Parent trigger laws have gained momentum nationally under the premise that they will increase local authority by amplifying parental voice in the decision to turn around "failing" schools. Using Hirschman's exit, voice, and loyalty framework we create two conceptual models of voice and evaluate the promise of voice in California, home of the only attempts to enact the parent trigger law. We find that parent trigger laws, as presently constructed, provide only tangential voice--marginal voice that is temporary in nature. Policy suggestions are given to enact an infused voice model, embedding parental voice throughout the educational decision making process.