This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated.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.

Forget February's presidential primaries. November's off-year election promises one of the fiercest political battles Utah has ever seen.

Now that the Utah Supreme Court has cleared the way for an up-or-down public vote on school vouchers, the next five months will bring emotional rhetoric, national attention and a campaign price tag in the millions.

Advocates on both sides of the nation's school voucher debate will be watching to see if Utah voters repeal their new voucher law. Supporters and opponents are expected to wage spirited fundraising and educational campaigns. The state's elected officials will also jump into the game.

"This will be one of the most important issues voters are asked to decide in quite some time," said Kelly Patterson, a Brigham Young University political scientist. "However it goes, both sides get an opportunity to learn from the mistakes, learn from the outcome, learn from the dynamics of the campaign and use it for the next set of policy debates."

The 2007 Legislature passed, by a single vote, a bill creating the broadest voucher program in the nation. The Parent Choice in Education Act would provide a range of private-school tuition assistance to families of any income across the state.

Including Utah, seven states and Washington, D.C., have voucher programs in place, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The most expansive programs - in Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida - are limited to an inner-city school district or the state's failing schools. No other state has passed a law to give tax vouchers to families of any income.

"Utah is the test case," said Matt Burbank, a University of Utah political scientist, noting that both sides want to win so "they can say to other states, 'Look, it worked in Utah, so you should have it, too.' "

At least one voucher supporter disagrees.

"I don't think it has any significance nationally," said Chuck Warren, a board members with Parents for Choice in Education, the political action committee that lobbied heavily for Utah's voucher legislation. He said the outcome in Utah will have no effect on whether other states will adopt vouchers. "People like to exaggerate the importance on the national scope."

The degree of national importance likely will become more clear as the campaigns - and their costs - ratchet up. Advocates on both sides have been amassing grass-roots support structures for months, but likely will look to national parent organizations for help.

And both sides have plenty of resources at their disposal.

In one corner: Parents for Choice in Education. The group raised more than $500,000 last year, and spent all that and more on the 2006 campaigns of pro-voucher Utah candidates.

Local donors - including Chairman Doug Holmes, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne and Farmington-based D&E Development - chipped in a combined $121,500. But the bulk of funding, $240,000, came from the national organization All Children Matter. The group - which Wal-Mart heirs and Amway founders have funded to the tune of roughly $3.5 million per year - spent about $8 million nationally in the 2003-04 election cycle, according to The Associated Press.

In the other corner: The Utah Education Association, the state's largest teachers union. The local network collected more than $81,000 and spent $165,550 last year, but still had more than $211,000 in the bank following the election.

Its major backer, the National Education Association, collected and spent more than $5 million on political advocacy in 2006.

Political forecasters expect referendum campaign spending on both sides to reach into the millions of dollars. And unlike most intense "issue" votes, where one side has significantly more resources, experts expect similarly-sized war chests on both sides of the voucher vote.

Elected officials also plan to pitch in. Kim Burningham, chairman of the Utah State Board of Education and a vocal voucher opponent, said he will continue his private efforts opposing the program. Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, plans to raise money for a separate "information campaign" where pro-voucher lawmakers will hold town-hall type meetings around the state to explain the voucher law to voters.

"We will not get into the attacks," he said. "We just need to tell people what it does."

Past voucher votes might give Utahns some preview of what is to come. Since 1972, voters in several states have been asked to approve vouchers or tuition tax credits. Each voter initiative died, with the closest race ending in a 55-45 split.

In 1988, nearly 70 percent of Utah voters killed a tuition tax credit proposal. In 2000, the most recent voucher votes, roughly 70 percent of California and Michigan voters killed voucher initiatives.

Both races generated hefty price tags.

Michigan voucher opponents spent about $6 million, compared with about $13 million from voucher supporters. The California voucher initiative was largely bankrolled by one billionaire venture-capitalist, who spent at least $23 million on the campaign. The California teacher's union countered with roughly $25 million, including $7 from the parent NEA.

Because Utah is a smaller state, campaign costs probably won't soar that high. But the Nov. 6 referendum election won't come cheap.

"Both sides will spend quite a bit of money," said Mike Jerman, a Parent for Choice in Education board member and former vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association. "This one is more emotional than other issues - everyone has a connection to education."

How the program would work

* ELIGIBLE STUDENTS: All current public school students, students in any type of school who qualify for reduced-price lunch and all incoming kindergartners. Students now in private schools are not eligible unless they meet low-income qualifications.

* ELIGIBLE SCHOOLS: Must employ college-educated or skilled teachers, operate outside a residence, enroll at least 40 students and not discriminate based on race, color or national origin. They must give parents the results of a standardized test once a year and submit to a financial audit once every four years.

* AMOUNT OF VOUCHER: Vouchers will range from $3,000 per child for families who qualify for reduced-price lunch ($37,000 annual income for a family of four) down to $500 for families earning 250 percent more ($92,501 or more a year). Money would be transferred directly from the State Office of Education to the private school parents choose.

* PROJECTED COST: $9.3 million in the first year; $12.4 million in the second.

Both sides will spend quite a bit of money. This one is more emotional than other issues - everyone has a connection to education.

- Mike Jerman, a Parent for Choice in Education board member and former vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association.