Will voters repeal Utah's controversial private school voucher law? Will another voucher law take effect at the end of this month that would render a voter repeal moot?

Even recent legal opinions on those questions can't quell the speculation on the future of school vouchers. There is but one prediction that either side of the always contentious debate can make with certainty: See you in court.

"I think the likelihood of a lawsuit is very high and ultimately that issue is clearly a legal decision that the courts will have to resolve," Kim Burningham, president of the State Board of Education, said.

As county clerks verify the 131,000 signatures on petitions seeking a voter repeal of Utah's controversial voucher law, insiders are awaiting the next move by the Utah State Board of Education, whose members have generally opposed school vouchers in the past.

If enough signatures are verified for the referendum, then the law will be put on hold until the public votes — that will be decided on April 30.

Then it would be up to the state board to decide at its May 3 meeting if an amendment bill, which sailed through the Legislature last session, has what it takes to hold the law in place.

The law targeted for repeal is HB148, referred to as the Parent Choice in Education Act. The law provides Utah families with a private school tuition voucher ranging from $500 to $3,000 per student attending a private school, based on parents' income. It also appropriates $9.2 million to offset any financial impact school districts may experience for five years after a student leaves and goes to a private school.

But critics of the law say the voucher program shifts public money to private schools, and last month Utahns for Public Schools, an anti-voucher group, filed for a referendum to let voters either repeal or keep the voucher program. The group was required to collect 92,000 signatures for a referendum but turned in more than131,000 this week.

However, voucher supporters tucked an ace in their sleeve the last night of the legislative session by passing an amendment to the voucher law, HB174. The bill was described as simply giving the State Office of Education an additional $100,000 to administer the voucher program and require teachers at schools where voucher students are enrolled to have background checks.

But it also contained the language of the original voucher bill but without the $9.2 million that was key to winning the votes needed to pass a voucher law after years of falling short.

And now the attorney general has issued an opinion saying the amendment, which is not targeted by the referendum, could hold the voucher law intact since it is similar to the original bill.

But while some of the sections of the original bill are duplicated in the amendment bill, voucher critics say the language regarding definitions, purposes, enforcement and accountability measures of the law are left out, along with the $9.2 million appropriation — not enough to implement a voucher program.

Nevertheless, observers of the voucher debate are keeping a close eye on the state board, which could make the next crucial move.

Legislative attorneys said if HB148 is stayed by the pending referendum, the State Board of Education will then be charged with the decision of whether or not to treat HB174 as a separate voucher law or an amendment that has no power without the original bill.

"Or they could decide that they don't have the authority to make the decision at all," said Jean Hill, attorney at the State Office of Education.

Carol Lear, director of school law and legislation for the State Office of Education, said if the board does decide to go forward with HB174, then leaders would have to draft new rules of implementation — something they have been working on for the original bill for the past 2 months — and fill in the blanks, if that is even possible.

However, that decision could be challenged by anti-voucher groups.

But if the board decides that HB174 does not have enough language in the bill to establish a voucher program, then pro-voucher groups could file suit.

Burningham said that the board is currently seeking legal advice on what its move will be, and until then it can't speak about its decision.

Either way, it will most likely end up in court, he said.