Rep. David Clark's "Vouchers complement public education" opinion column in The Tribune April 1 crystallized for me one part of what composes Utah's murky politics.
All too often Utah's elected officials, particularly in the Legislature, believe even though they are elected as representatives, their judgment is not to be challenged. Put another way, many in the Legislature analogize their public authority, most often unconsciously, to the ecclesiastical authority they exercise when appointed to an LDS Church position.
Given the homogeneity of the Legislature, this incorrect analogy of religious authority and representative responsibility is rarely questioned, particularly in the closed caucuses of the majority party.
Having been in politics for more than 40 years, I have observed some public officials - elected and appointed - disregard public sentiment and follow a policy that they believed was better.
Sometimes this disregard of the majority has been a profile of courage. At other times, particularly in Utah, this disregard has only been to service the well-funded special interests with an arrogance of power clothed in a false dress of moral superiority.
Further, the arrogance of power almost always relates to distributing the largess of government.
The Utah Legislature in its 2007 session twice enacted bills clearly opposed by the majority of Utahns.
After Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon had accurately assessed the public financing proposal and courageously vetoed a public subsidy for David Checketts' Real stadium, the Legislature approved another public giveaway for Checketts. It was greased through the halls of Capitol Hill in record time and signed by the governor.
In another disregard of majority sentiment, after four years of a well-financed campaign by wealthy proponents, the Legislature enacted House Bills 148 by a one-vote majority. Anticipating a referendum to contest HB 148 and with no significant public input or overall legislative awareness, a few days later the Legislature enacted a second school voucher bill, HB 174.
Now, with well-financed lawyers and a conditional attorney general's opinion, our bishopric Legislature is taking the dubious position that even if the referendum repeals HB 148, the public school system will still be burdened by vouchers because of the Legislature's passage of HB 174. Why? Because our Legislature "knows best" and a mere referendum of citizens of Utah should not be the definitive word on vouchers.
In Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws (which inspired our constitutional Founding Fathers in 1789), he suggested there needs be a constant "check and balance" among branches of all civic governments. Given the actions of the Legislature in 2007, there are two "checks and balances" that need to come into rescuing play.
First, the Utah Supreme Court needs to slice through the legislative chicanery in passing HB 148 and 174 and see it for what it is - a disregarding of the will of the citizens of Utah - by declaring the referendum to be the final word on vouchers, assuming there is a referendum. Second, we citizens need to scrutinize candidates for public office to make sure they will serve the civic needs of our state.
Government by referendum is not a good idea generally, but at times it becomes necessary. The fiasco of HB 148 and 174 is one such time.
We need to sign the referendum petitions. We need to challenge the validity of HB 174 in the courts. We need a Legislature dedicated to public purpose and not well-financed special interests.
---
* PAT SHEA is an attorney practicing in Utah and Washington, D.C. He teaches and does fellowship advising a t Westminster College and served in the Clinton administration 1996-2000.
