Jun 08
Unanimous Decision by State Supreme Court
2007 at 2:42 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 8 comments
A hybrid group of the Utah State Supreme Court handed down a ruling on the voucher issue a few moments ago. In a written unanimous decision, the high court found that if the voters reject HB148 Education Vouchers (ballot title) at the ballot box, so too would they be rejecting HB174 Education Voucher Amendments and all its provisions.
The high court’s decision runs contrary to the findings of Utah State Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who recently sent a letter to the Utah State Board of Education requiring them to immediately implement the Parental Choice in Education Statute without HB148–based on HB174. Shurtleff’s findings proved the substance of HB174 (Education Voucher Amendments) could stand up to Constitutional muster.
My feeling is the high court enjoys legislating from the bench, a Constitutional duty, last time I checked, assigned to the Legislature.
My guess…you haven’t heard the last of this debate.
8 Responses to “Unanimous Decision by State Supreme Court”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I’m a voucher supporter and I think you’re off-base. The legislative intent of HB 174 was to amend HB 148. From reading the ruling itself, it’s obvious that the court simply stated the obvious for us and that this bill was never meant to stand on its own. The same thing is done when determining “original intent” in regards to Constitutional questions.
I think every voucher supporter needs to back off on trying to force implementation of HB 174 and work instead on getting a sufficient vote in November. This nasty fighting is leaving a bad taste in too many mouths.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I agree with Jesse. The obvious intent of legislators in HB 174 was not to create a stand-alone program, but rather to amend certain parts of the already passed bill. By not being willing to go back into a special session and then taking the issue to court voucher proponents forced their hand. Don’t complain just because the decision wasn’t what you’d hoped it would be.
My feeling is the Legislature enjoys interpreting law, a Constitutional duty, last time I checked, assigned to the Legislature.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I knew it–if the Court ruled “for” voucher proponents, it would be doing its job; if it interpreted the statute otherwise, it is “judicial legislation.” Predictable.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
It’s the loudest cry of a legislature told, again, that it’s operating in an unconstitutional manner. They’re a co-equal branch, but you guys get bent every time you step out of line and get called on it.
It is sad and it is predictable.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Sour Grapes Craig! How was a UNANIMOUS decision by four of the present justices a “hybrid”? If it was 4-1 or 3-2, would that make it less legal or applicable? They are the SUPREME Court; they are the people ultimately responsible, not Shurtleff, for ruling on equal justice under the law. I am not a lawyer, and I have not seen the opinion, but as a citizen, I feel good that the rights of citizens are equal to a group of bought-and-paid-for legislators like yourself.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
JM Bell is sad and predictable.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I love how the great representative immediately runs to the tried and true neocon fall back position of “legislating from the bench” when he feels the sting of justice. Well if Rep. Frank and his neocon colleagues would have been stand-up leaders and offered to reconvene to clear up the mess they made he would not be crying in his postum. I especially love the divine comity of all this especially since the original intent of the second bill was to strip the rights away the rights of all Utah citizens from using a referendum. Sorry Rep. Frank, the cowboys in the white hats won this round.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Ouch!