A week from Tuesday, Utahns will get a chance to vote on hosting the 1998 Winter Olympics.
It's a strangely timed vote, coming as it does in a municipal election year when only city residents would normally go to the polls.It means that people who live in unincorporated parts of the 29 counties won't see any candidates on the ballot, just the single Olympic question. City dwellers will have the Olympic question along with the traditional slate of candidates.
In addition, municipal elections traditionally have a much small voter turnout than general elections, especially general elections in which Utahns vote for governor and president.
A small municipal voter turnout, coupled with a statewide ballot proposition in a non-general election year, offers the possibility that a small, dedicated group of voters could swing the Olympic election one way or the other.
For the supporters of the Olympics, the fear is that while polls show a general acceptance of their goal and accompanying public financing scheme, those citizens who support the Olympics, but who aren't driven by the Olympic question, may not go to the polls Tuesday, Nov. 7, while the more fanatical Winter Games opponents may, and could, rule the day.
Such risks leads one to question: Why have the Olympic vote this year, why not wait unti lthe 1990 general election? Or better yet: Why hold a public referendum at all?
It's always tough for a public official to advocate that citizens not be allowed to vote on a sensitive issue. But remember, we live in a republican form of government, where we elect people to make decisions for us, not a democratic form, where we all show up at the forum and shout "yea" or "nay" when asked if we want to spend money on the Olympics -- perhaps as the original Greeks living in their democratic city-states did.
Utah legislators, who've already decided to allocate 1/32 cent of the sales tax toward the Olympics, routinely decide taxing matters and pass laws without citizens second-guessing them through a ballot referendum.
But the Olympics must be handled differently, says Tom Welch, chairman of the Olympic organizing committee. Welch says that Denver's rejection of the Olympics in the early 1970s forever changed the internal politics of the Games. While France, Sweden or Japan may not have to hold public referendums on the Games -- and in fact, don't -- the U.S. bid city must.
"Practically speaking, it's the only way the International Olympic Committee will ever believe we have public support. Polls just don't make it," Welch says.
Also, the public debate that surrounds a ballot proposition "is a good thing." "We believe that people wil get behind the Olympics," says Welch. "Such a public vote of confidence solidifies support, brings all kinds of groups together and sets the stage for a successful IOC bid and successful Games."
But why not wait until 1990?
Welch says he would have loved it if that could have been done. But it can't.
"First, we couldn't have afforded to wait that long and been successful before the IOC" for the 1998 selection.
The 1990 vote would be in November of that year. In June 1991, the IOC will meet to pick the 1998 city. "That would give us only six months or so" to lobby the IOC with the guarantee that Utahns support the bid -- not enough time to get all IOC members into Utah for a visit and conduct other lobbying operations, Welch says.
Second, Welch's group is trying to raise a lot of private money for the Games, money that will be used in that lobbying effort. Who would give cash now with the possibility that Utahns could reject the Games in a November 1990 vote? Welch asks.
Finally, debating the Olympic issue before the public for 18 months "divides our energies and detracts from what our main effort should be -- convincing IOC members to pic us," says Welch.
While Welch didn't mention this, others have said that waiting until 1990 would also give Olympic opponents more time to organize, raise money and find fault with the public-funding plan.
For all the above reasons, it was decided that Utahns must get a chance to vote on the Olympics, and that a vote in 1989 -- as risky as such an off-year election is -- is better than waiting until 1990.
Nov. 7 will tell if the risk was well taken or not.