Sponsors of the successful petition drive to put Utah's new voucher law up for a vote challenged the ballot language Wednes- day in Utah's Supreme Court.

Voucher supporters challenged the language last week.

Both groups want the ballot title to reference sections of Utah code enacting a second voucher bill. That bill intended to amend Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act but ended up re-enacting entire sections and omitting others.

Voucher supporters believe the re-enacted sections create a voucher program regardless of the referendum outcome. They want the ballot to tell voters they can modify but not kill a new voucher program.

Voucher opponents argue the Legislature never intended for those sections to stand alone. They want a ballot that says voters can wipe all voucher laws from Utah's books.

"The ballot title . . . fails to tell voters what is at stake in the referendum," Wednesday's anti-voucher petition reads. "[It] can only be characterized as 'patently false' because it does not inform voters of the single, vital piece of information they need in order to determine how to vote on the referendum."

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has said the second law is sufficient to start a voucher program, which would provide $500 to $3,000 in private school tuition assistance vouchers to Utah families of any income.

He conceded only a court can decide the matter for sure, but advised the Utah State Board of Education to offer vouchers in the meantime.

The board, however, has ignored his advice. It voted Tuesday not to implement a voucher program because the remaining law "appears to be incomplete and arguably cannot independently stand."

The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel - which is targeted by both Supreme Court petitions - says the ballot title should not reference the amending voucher law.

"That legal impact is an undecided question with conflicting legal arguments reaching different conclusions," reads a response to last week's challenge by voucher supporters. "Legislative Research has no authority to determine which of those conflicting legal conclusions is correct."

The office also disputed nearly a dozen statements where the pro-voucher "petitioners state as fact what is really a legal conclusion" that "fails to acknowledge another conflicting argument that reaches a much different conclusion."

Both groups petitioning the Supreme Court hope it will clarify matters with its ruling. Each side also presented alternative actions for the court.

Voucher opponents argued the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel overstepped its authority when it added the amendment bill to Utah code as if it was in full force and effect. Its fate should be tied to the referendum outcome, they argued, citing a clause in the second bill saying it only supersedes the original voucher program if both bills pass.

Voucher supporters asked the court to stop the referendum from going forward. They implied petition sponsors may not have been able to collect enough signatures if they had told voters only parts of the voucher program would be up for repeal.

The court has yet to set a hearing date on the matter or say whether it will grant the request to stay Friday's deadline to submit pro and con arguments for November's voter information pamphlets.

nstricker@sltrib.com

* The issue: Whether a voter referendum to repeal Utah's school voucher law also would repeal a second, partial voucher law that remains on the books.

* What's new: Sponsors of the referendum drive have asked the Utah Supreme Court to act to change ballot language so a vote in favor of the referendum would repeal both laws.

* What's next: The court has yet to set a hearing date or rule on a request to stay Friday's deadline for voter guide information about the referendum to be submitted.