It's the issue that just won't go away prayer in public government meetings.
Just a month ago, Utah legislators failed to muster 50 House members and 20 senators willing to sign publicly on the dotted line - to request formally that Gov. Norm Bangerter place a state constitutional change on a special session agenda.Lacking that two-thirds support, Bangerter declined to place the matter before the May 19 special session.
But here it is, only a month later, and conservative legislators are again talking and pushing for a special session on prayer.
During Wednesday's legislative interim meetings, petitions were being circulated by some legislators and by supporters of United Families of Utah aimed at getting the support of two-thirds of the legislators for the special session.
House leaders, while not saying they favor the move, are in favor of holding more public hearings on the matter - this time across the state. A special committee hastily appointed two months ago by House and Senate leaders held a four-hour public hearing in the Capitol. Out of that and another meeting, the committee suggests that if the state constitution is changed this year in a special session, the current religious liberty clause be changed to reflect the U.S. Constitution's short statement on separation of church and state.
That makes sense. How can anyone seriously argue that the U.S. Constitution's religious freedom clause is flawed? It seems to have worked well for 200 years.
But the section in Utah's constitution on church and state has worked well for 100 years, too. It's only this spring's decision by 3rd District Judge Dennis Frederick that the Salt Lake City Council violated the state constitution in praying before council meetings that has brought all this concern to a head.
And it seems that the matter won't go away.
House leaders thought Wednesday morning that they'd set the stage for the Judiciary Interim Study Committee to hold additional public hearings - the idea being that if Bangerter changes his mind because of public pressure and calls a summer special session on prayer, then lawmakers will at least have their hearing process out of the way and can't be accused - as they have been in some quarters - of stacking the deck in favor of a constitutional amendment.
But many senators don't want to talk about this anymore - not now, anyway. And the House Democratic caucus on Wednesday once again voted unanimously not to support any constitutional change in a special session.
Since Republicans don't hold two-thirds majorities in either the House or Senate, the Democrats' stand would seem to end debate. And the senators' hesitation should also halt the train.
But it hasn't. The Legislative Management Committee will apparently meet some time soon to decide if the Judiciary Committee should be ordered to hold such public hearings.
This is an election year, with all House members and half the Senate facing voters. Considering the makeup of many constituencies, most legislators would be risking their political lives if they opposed changing the constitution to allow prayer at public meetings - a practice in many city councils and school boards for years.
It's one thing to sit in a caucus and raise your hand to say you don't want to have a special session on prayer this year - which is what happened May 19. That's a fairly anonymous action.
It is a very different thing to have citizen groups corner you and bluntly ask if you are for or against such a special session. If you say no, you're on the bad-guy list and your Republican or Democratic opponent has a real weapon against you - "My opponent refuses to let the people even vote on whether they can pray at city council meetings . . ." and so on and so on.
If you say yes, there likely will be little political fallout. After all, all you're doing is saying the Legislature should meet to consider an amendment - and if an amendment is passed by two-thirds of the lawmakers, then citizens would still have the final say at the ballot box.
Faced with such a one-sided political decision, most Utah legislators who prefer not dealing with the moral-legal issue of prayer this election year are wilting.
Whether Bangerter - who controls the matter because only he can call a special session - will wilt is yet to be seen.