The plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 2, an omnibus education bill passed by the Legislature last year, plan to appeal a state judge's dismissal of two key counts, or to file an amended complaint.

That is the right thing to do. The lawmakers, state education officials and others who filed the lawsuit want a definitive ruling on whether legislators violated the Utah Constitution when, in the final hours of the legislative session, they packaged together a dozen bills, some that contained must-pass education funding.

Since some of the bills had already been defeated in the House or Senate, it was obvious the packaging maneuver was aimed at winning passage of unpopular legislation that a few SB2 sponsors wanted to become law. Some legislators who criticized the move at the time later joined the lawsuit.

Last week, Third District Judge L.A. Dever dismissed the first two counts of the complaint, which question the constitutionality of lumping bills on different education subjects together. The ruling appears to be based not on the constitutional question directly, but on technical issues. Dever explained that the dismissal was partly based on inadequate factual support.

Plaintiffs' lawyer David Irvine said he and his associates are drafting an appeal and are prepared to present further evidence if required.

The people of Utah deserve to understand how passing laws in such a way can be both in their best interest and constitutionally sound.

Each piece of important legislation -- and all laws regarding public education are important -- is best considered on its own merits, not lumped together with other bills under the vast "education" umbrella. The more so when some of those bills cater mainly to private interests.

One such bill in the SB2 package, funding a computer software program for preschoolers, was written and promoted by the company that will contract with the state to provide the service. It was defeated in the House but resurrected in SB2.

Omnibus legislation is not wrong in all cases. Sometimes bills are so closely connected that it makes sense to combine them. But it shouldn't be done to link necessary and popular bills with those that were defeated on their own merits.

The practice, if not unconstitutional, is at best a poor way to make policy.