The decision clarified an increasingly muddy issue surrounding two voucher laws passed by the 2007 Legislature, only one of which is directly targeted by the referendum. Voucher supporters wanted the court to strike down the referendum petition or say the vote couldn't kill vouchers.

Yet they refrained from criticizing Friday's decision.

"We wanted clarity, and we got clarity," said Leah Barker, a spokeswoman for Parents for Choice in Education, the political action committee that lobbied heavily for the school voucher law. "We're anxious to start educating the public - we're confident in the end we have the votes we need."

The court's decision clears the way for a costly publicity campaign to win votes for or against school vouchers, which provide private-school tuition assistance from state coffers. Advocates in both camps were tight-lipped about their campaign strategies and budgets Friday.

The court struck down both groups' challenges to the referendum ballot language but concluded that the second voucher law "was not intended by the Legislature to stand alone as an independent act creating an educational voucher program, and therefore it does not."

At issue was a part of Utah code resulting from a second bill drafted to amend the original voucher law. It re-enacted entire sections but omitted others.

An intense legal debate has centered on whether that law could or should stand on its own.

The ruling seems to eliminate the need for a special legislative session to craft a fix.

It also defused the looming possibility of a lawsuit against the Utah Board of Education and vindicated the board's decision to ignore Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's advice and vote not to offer vouchers until a court ruled whether the second law could stand alone.

"Any legal challenge would now have a difficult time going forward," said board member Tom Gregory of Provo, who had voted against the board's action. "That's comforting."

Shurtleff also had no sour grapes.

"He is very, very pleased that the court did what it did," said Ray Hintze, chief deputy attorney general, who attended the hearing and relayed the ruling to Shurtleff. "Obviously, the opinion went contrary" to the attorney general's opinion, "but we knew it was a close call."

The court's decision is exactly what Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. wanted to see.

"This decision provides clarity for the people, and that was what was needed for this issue," said Huntsman spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley.

Senate leaders, who were among the most vocal voucher supporters, also appreciated the decision.

"I'm pleased we can now go forward with the vote," said Senate President John Valentine. He hoped the court would have ruled in another way but said he was not surprised by the decision.

Senate Majority Leader Curtis Bramble sponsored the main voucher bill in the Senate and also led the legal fight to change the ballot language.

He said Friday: "I appreciate the Supreme Court expediting the decision so voters know what they are voting on."

At least one lawmaker quickly criticized the Supreme Court.

Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove, on his personal blog wrote: "My feeling is the high court enjoys legislating from the bench, a constitutional duty, last time I checked, assigned to the Legislature."

In its questions during the hearing, and in the first half of the decision, the court seemed to suggest it would toss the matter back to the Legislature.

"While there are any number of reasons to reject the suggestion that we move beyond our limited ballot title review," the decision read, "there are also significant reasons urging our further action."

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the decision was its haste. Hintze said in 35 years practicing law, he had never seen the Supreme Court issue a decision the same day it heard arguments.

"We rarely do this in three hours," said Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins. "We customarily take more on the order of weeks rather than hours to work through the way we're going to speak as a group."

The court will issue a full written opinion in the coming weeks, he said.

nstricker@sltrib.com

---

* MATT CANHAM contributed to this story.