1

Religion and Public Schools: The meaning of the Johnson and Blaine Amendments in the future

of religious practices in public schools.

Dustin Robinson, Jacob Durance, Adam Rea,

Eric Turner and Dr. Steve Permuth

2

But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified,

solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.

-Chief Justice Roberts, majority opinion,

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, 137 S.Ct. 2012 (2017)

This Court has repeatedly warned that funding of exactly this kind — payments from the

government to a house of worship — would cross the line drawn by the Establishment Clause.

-Justice Sotomayor, dissenting opinion,

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, 137 S.Ct. 2012 (2017)

Overview

In recent years, politicians and education reform proponents have placed significant

emphasis on issues in education funding. Many have disclosed that expanding school choice and

shifting towards privatized education is in the best interest of students. Such efforts have been

met with both support and resistance and typically evoke political activists to toe the party line.

Questions surrounding which type of schools are eligible, or can apply, for publicly acquired

funds that seek to enrich students’ educational experience have ensued immense debate. From

this, challenges to the Blaine and Johnson Amendments have surfaced and are gaining

momentum.

The allocation of public funds to sectarian establishments is prohibited in thirty-eight

states. Within the state constitutions of these thirty-eight states exists an amendment, formally

known as a Blaine Amendment that protects public funds from being utilized by private

organizations.

While the written intent of Blaine Amendments is interpreted as preventing sectarian

institutions from receiving publicly acquired funds, the amendments have a deep-rooted history

that stems from anti-Catholic discrimination. Blaine Amendments were first introduced by James

Blaine in 1875 following a speech given by Ulysses S. Grant in which Grant advocated for a

Constitutional amendment barring sectarian institutions from acquiring public funds. Blaine’s

3

push for a federal initiative was largely unsuccessful however states that viewed the legislation

as beneficial began constructing statutory amendments that were in effect, Blaine Amendments.

While the amendment influences strong separation between church and state, opponents of the

Blaine Amendment claim that it discriminates against religiously affiliated associations.

While the Blaine Amendment prohibits sectarian institutions from utilizing public funds,

it is not the only amendment that attempts to maintain separation between public and private

entities. The Johnson Amendment was first introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954. In short,

the Johnson Amendment is a U.S. tax code provision that prohibits all non-profit organizations

from endorsing or opposing political candidates. From inception until nearly 2010 the Johnson

Amendment wasn’t particularly controversial and remained unchallenged. In 2010 the

amendment was challenged by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) who claim the

amendment violates the First Amendment. More recently, in 2016 then presidential candidate

Donald J. Trump vowed upon election to eliminate the Johnson Amendment. However, many

proponents of the amendment argue that it prevents houses of worship and other non-profit

organizations from being transformed into political tools. One such proponent, the Secular

Coalition for America, views President Trump’s effort to reduce or remove the amendment as

“an unprecedented attack on the separation of church and state.”

This work seeks to provide a historical overview of the Blaine and Johnson amendments,

as well as inform readers on the current status of funding religious schools. Additionally, this

work sheds light on potential implications for education funding.

Historical Overview

Blaine Amendment

4

James Blaine was a Republican congressman from Maine who thrice ran for president,

successfully securing the Republican nomination and losing a closely contested election to

Grover Cleveland in 1884 (Burke & Stepman, 2014; Green, 1992; Heytens, 2000; Klinkhamer,

1956; Meyer, 1951). Congressman Blaine came from a mixed Scottish-Presbyterian and Irish-

Catholic background, but was somewhat mysterious about his personal religious beliefs and sent

his children to Catholic schools. His “mixed decent” combined with his political sensibilities

made him an attractive Republican candidate following the scandal-plagued Grant

Administration and the disastrous election of 1874. The GOP of the 1870s needed to win the

electorally rich states of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois to

overcome the Democratic post-Reconstruction “solid South” (Moore, 1978). Despite the

scandals of the 1860s and 1870s and the Panic of 1873 (Barreyre, 2011; Dove, 2014), the post-

Civil War era witnessed an American economic boom and an expansion of government

involvement in varied areas of life, including public schools (Meyer, Tyack & Nagel, 1979).

This economic expansion brought opportunities for millions of immigrants, especially Catholics

from the “poorer” areas of Europe who were looking for better lives (Lucille, 1951; Metress &

Metress, 2006). The massive numbers of Catholics coming to America provided workers for

factories and infrastructure, but also social concerns about a variety of issues, including the

nature of the growing public school system (Hirschmann, 2004; Jarrett, 1999).

