The formal opinion further details why the judges ruled that voter rejection of one voucher law would kill a second piece of legislation that supporters claimed could have stood alone to begin the voucher program.

The biggest difference stems from $12 million that would be used for implementing the program, which would provide vouchers ranging from $500 to $3,000 for subsidizing costs at private schools. But the appropriation is only present in the main voucher bill, HB148, not in the bill containing amendments, HB174.

Some definitions, such as "board" and "income eligibility guidelines" also are missing from HB174.

Also, while many, including Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, argued the amendments bill could stand on its own and supersede the main bill, the court disagreed.

"It is illogical to suggest that the intent was to allow whichever bill became law to control, since HB148 already was law," the opinion states.

The unanimous opinion, written by Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins, takes it easy on Shurtleff, whose legal opinion was refuted by the high court's June ruling.

Shurtleff, prior to that decision, revoked the "special assistant attorney general" status of two attorneys at the Utah State Office of Education who disagreed with Shurtleff on whether the second voucher law could stand on its own. He said that in advising the State Board of Education not to immediately implement the voucher law, they "fostered an adversarial and hostile relationship" between the Attorney General's Office and the state school board.

Wilkins wrote in the opinion released Tuesday that, "Nothing of consequence should be attributed to that difference" between Shurtleff's opinion and the court's later ruling. "As with any legal analysis, until a court of last resort speaks on an issue, reasonable and informed minds may well differ."

The justice even quoted an old saying: "The Supreme Court is not last because we're always right, we're 'right' because we're always last."

Jean Hill, one of the attorneys for the State Office of Education involved in the dispute, avoided a question about the court's commentary on the attorney general.

"It was a new situation for all of us and we all worked through it the best we could," Hill said of the conflict in June. "But I hope we never get into that situation again."

Shurtleff was surprised the Supreme Court took time to mention him specifically.

"It was very nice to hear, and I was OK with their decision," he said. "Now it's all focused on November, which I don't really have anything to do with."

State Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, was "surprised the court felt it necessary to come to the defense of Shurtleff."

"It's the Supreme Court giving Shurtleff a kiss after slapping him in the face," said McCoy, who sharply criticized Shurtleff's opinion.