Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Thursday, May 24, 2007It’s your call, Ref
By Curt Bramble
Senate Majority Leader The voucher debate has progressed to the point that Utah needs a referee to blow the whistle and make a call. We have confusion on the field. Emotions are high, people are yelling, and no one can tell exactly where the lines are. Today the co-sponsors of the original voucher bill, Steve Urquhart and I, brought the issue to Utah’s ultimate legal referee, the Utah Supreme Court. To my thinking, there are two possible outcomes – one I like, one I don’t. 1 - 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Attorney General’s opinion is this: The Court may rule that only part of HB 148 is subject to referendum - the part not superseded by HB 174.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. 2 – Alternately, voucher opponents hope the Court will decide that the two bills are inextricably tied. Thus, a vote on one will seal the fate of the other. In that case people will know that supporting the referendum means they are voting against Utah’s current voucher program. I like this alternative less because it seems the Court would have to ignore the plain language of the applicable statute. As a strict constructionist I believe the text and the rule of law should be respected. Either way, clarity will be helpful. We need definitive, authoritative answers to the questions we’ve been arguing about for months. Voters need clarity to make a deliberate choice. Legislators need clarity so we can interpret the referendum results, and act accordingly. Once the ref makes the call, we will continue to play - by the rules.
posted by The Senate Site at 9:01 PM | Link
|
Government 2.0 AccessoriesRadio Free SenatePast Five Twitter UpdatesKeep in TouchYour Government 2.0 Lab
Current Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
13 Comments:
This is so disingenuous.
You want to use a technicality to remove the ability of the people to decide this issue. If the first outcome you suggested takes place it will be very clear that the Legislature used legislative slight of hand to sneak this program past a possible referendum by running it through in two different bills.
Your clear insistence here that you don't want Utahns to be able to vote on this program reflects poorly on you and your methods of operation. Those who contend that the referendum should be a meaningless rejection of the mitigation money instead of a clear statement of the voters in favor or against the voucher plan aren't arguing in good faith and don't deserve the respect of the voters they are seeking to disenfranchise.
Amen, Jeremy.
This is a great example of revisionist history in action. "A-la Peanut Butter Sandwiches!"
And now for some really bad poetry:
"Strict constructionist" ala Senator Bramble equals strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
What a switch in positions this post represents from the comment you guys posted on your own site May 17th:
"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."
We don't blame folks for wondering, it's healthy that they do, but the "sleight of hand" accusation doesn't fit with how we experienced the session.
The legislature passed two bills to try and craft a better voucher program. The second bill made changes requested by the education community. I am unaware of anyone who suspected a referendum was in the works, except maybe the petitioners, and they didn’t send out any smoke signals.
If they had, we probably wouldn’t be in this awkward situation.
Here’s why:
The second voucher bill passed the Senate on the very last day of session. The 2/3 vote in both chambers made it referendum proof. Ten senators who were inflexibly opposed to the voucher program . . .
* Jon Greiner
* Scott McCoy
* Ross Romero
* Gene Davis
* Mike Dmitrich
* Pat Jones
* Kevin Van Tassell
* Fred Fife
* Ed Mayne, and
* Brent Goodfellow
. . . voted in favor of the second voucher bill.
Had the petitioners communicated their plans to file a referendum the VERY NEXT DAY to any of the opposing legislators, it is hardly likely all senate voucher opponents would have voted in favor of the second bill. If just four of them had voted NO on the second voucher bill, it would have been as vulnerable to a referendum as the first one. It would have been challenged too, the signatures gathered, and we would have a clear-cut vote in November.
People should be frustrated at sneakiness in government, but I hope people will also be open minded enough to let the conspiracy theory die when facts don’t bear it out.
Jeremy 10:34: lots of people post on this blog site; we're only monolithic on special occasions (& this isn't one of them). Senator Bramble might not agree with with the statement you reference, above. Either way, it still seems accurate to me; reading it over carefully I don't see the contradiction.
Let me guess: If the Supreme Court goes with Option #1, it's doing its job. If it goes with Option #2, it's a bunch of activist judges. I can see the press release(s) now...
