Utahns don’t want vouchers. For nearly 20 years subsidies for private education have been rejected again and again by right thinking legislators and voters in our state. If the electorate changes their mind in November (not likely) it represents a major change in electorate opinion. I want to specify this point because voucher proponents are acting like they are entitled to their program even if the electorate is opposed…even if the constitutional referendum process instructs them to back off. When Curtis threatens to ignore the results of the referendum if it doesn’t go his way and act as if HB174 is the law of the land it really should shock all of us. In the face of 20 years of opposition from the majority of Utahns this Republican leader is willing to implement vouchers anyway. That seems like a much bigger deal than the fact that UEA or whoever might sue if the referendum doesn’t go their way.

Either the UEA or PTA or LWV or one or more of their proxies would challenge the constitutionality.

I don’t like that the legislature is going to try and force HB 174 to stand in as a replacement should HB 148 fail in November. I think it’s too flawed to be able to stand on its own, especially in light of the excellent questions raised by the Board of Education. If voucher proponents are serious on getting a program in place, they should back off on HB 174 and wait to see what happens with HB 148. If the latter fails, table the issue for 5 years or so and re-evaluate it then. (I figure that the record increases in education funding will either show increases in public school performance or huge wastes of money. If the latter, there’s a stronger case for vouchers.)

On a side note, I picked one heck of a fight with the UTA over iProvo last month that leaves me thinking that as a group, it’s very one-track in its thinking. It’s all crunching numbers to come up with a final conclusion with little else included in the analysis. I take most of what they say with a grain of salt.