Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Monday, April 23, 2007Watch your [referendum] language
There’s been just a little confusion in the Deseret Morning News and the blog world over who will draft the ballot title language for the voucher referendum.
By law, that job falls to the non-partisan attorneys in the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. They take this responsibility seriously. No legislator or partisan staffer will even see their draft until sometime after April 30, when they send the ballot title language to the Lt. Governor’s Office. At that time, we expect nothing more or less than ballot question language that is an impartial and accurate summary of what the referendum will do. More info on KCPW: On April 30th, the Lieutenant Governor will announce whether either referendum received enough signatures to land on the ballot. Then, Legislative Research and General Counsel will have 15 days to write the ballot language. If voucher opponents are unhappy with the language, they can challenge it in court. Utahns for Public Schools spokesperson Lindsay Zizumbo says the group is expecting the language to be impartial and clear for voters. But, she adds, the group has a team of lawyers ready to fight "whatever battle is going to happen."
posted by The Senate Site at 5:51 PM | Link
|
Radio Free SenateYour Government 2.0 Lab
Keep in TouchCurrent Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
6 Comments:
Ah, another voucher post. Since the Senate Site refused to post Rep. McIff's op-ed, maybe now you will consider posting the excellent pro-public education op-ed by J. Kenneth Davies, a retired professor of economics at Brigham Young University. It appeared in the Daily Herald today (Monday) and is a direct rebuttal to the Herald's editorial that the Senate Site posted April 10th. Why don't you prove your not just trying to peddle propaganda, Senate Site, and post the Davies' piece.
I haven't read Mr. Davies' piece. If you think it adds good things to the discussion, just post the link. Our readers can check it out and weigh it for themselves.
Here's the link
Thanks Craig (and Natalie).
In response to Anonymous,
The last time I checked, the Senate Site was the "Unofficial voice of the Utah Senate Majority."
And surprise, surprise, 19 of the 20 Republicans in the Utah Senate voted for the voucher program.
What do you expect them to do? Write posts promoting views that they disagree with? This is a blog. It's supposed to have a slant.
If you want to see an anti-voucher post, go to the "Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate MINORITY."
Or go to Utah Amicus (a local Democrat blog). Last time I checked, it didn't have any posts in support of vouchers, and I didn't expect there to be any because the people who post on the Utah Amicus, don't support vouchers . Strange how that works.
Furthermore, I'm glad that the Senate Site didn't give audience Rep McIff's ridiculous op-ed. It's reasoning was unsound.
Dave,
You and the Senate Site have tried to undermine, demean and dismiss the well-reasoned response by fellow Republican, Rep. Kay McIff. I wonder now if you dare take the same attitude toward powerful former House Speaker Mel Brown.
------------------------
Two voucher bills, one big mess
Mel Brown and Kay McIff
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:05/12/2007 01:22:48 PM MDT
What an unfair mess. By happenstance, we ended up with two competing rather than complementary school voucher bills. The first represents the actual will of the Legislature. The potential consequences flowing from the second do not. They constitute an acknowledged mistake - the result of a political accident.
Yet voucher advocates seek to hold on to the ill-gotten gain.
The irony is that the people can readily overturn the first bill in a referendum vote if they decide it's a mistake, while the admitted mistake stemming from the second bill is claimed to be beyond the reach of the people. There is no rhyme or reason in that. It simply undermines the democratic process no matter how innocently it may have arisen.
How did we get in such a mess? The "main" voucher bill, House Bill 148, received an open and fair debate. It carried the House by a single vote. The "amendment," House Bill 174, passed in the waning hours of the final session without committee hearings, public input or floor debate. It was portrayed as a cleanup measure largely benefiting the public education community by providing funding and supervisory powers.
Pitched in these protective terms, the amendment garnered broad support from voucher advocates and opponents alike.
When the dust settled, voucher opponents learned, to their great dismay, that they had been blindsided. What was characterized as a shield had become a sword, seized upon by voucher advocates in an effort to emasculate the right of the people to decide the fate of school vouchers in a public referendum.
How unfortunate. How unfair. Even voucher advocates should feel squeamish about how voters will react to this backdoor approach.
In this strange twist, where unintended consequences and a political accident have risen to a higher level than the legitimate product of a fair and open debate, to whom can the people look for protection?
Some say the courts. Perhaps, but why not look to the elected representatives in the other two branches? Can we "punt" because the problem arose inadvertently and was not intentionally created? Is public duty so thin that it stops short of correcting political accidents?
The answer ought to be no. The governor has fixed Nov. 6 for the referendum vote. To assure a definitive outcome, the governor should call a special session to consider a simple bill repealing HB 174, and then re-enacting the same provisions effective if the referendum fails.
This is the political high road. It delivers what was intended by all and restores integrity to the process. No one should want more nor less.
There appear to be other major benefits and no real downsides from taking this approach. First, it is befitting of statesmen to unwind a political accident of their own making. Second, HB 148 is restored to its intended station as the primary bill, with HB 174 supplementing and not undermining.
Third, it assures the voters (opponents and proponents alike) a clean, straight-up vote on the merits. Fourth, we demonstrate respect for a constitutional process which had its roots in the Legislature only a few years ago and which has been properly invoked through an enormous effort by the citizenry. Fifth, the expensive, divisive and uncertain lawsuits growing out of the flawed legislative process go away.
How can we tacitly endorse resorting to the courts to determine the "real legislative intent" when we already know the answer? Could we in good conscience quietly stand by while arguments are made to the courts which are contrary to what we know to be true?
It's a poor plan to expect the courts to unravel all of this, especially when the other two branches have the power to solve the problem up front in a remarkably simple, fair and straightforward manner.
---
* REP. MEL BROWN, R-Coalville, is a former speaker of the House of Representatives. REP. KAY MCIFF, R-Richfield, is a former district court judge and member of the Utah State Board of Regents. Both Brown and McIff voted against HB 148 but in favor of HB 174.
Post a Comment
<< Home