With the future of American public education in mind, Blaine (with his allies in Congress

and the executive branch) argued for a constitutional amendment that easily passed the House

but came up just short in the Senate and was never sent to the states for ratification. The

proposed amendment stated that:

5

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of

public schools or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted

thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination; nor shall

any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or

denominations (Meyer, 1951, p. 941).

President Grant pushed for passage in 1875 and, if it had survived the Senate, there was a strong

possibility of it becoming the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. The failure to do so

influences American public school education to this very day.

Both the politics of the moment and a long-term constitutional vision of the future played

a role in the amendment's drafting, attempted implementation and ultimate failure. There exists

some debate about the degree the role each of these factors played. Some twentieth century

scholars argued that the widespread effort to push for the Blaine Amendment marked a political

and constitutional belief of many 1870s Republicans that the 14th Amendment did not extend 1st

Amendment religious protections (and limitations) to the funding of public schools by the states

or local municipalities. Other writers argued that rather than an in-depth 14th Amendment

analysis and critique, pushers of the Blaine Amendment were mostly focused on daily politics

and the next election. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of these two positions,

and the two positions are not mutually exclusive. Blaine and the Amendment’s supporters

probably had both the politics of the moment and a long duree in mind when they advocated for

such a significant and deliberate change to the Constitution.

American hostility to Catholics was not new in the 1870s, but widespread immigration

from Catholic areas of Europe (Ireland, Southern Germany, Poland among others) during the

6

middle and latter decades of the nineteenth century changed the demographic makeup of major

American cities and greatly influence party politics (Carty, 2004). For a variety of reasons,

Catholics tended to vote Democratic. Catholics today are still more likely to vote Democratic

than their Protestant counterparts, though the disparity has changed over the decades (Smith &

Walker, 2013). In the 19th century, Protestants and native-born Americans were more likely to

vote Republican, at least in the northern states (Kelly, 2003). Republicans tended to push for

Protestant “American” values, and these tactics were often resented by Catholics in Northern

states, like New York and Pennsylvania, which were electorally crucial for Republicans to win

presidential elections. Politicians like Blaine (and quite notably William McKinley in 1896)

realized that changing demographics would make necessary some policy “adjustments” in order

to stay politically competitive. Blaine could see a politically dangerous trend growing in the

1870s. He argued that the debate of public schools

inevitably arouses sectarian feelings and leads to that bitterest and most deplorable of all

strifes, the strife between religious denominations. It seems to me that this question ought

to be settled in some definite and comprehensive way, and the only settlement that can be

final is the complete victory for non-sectarian schools (Green, 2010, p. 294).

Rather than submit to Catholic desires for publicly-funded schools that positively represented

their interests in way similar to the existing “Protestant” norm, Blaine thought moving against

religiously-oriented material in public schools wholesale would appease both Protestant concerns

of a public school “takeover” by Catholics and appease Catholics troubled by the openly

Protestant material already found in common school curriculum (Klinkhammer, 1956).

But the Amendment was not to be. Despite President Grant’s support and even help from

some congressional Democrats who swept to power in the House election of 1874 (only seven

7

“no” votes with 98 abstentions), the bill died in the Senate (Klinkhammer, 1956). Opposition to

the House-version of the bill came from a variety of directions, including Midwestern

Republicans who thought the language was not strong enough, Northeastern Senators weary of

the perceived anti-Catholic language, and southern Democrats opposed to a federal intrusion into

“states’ rights” (Klinkhammer, 1956).

It is interesting that the nominally Catholic-friendly Democrats controlled the house and

easily passed the Amendment, while the Republican-controlled Senate could not. “[The] Senate

voted 28–16 in favor of the amendment, with Republicans and Democrats along party lines. The

final result was 4 votes shy of the two-thirds necessary for passage, and the proposal failed”

(Green, 2010, p. 302). A Senate addition to the House-bill called for the necessity of (protestant)

bible-reading in public schools, obstentiably for the “moral health” of the nation. This perhaps

gave Senate Democrats the political capital necessary to vote no. Now a small footnote in

history, this addition was not a major political issue at the time, but would have made

Christianity the constitutionally official religion of the United States. After the Amendment’s

failure, Blaine himself seems to have lost interest in the subject, and his presidential campaign of

1884 made no effort to reignite the issue. Green (2010) believed that it was “more likely that

Blaine used it primarily for the political mileage” rather than any grander long-term vision for

the country (p. 296).

Johnson Amendment

Churches have enjoyed the benefit of tax exempt status since the foundation of our

country. From our beginnings as a British colony all the way through the establishment of our

first tax code, the federal government has always set churches separate from taxation. This

distinction has enabled churches to grow and prosper in our nation, but it was not without its own

8

set of strings attached. Beginning in the 1930s the federal government began to put limitations on

the exemption, and no tax code has been contested more than a changed to the 501(c)(3) tax

code, a change that became widely known as the Johnson Amendment.

