in one way or another, how they expect the court to clean up the mess created by voucher statute remaining in Utah code.
"The difficulty we face is that the ballot title statute limits our legal authority," Justice Michael J. Wilkins said minutes into the hearing. "If you want us to do something that's outside that authority, you'd better help us find a way to do it."
Voucher opponents and supporters brought separate cases to the court challenging the school voucher referendum ballot language.
Voucher opponents, who launched a successful referendum petition to put a school voucher law up for voter repeal, wanted publicly-funded private school tuition assistance to live or die on the vote outcome. They wanted the court to rule that the remaining voucher code can't stand alone and will fall if voters repeal the original law.
Voucher supporters asked the court to strike the referendum petition that could put the controversial issue to voters in November. They said the remaining law is untouchable and that the petition people signed and the vote it forces are too confusing to be meaningful.
"Why isn't this a legislative problem?" asked Wilkins. "It would appear to me that the Legislature ... has produced ... what turns out to be a confusing situation. Why are we the ones who get to fix it by exceeding the authority the law gives us?"
The justices grilled Harold Christensen, the voucher oppoent's attorney, about how he wanted them to solve the problem. They were equally hard on Clark Waddoups, attorney representing voucher supporters. He argued that the court shouldn't bother considering the relationship between the two voucher laws, called it an undisputed issue.
"That's the jump, the legal jump that requires a legal conclusion," said Wilkins.
Justice Matthew Durrant took it a step further.
"Whether [the remaining law] stands alone affects our assessment of whether this ballot title is accurate," he said. "It seems to be an essential component of our assement of the accuracy of the ballot title."