Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Friday, June 08, 2007The Right Vehicle
By Dan Eastman
Senate Majority Whip I used to run car dealerships for a living. The first thing my salespeople were trained to ask potential customers was, "What's your purpose in buying this car?" We wanted to make sure people bought a vehicle that would serve their wants and needs. The current situation with vouchers is a lot like a group who visits a dealership, with specific needs - and the car that meets those needs is right there in front of them. But, for some reason, they insist on a different vehicle and drive down the road. When the other car doesn't perform, they want someone to engineer the car they bought into the one they should have purchased in the first place. What they really need to do is go back to the dealership and get in the right vehicle. The vehicle for a clean up or down vote on both voucher laws is an INITIATIVE. Maybe the Supreme Court will step in and provide the clarity we all need. Maybe not. BTW - The Justices said there is a good chance they will be ready to issue a decision at 2:00 p.m. today. You can listen here.
posted by The Senate Site at 1:02 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:
It looks like the Utah Supreme Court gave the voucher opponents a pass to drive in the HOV lane.
Only the Supreme Court can prevent road rage.
The initiative/referendum question came up today during oral arguments at the Supreme Court hearing. (I've argued previously that the referendum *was* the correct tool for voucher opponents purposes).
One of the attorneys presenting before the court made this philosophical generalization: the initiative is a process whereby the people can introduce new statutes the leg won't pass; the referendum is a tool for the people to repudiate the action of the legislature.
Although given the decision today, perhaps the point, as it relates to vouchers--is moot.
With all due respect to your status as a state senator, the "wrong vehicle" analogy is misplaced if not just downright ignorant of the difference between an initiative and a referendum. Take a moment to look up the statutes to get your facts straight before offering such a nonsensical opinion.
"Iniative" means a new law proposed for adoption by the public - not by the Legislature]. (For example - if the PEOPLE wanted to enact a new law requiring all newly acquired state owned vehicles to run on natural gas - rather than the gas guzzling, air polluting vehicles currently used by the State - and sold by the likes of people like you -, then the PEOPLE could put forth this new law by an Iniative.) On the other hand a "Referendum" means a law passed by the Legislature that is being submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection. (In other words, if the Legislature passed a school voucher law, (Duh) the PEOPLE can have the law submitted to themselves for their approval or rejection.)
The PEOPLE are not in the wrong vehicle - you are!
Some legislation writes new text to the Utah Code. Some legislation deletes it. (And some legislation does both.)
Referendum = citizens challenge any piece of legislation that passed with less than a 2/3 vote.
Initiative = citizens actually introduce the legislation, and all voters act as the legislature. An initiative can write new law, but it can also erase any language in the Utah State Code, regardless of what bill put it there.
Tom: I see what you are saying, but I don't think the attorney gave a full exposition on the powers of the initiative vs. referendum. A referendum works on HB 148 without a hitch, but can’t touch referendum-proof HB 174 unless someone else – legislature, Supreme Court, etc. – provided an outside fix (which the Court did).
You're right, at this point the discussion is mostly academic. But still interesting. Good info to file away for next time.
I can understand the argument about Reverendum vs. Initiative. And if one believed that 174 was a stand alone law then to repeal it would require an initiative.
But I think the SC got it right. If you look at the 2 bills it is really hard to say that 174 is a stand alone bill if 148 does not exist. Obviously, the biggest thing is that there are no definitions attached to 174. If 148 had not already been in the code then 174 would have required definitions to understand what it was doing.
Another interesting factor between the two was that all 10 senators who voted against 148 voted for 174 while the 5 who voted against 174 all voted for 148. It is difficult to explain how that change could occur if both bills were intended to impliment vouchers independent of one another.
So can we expect to see bills modifying the way referenda are regulated after this referendum like we did for initiatives after the envirocare initiative a couple years ago?
Post a Comment
<< Home