Vouchers are not a silver bullet, but they do offer a measure of choice to parents when considering what is best for their child under the large umbrella of public education.
Parents have had the option for many years of home, charter, online or traditional schools. Unfortunately, before the voucher program has even begun, it's been challenged by the UEA and others in a referendum. I've heard many conflicting stories about this referendum. I'd like to clarify some of the misconceptions being perpetuated so that those considering support or opposition to the referendum do so with a complete understanding.
The Legislature passed HB 148 and HB 174 this past session. These bills put into place a program that allows parents to receive a state voucher for a portion of their child's private school education. The vouchers amounts vary based on the parents' income. The bills are very similar, differing in only a few sections. However, there are a few key differences.
HB 148 contains mitigation funding intended to ensure the education budget is held harmless for the first five years of the program. HB 174 doesn't contain this same mitigation funding provision. The Legislature intended this funding to insulate public education from any funding shortfalls that might arise as a result of the voucher program.
It was anticipated that this would allow the Legislature to evaluate and tweak the voucher program in the early years, should the need present itself.
The other key difference is how the bills passed the Legislature. HB 148 passed both houses on simple majority votes. HB174, in turn, passed both houses with two-thirds majority votes. This is a very important difference because under Utah law, any bill that passes the Legislature with a two-thirds majority vote cannot be the subject of a referendum.
Due to its method of passage, HB 174 cannot be subject to a referendum. Any provisions in HB 148 that are duplicated in HB 174 are also considered beyond the reach of a referendum. The crucial provisions that create the voucher program are nearly all duplicated in HB 174. This is not just my interpretation, but is supported by opinions issued by the Attorney General and from the law firm of Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless.
Even if these non-duplicated provisions are overturned in a vote, the voucher program would remain in place. The only avenues available for a possible repeal of the voucher program in its entirety are through Legislative repeal or a court decision.
This referendum on HB 148 is not about the voucher program as a whole, but merely about the provisions in HB 148 that are not included in HB 174; the most important being the mitigation funding. It would be more accurate for groups to describe this as a referendum on whether public education should receive mitigation funding during the first five years of the voucher program.
The voucher program is the result of several years of compromise. The provisions included in HB 148 and HB 174 were not selected at random, but refined over years in an effort to create a strong voucher program that complements our public education umbrella. When you consider whether to support or oppose the referendum, remember it's not the voucher program that is the subject, but the mitigation monies.
Would you rather a voucher program that seeks to protect public education or that does not?
---
* REP. DAVID CLARK, R-Santa Clara, is majority leader of the Utah House.