The first restrictions placed on the tax exempt status of a church came in 1934 when

Congress amended the tax code to state that a church would lose its tax exemption if a

“substantial part of… [its] activities… is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to

influence legislation (Stanley, 2012, p. 243).” This addition was added by Senator David Reed

who, while during his reelection campaign, became entangled in a battle with a nonprofit

organization over disagreements with a bill he was sponsoring. The addition of the restrictions

was directly related to silencing these organizations. Twenty years later then Senator Lyndon B.

Johnson found himself in a similar situation with two nonprofit organizations, the Facts Forum

and the Committee for Constitutional Government, who were helping to financially fund his

reelection opponent Dudley Dougherty. After investigations requested by Johnson, the CCG and

Facts Forum were found to be operating within the current federal tax law because supporting a

candidate and not conducting any actions that could be viewed as influencing legislation or

lobbying.

On July 2nd 1954 Johnson appeared on the floor of the US Senate and offered an

Amendment to a pending tax overhaul bill. The Amendment changed the text that read

“influence legislation” and replaced it with “influence legislation, and which does not participate

in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign

on behalf of any candidate for public office (100 Cong. Rec. 9,604, 1954).” The bill was adopted

with little effort, no debate, committee discussion or considerations for its implications on

9

churches, but the “consequences of this restriction have been far-reaching in both the religious

and political arenas (Goldfeder & Terry, 2017, p. 216).”

Current Status

Blaine Amendments

Since inception, a total of thirty-eight states have enacted some form of Blaine

Amendment. These states are noted in Appendix 1. The remaining states that do not have a

Blaine Amendment are: Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina,

Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Louisiana, Iowa, and Ohio. While some

states elected to adopt similar variations of the federal Blaine Amendment, many states have

implemented a brief statement consisting of no more than a sentence (e.g., Arizona, Kansas,

Nevada, etc.) Although there are variances in the breadth and depth of state Blaine Amendments,

it is very clear that each of the thirty-eight states have imposed some form of legislation that

prohibits private, religious institutions from receiving public funds.

In addition to the barrier constructed by a Blaine Amendment, some states have enacted

compelled support clauses that prohibit states from requiring taxpayers to support religious

institutions. In sum, twenty seven states have compelled support clauses in their State

constitutions. As identified by Burke and Stepman (2014), Frank Kemerer found that twenty

states that have a Blaine Amendment have a compelled support clause as well (p. 642). Of these

states, Kemerer classified seventeen of them as restrictive. Interestingly, only one state

constitution, North Carolina does not have a Blaine Amendment or compelled support clause.

North Carolina does not require private schools to hire certified teachers or to adhere to state

curriculum, making it increasingly difficult to compare education settings within the state (Public

Schools First, 2018).

10

In reviewing various state constitutions, it is increasingly apparent that the absence of a

Blaine Amendment does not mean there is no obstruction of the financial avenue between

religious schools and state funds. State grants made available for private schools and voucher

systems are common practice in many states that do not have a Blaine Amendment.

Additionally, state accountability standards have become a very contentious issue when

discussing funding private religious schools. Arguments in favor of restricting religious schools

from receiving public funds frequently reference accountability metrics (e.g., state testing,

teacher evaluation). Religiously affiliated schools have significantly less oversight, are not

required to be accredited, and are exempt from subjecting students to state assessments.

Johnson Amendments

The Johnson Amendment is currently an active US law and no legislation has been

passed thus far to limit its scope or interpretation (Byrd, 2018). However, this does not imply

that efforts have not been made seeking removal of the Amendment. Those wishing to repeal the

Johnson Amendment have found a new ally in President Donald Trump.

Among those freedoms is the right to worship according to our own beliefs. That is why I

will get rid of, and totally destroy, the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives

of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution. I will do that — remember. -

Donald Trump

During the 2016 election then presidential candidate Donald Trump vowed to eliminate the

Johnson Amendment, citing that it goes against our first amendment right to freedom of speech.