Senate Site, you forgot in your recap of events the part about how all attempts by senators during the debate to improve HB 148 were shot down. The list of senators you provided, who will all have my support next election, had a choice between HB 148 and HB 174. They chose HB 174 because the only alternative was worse. I hope the fine lawmakers listed above are at this moment working on legislation to repeal any form of voucher law for the next session.
Jeremy said, "You want to use a technicality to remove the ability of the people to decide this issue."
It's not a technicality, it's called the law. You follow it. The courts are suited to decide what the law means. That's where things are now.
a 2/3 vote made HB174 constitutionally unchallengeable. Thats not sneaky, how is that sneaky.
It was voted in with such a wide majority, because the vast majority of Utahns support some kind of voucher program, and this program is really quite limited and cost effective. The huge power of the educational beuracrocy and teacher Unions in Utah will not be able to put a stop to the popular will in this instance. All this farce of a referendum does is to forestall the inevitable.
Anon 5/25 8:50 and Zach,
It is a technicality and it was done in a sneaky and underhanded manner. The drafters of the ballot language and the anonymous author of the Senate Site comment of 5/17 correctly understood that the referendum election should be a chance for voters to get an up or down vote on this voucher plan.
Bramble, Urquhart* and PCE are now trying to exercise a legal loophole that will allow them to disenfranchise voters on this issue. They are doing this because they know that you Zach are completely incorrect. A majority of Utahns are opposed to vouchers and have been consistently opposed during nearly 20 years of efforts by a minority of people who want government subsidies for their kids in private schools.
This referendum really should be an up or down vote by the electorate and if the legislators who keep trying to worm their way out of a vote really believed Utahns supported this plan they'd get out of the way and honor the election results.
*Urquhart has said he really does want an up or down vote on his voucher plan in spite of his involvement in this lawsuit.
Voice of Utah: believe me, the "activist judges" irony is not lost on us.
I am so tired of this crap. Let's be clear; we are in this voucher mess because of the "Education Coalition".
The Republican-led Legislature ran a bill (HB 148) to implement vouchers. They were able to get the votes in the House, Senate and Governor's office.
The Education Coalition, a group comprised of the State Board, the UEA, the PTA, etc., asked for some minor amendments to the voucher bill. Some of the changes were clarifications and others were needed and reasonable. They approached Rep Brad Last who agreed to run the changes. He opened a bill (HB 174) and ran the changes. The bill passed the House, Senate and was signed by the Governor.
After the session, as we all know, the Education Coalition decided to file a referendum against HB 148 and got the signatures. However, since they couldn't referendum 174 they got the signatures on 148 and have been whining about the confusion ever since.
This is all a ploy because the Education Coalition knows that the more confusion the better because the referendum question needs a no vote in order for it to be overturned. The confusion is being created by the Education Coalition not the pro-vouchers supporters.
Furthermore, the whole concept of repealing HB 174 is not possible. Each legislative session concepts are put into bills and numbered accordingly. HB 222 in 2005 is different than HB 222 in 2006 and HB 222 in 2007. If a Legislature decides to change a law that was passed in a previous session they open a new bill but are actually repealing actual state code or statute.
Herein lies the fallacy: HB 174 is now Utah State Statute 53A-1a-80x. Why should this language be repealed? What if the pro-voucher side wins? Do we not want criminal background checks for teachers in private schools? Furthermore, the language in 174 cannot be repealed or it does away with the voucher language and takes away the need for a referendum vote. That may be what the anti-voucher crowd wants but it is disingenuous.
The pro-voucher crowd played by the rules and passed voucher legislation. I have no problem with the education coalition pushing a referendum but they asked for 174 and the unintended consequences that came from it will have to be resolved by a court.
Let’s not forget that the confusion concept continues to be pushed by the education coalition. Just today, Sheryl Allen filed an emergency action with the State Board. What’s the purpose of this? More confusion!!
What’s more amazing is that no one is asking why all of the fear from the Education Coalition. 16 million dollars from the general fund to see if a concept can improve our education system; it reminds me of a time when we were all deathly afraid of light rail. We even voted against a funding mechanism but some folks decided to keep pushing the concept and now we can’t vote fast enough for a tax increase for light rail.
It’s not that scary people!!
chris, could the legislature, in special session, pass a bill repealing the language of HB 174 which would be contingent on the outcome of the referendum vote? If so, why do they not do that? If not, why not?
Post a Comment
<< Home