Utah’s Republicans: Taking The Decision Away From Voters = Clarity
UPDATE 05/29/2007 8:20:
Steve Urquhart has been arguing for a whole new voucher bill that could receive an up or down vote in a statewide election as a way of fixing this whole mess. Check out his update to this post for more information. This might be a fair way to handle the whole issue. It could provide for the up or down vote that Utahns deserve and a clearly laid out complete voucher program if voters decide at the ballot box that they want vouchers.
END UPDATE
The new talking point for Utah’s Republican leadership is that they are looking for “clarity” in the ballot language for the referendum election on vouchers. Take a look at the current language:
In February 2007, the Utah Legislature passed H.B. 148, Education Vouchers. This bill will
take effect only if approved by voters. The bill:
• establishes a scholarship program for:
• qualifying school-age children who newly enroll in eligible private schools; and
• lower income school-age children who continue their enrollment in eligible private
schools;
• provides for scholarships within that program of $500 to $3,000, depending on family
size and income, increasing those scholarship amounts in future years; and
• allows school districts to retain some per-student funding for scholarship students who
transfer to private schools.
Are you for or against H.B. 148 taking effect?
That ballot language couldn’t be any more clear…”do you want the voucher program or not?” So what needs clarifying? Republicans don’t really want to clarify the language. They want to gut the ballot question so Utah’s voters no longer have any say. Here’s how Curt Bramble describes “clarifying the ballot language” on the voucher referendum election:
The outcome I support and that I think is consistent with the applicable statutes and the Attorney General’s opinion is this: The Court may rule that only part of HB 148 is subject to referendum - the part not superseded by HB 174. People will then know, without confusion or argument, that supporting the referendum only means they are deep-sixing the mitigation money that holds schools harmless when a student leaves.
Bramble doesn’t want Utahns to have an up or down vote on his subsidies for private school students. He wants the language changed on the ballot so that voters will have no other choice than to accept the voucher program he’s shoving down our throats. For Bramble and most of our Republican legislators…that is clarification.
Now more than ever…Utah’s Republicans have no shame.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The clarification sought in this lawsuit only becomes necessary should HB 148 be defeated. To seek it now is not only unnecessary but makes those involved look like grade A louts. While I try to give folks the benefit of a doubt, Bramble and company make it increasing difficult to be anything but suspicious of their intentions.
Comment by Jesse Harris — May 27, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
I’m sorry Jeremy, but you are mistaken when you write, “That ballot language couldn’t be any more clear…”do you want the voucher program or not?” That is not what the referendum says. The referendum says, are you for or against HB 148? From my understanding, no one disagrees with that.
But that’s not the problem. HB 148 is not that current legally operative voucher program. The legislatures passed HB 174, modifying the law in HB 148. If were were to ask a court, what is the voucher law, the answer isn’t HB 148. The voucher bill law is a mix of HB 148 and 174. That’s the problem. The referdum could invalidate 148, but 174 would still be on the books and operative. How is it shameful to ask the court to clarify the language of the referendum when the outcome would create legal ambiguity?
You can’t blame the Republicans for bad lawyering by the UEA and the people who are against markets in education.
Comment by Daniel — May 29, 2007 @ 5:12 am
And one more note, why don’t you want more control of your tax dollars? That’s what the voucher program is intended to do–to make a larger market for schools. Vouchers is no way are “subsidies for private school students,” vouchers are parents actually being able to decide where their tax dollars should be spent. I can’t fathom why it is a bad idea to have discretion on where some of your tax dollars are spent on education.
Comment by Daniel — May 29, 2007 @ 5:12 am
Sorry Daniel, but I don’t agree. On may be for or against vouchers, but vouchers are still subsidies for the students (parents). It can’t accurately be defined as “deciding where their tax dollars should be spent”: Those who pay the most taxes are likely to get the smallest voucher amounts, and those who pay the least taxes are likely to received the largest subsidies, possibly an amount greater than taxed paid. Vouchers–like public education–are subsidized by all tax payers.
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2007 @ 6:59 am
Daniel,
The idea that HB174 can legally stand on its own as the legislative trigger for a voucher program is far from certain.
The current ballot language provides a very good chance for all parties in this dispute to have their case made to the voting public. An up or down vote on vouchers as described in the ballot language should guide our government to follow the will of the people.
On your second comment I can only state that vouchers aren’t “parents actually being able to decide where their tax dollars should be spent”. They are a sop to those who want to take their kids out of proven and excellent public schools and receive government subsidies for putting their kids in questionably good private schools. It has been estimated that over the next few years this program could cost Utah’s taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars more out of the general fund than we are currently spending.
If the voucher law makes it past the voters and becomes Utah law it will be another case of our government wasting more money on something that may or may not provide any benefit. I’m not in favor of shooting from the hip when it comes to education policy programs.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — May 29, 2007 @ 7:08 am
Jeremy, you write that “The idea that HB174 can legally stand on its own as the legislative trigger for a voucher program is far from certain” is just the point. If the referendum passes it will end up in court–before or after the vote. Why not settle the issue beforehand, if it is possible?
Legally, you can’t pick and choose what you think the “will of the people is.” If the referendum passes, it will invalidate HB 148, nothing more. HB 174 will still be the law and if we believe in the rule of law, it must be carried out.
I know you agree that judges should rule on what the law is, not what the law should be. We can argue that passing a referendum on HB 148 is akin to passing a referendum on HB 174, but legally it isn’t the same thing.
Comment by Daniel Simmons — May 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Your comment is why I support Rep. Urquhart’s plan to eliminate the confusion. Instead of relying on the courts we should let the legislature clean things up in a way both sides can support.
The legislature should repeal both HB 148 and HB 174 and replace them with a new bill containing all of the necessary voucher program language from both laws that will only go into effect after it is approved by the voters in an election. It is definitely a different way of going about implementing a new law but the current mess we are facing needs to be cleaned up somehow. This seems to me to be the best way of dealing with all of this outside of relying on the lawyers and the courts. No offense…but any time the lawyers are brought in taxpayer money is being wasted. A legislative solution to this problem is much preferable.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — May 30, 2007 @ 1:47 pm