Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Tuesday, May 15, 2007Got Ballot Language
posted by The Senate Site at 3:30 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
8 Comments:
Thanks for posting this. At first glance, the question put to voters looks clean. It appears that once again LRGC did their typical good work. A vote "for" will support the bill, a vote "against" is a vote to oppose.
That sounds entirely reasonable ... Is Rep. Curtis on vacation or something?
:)
I hope that the Senate Democrats' concerns are resolved before the election. It seems like the honorable, sensible thing is to have this be a straight up or down deal. I know that the legislative intent was never for the second bill to stand on it's own. That should be taken into consideration.
The ballot language isn't perfect but it isn't terrible, either.
On another note...
I agree, Natalie. It would be unstatesmanlike for legislators supporting vouchers to get their way on a technicality...a loophole! Kind of like winning on a questionable call - like counting a 3 pointer with your foot on the line. Where's the honor in that? In this case they have members of their own team saying "dude - your foot was on the line!"
It's disappointing to see Shurtleff playing politician. With his biased public displays of support for vouchers and stinging rhetoric how can he possibly represent the State School Board who has consistently opposed private school entitlements?
I say let them sue - HB174 alone does not describe legislative intent! Laws must reflect the intent of the lawmakers. Republican and Democratic lawmakers up and down the state are saying the same thing! The Governor is IGNORING them because his face is on the front page of the PCE web site. Shameful display of leadership.
Sen. Bramble and Sen. Valentine - you know this is bogus!!!!!!!! Do the honorable thing and request a special session to tie HB174 to the referendum. If you try to force HB174's implementation you and your party will look petty.
And should they win this battle I predict significant negative sentiment and an increased mobilization to oust those holding power with more responsive and honorable leadership.
This will either be a display of principled leadership (read: doing the right thing even when it does not benefit you personally) or a continuance of the arrogance and self-interest that turns so many of us off to local leadership.
Thanks...Craig.
Senate Democrats and other voucher foes voted for HB 174 and now they are whining about the fact that it might go into effect. They should have actually read the bill and forseen this challenge.
That's absurd. And it's a lot more than just the Senate Democrats who are not happy with the loophole approach.
While I fully support vouchers and hope when all is said and done the referendum is voted down. Which I will start to address exhaustively soon at Green Jello.
It would be wrong to enact HB174 before and if HB148 is voted down. Let us honor the democratic process.
HB148 and HB174 do not exist as separate bills any longer. What you have now - as of April 30th - is a combination of the two bills in text newly written in the Utah Code. I suppose you could extract and repeal the language that was unique to HB174, but what if we all decide to uphold the law in November? We would then have the HB148 program without the benefit of the language that superseded and improved it.
Post a Comment
<< Home