Arguments for and against the Nov. 6 referendum on Utah's school voucher law were submitted to Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert's office Friday, minutes before the 5 p.m. deadline. The 500-word blurbs now may only be changed to correct spelling or grammatical errors. Each side has until July 13 to submit 250-word rebuttals to its opponent's arguments.

At issue is a voucher program created by the 2007 Legislature to provide $500 to $3,000 in private school tuition assistance to most Utah schoolchildren. The legislation made it through the House by a single vote and was immediately challenged by voucher opponents. A successful referendum petition drive collected more than 124,000 signatures to let the public vote vouchers up or down.

Utah code requires leaders of the House and Senate to choose legislators on each side of the vote to write the pro and con arguments for voter information pamphlets.

Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, and Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble - the House and Senate sponsors of the bill - wrote the pro-voucher argument.

The case against vouchers was authored by Rep. Kory Holdaway, R-Taylorsville, a special-education teacher, and Sen. Jon Greiner, Ogden City police chief.

Greiner was one of only two Republican senators to vote against the voucher bill, mostly because it didn't require participating private schools to conduct criminal background checks on teachers.

That provision was added in a second amending bill.

"That's the only argument he made on the floor but he made several [compelling] arguments in caucus," said Senate President John Valentine, who chose the authors with House Speaker Greg Curtis.

He called Greiner "a very articulate spokesman of the opposition position" and said he chose him over Democratic senators who opposed the bill because he didn't want the issue to be viewed along party lines.

"We felt it was important not to have it locked up as a partisan debate," he said.

nstricker@sltrib.com

The following are the arguments for and against school vouchers exactly as submitted Friday to the Lieutenant Governor's Office. They will appear, with rebuttals, in a voter information pamphlet that will be distributed prior to the Nov. 6 referendum vote.

Argument for the voucher program:

Our public education system works well. It meets the needs of most of our children. But one size does not fit all. Vouchers are educational scholarships for the small number of children whose families feel a private school best meets their needs. Governor Huntsman signed the program into law because scholarships help children.

All families, no matter what their means, should have a choice in how to educate their children. Most children do well in Utah public schools, but some fall through the cracks. Sometimes a different school would help those children learn and reach their full potential. If parents of these children are wealthy, they already have a choice. But if they are not financially well off, the children are locked in a system where they are failing. Scholarships will help level the field, giving educational opportunities to families with limited resources. The scholarship amount is scaled based on income, so families with the least means will receive the largest scholarship.

These scholarships give all families in Utah a choice when it comes to their own children's education. That's why the legislature passed, and Governor Huntsman signed into law, the Parent Choice in Education Act. A YES vote on Citizen's State Referendum 1 will let parents decide what's best for their kids.

Bureaucrats and liberal unions oppose this law. This law is not about them. It's about parents and it's about letting children have an education that works for them. It's also about avoiding a future tax increase. With 150,000 new children entering Utah schools in the next decade, it is almost inevitable that taxes will be raised to pay for those students. The availability of scholarships helps divert some of those children to private schools, using funds that were never part of the public education budget. Plus, these scholarships will actually increase the amount of money that goes to public education.

For every child that uses a scholarship, money is sent to the public school district where she would have attended. Yes, though you might not have heard this part of the story, the district gets money as if the child were attending the public schools. This is additional money put into the public education system. The scholarship program pumps new money into education while reducing class size. And it helps prevent a tax increase. Vote YES on Citizen's State Referendum 1 to guard against tax increases.

We grapple with complex issues in a large educational system. Parent choice in their child's education is just one piece of the puzzle but it is an important piece. Scholarships give every family a choice. They will help children get an individualized education that meets their needs. They will make all schools better, reduce class size and guard against a tax increase.

Vote YES on Citizen's State Referendum 1 to support the scholarship law and every family's right to choose the best educational fit for their children.

Argument against the voucher program:

* Vouchers are more about subsidies and less about choice. Parents may choose to send their children to any public school in the local district without charge. They can also choose a private school. The issue isn't about choice, it's about whether taxpayers should subsidize existing private schools and encourage emergence of new subsidized private schools without adequate assurance of quality or accountability. Utah can't afford where that path leads.

* Utah's schools deserve continuing support. Utah spends the least per-pupil, yet Utah's public schools are leaders in performance. Utah is in the top 10 in graduation and one of only 7 to receive an "A" grade in preparing students for college. Most Utahns want increased investment in what works in classrooms - quality teachers, smaller classes and high expectations for all students. The last thing Utah's schools need is a liberal subsidized entitlement program that competes for scarce resources.

* Vouchers will cost taxpayers and injure some public schools. Legislative Research projects that vouchers will cost Utah taxpayers $429 million over the next 13 years as the students in existing private schools qualify for the subsidy. This education money will not go to public schools. To the contrary, after five years, public school funding will be reduced to reflect transfers to private schools regardless of the ability of impacted schools to reduce fixed costs. Depending upon enrollment patterns, some public schools would simply have to do more with less.

* Utah shouldn't be the nation's guinea pig. Voucher advocates are trumpeting Utah's proposed law as the "nation's first statewide universal voucher bill." Vouchers have been adopted only in a few states primarily for the benefit of the disadvantaged or those with special needs. Utah's voucher bill contains no such limitation. It subsidizes persons with income exceeding $100,000. Utah, with its conservative values, should not lead the nation in this experiment in social engineering.

* Vouchers could become tools for cultural division. Voucher proponents foresee development of many and varied types of private schools. They share a common design to divide from the main stream. Private schools will naturally arise from perceived academic superiority, social or economic status, religious preferences, lifestyle or political philosophy, undesirable student mix or a desire to be more exclusive. Such schools have always existed, but not at taxpayer expense. During the last half century, we have reduced segregation and enhanced equal opportunity in public schools. We should not embrace a system that could reverse what we have worked hard to achieve.

* The voucher bill has constitutional problems. Utah has many excellent and valued parochial schools at every education level. They all depend on private funding. This is consistent with Utah's unique history and its Constitution which expressly prohibits direct public funding of church-sponsored schools. House Bill 148 adopts a legally questionable scheme to funnel money to these schools. Vouchers are made payable to parents, but mailed directly to the parochial schools for deposit in their bank accounts. This invites a costly and divisive court battle.