The president played to a growing concern over the federal government's reach that has been at

the center of the Johnson Amendment debate for years. Trump and those seeking the removal of

the Johnson Amendment argue that the Amendment is too far reaching as it limits freedom of

speech (Shellnut, 2017; Wilson, 2017). “Government telling pastors what they can or cannot say

from the pulpit is not constitutionally valid or laudable. It’s a breach of free speech (Presson,

11

2018).” Proponents of removal signal that the Amendment is unconstitutional because religious

entities are not permitted to endorse or speak freely without fear of penalty from the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS). Conversely, supporters of the Amendment argue that the Johnson

Amendment does little to limit free speech and serves more as a barrier to safeguarding and

protecting campaign finance laws (Laycock, 2017). Supporters additionally argue that tax-

exempt status is the balancing privilege extended to nonprofits and religious entities from openly

endorsing and supporting political candidates. Interestingly, there are many religious entities

who are not in favor of repealing the Johnson Amendment as they favor the separation of church

and state and do not wish to entertain politics in their institutions (Banks, 2017; Salter, 2018).

The law was first put to use in 2000 in Branch Ministries v Rossotti when the IRS

revoked tax-exemption status after Branch Ministries placed a full -page advertisement in local

newspapers urging Christians not to vote for the presidential candidate Bill Clinton (Goldfeder &

Terry, 2017, p. 227). This was the first time the courts affirmed the tax law passed in 1954, but

it is not the first time the tax code was challenged. The most common challenge to the code is

based under a first amendment freedom of speech violation, however to date all those challenges

have failed. In Cammarano v. United States and Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v.

United States the courts upheld the Johnson Amendment, stating that “tax exemption is a

privilege.” Similarly in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington the court

reiterated that “Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying.”

More recently, in May 2017, President Trump signed an executive order outlining a more

lenient policy regarding the interpretations and enforcement of the Johnson Amendment for these

foundations and nonprofits (Gjelten, 2018; Wilson, 2017). Additionally, an attempt to repeal the

Johnson Amendment came up just short when the Legislative Branch sought to redefine the tax

12

code. In November of 2017, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a new tax code,

repealing the Johnson Amendment and thus providing an avenue for tax-exempt nonprofits and

churches to endorse political candidates openly without fear of penalty (Shellnut, 2017; Singer,

2017). The provision did not make it through the merging process with the Senate’s version of

the tax bill (Shellnut, 2017). More recently, the Johnson Amendment has come under fire from

those hoping the IRS will levy fines so that they can litigate the Amendment in open court

(Salter, 2018). Missouri’s State Attorney General Josh Hawley. Hawley is planning a campaign

speech at Hannibal-LaGrange University during a University’s scheduled Chapel service. This

may place the University in a precarious situation as the speech would be in clear violation of the

Johnson Amendment (Salter, 2018).

Future Implications

Blaine Amendments

In the near future, it is likely that the Supreme Court of the United States will be faced

with determining the constitutionality of Blaine Amendments. If Blaine Amendments are found

to be unconstitutional, there may be a significant amount of funding diverted to religious

education institutions. A decrease in public education funding will have an adverse effect on

quality of the education program provided by public school districts.

Conversely, an elimination of Blaine Amendments will increase school choice options for

students and their families. Advocates for the expansion of school choice view Blaine

Amendments as an unconstitutional barrier that prevents parents from selecting the educational

setting they desire.

If, upon judicial review, Blaine Amendments are found to be constitutional, stringent

funding barriers between the state and religious institutions will remain intact. School choice

13

options will remain limited to non-secular schools and religious schools will continue generating

their own funding.

Johnson Amendment

A removal may submerge nonprofit organizations and religious institutions into a sea of

political influence, a new arena of politicized agendas using the contexts of religion, education,

and other foundations as a means to propel their political schemes (Fact Sheet on Johnson

Amendment, n.d.; Laycock, 2017; Singer, 2017;). Religious schools and the school choice

movement may benefit from the removal of the Johnson Amendment as supporters would now

have the legal means to support candidates over others in terms of self-interest, funding, and

ideological agenda. Likewise, campaign finance laws emerge as a gray area. There is no limit to

tax-deductible donations to churches and the donation need not be transparent (Laylock, 2017).

“So if tax-exempt charities were allowed to endorse candidates, it would open a huge loophole in

the campaign finance laws and create a very unlevel playing field (Laycock, 2017, p.10).” This

unlevel playing field could mean more donations to tax-deductible religious organizations, in

hopes of both supporting religious education and the school choice movement. Further, it may

mean less public funding for public common schools.

Concluding Thoughts

While the destinies of Blaine and Johnson Amendments are unknown, it has become

increasingly apparent that their existence will continue to endure public and political scrutiny.

Many argue that each of the aforementioned amendments play a role in maintaining separation

between church and state and, furthermore, that their removal would be detrimental to public

education. If Blaine Amendments were eliminated, via states’ decisions or found to be

unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, sectarian institutions would be free

14

to access and apply for publicly acquired funds. Such an effort would divert funds away from

public education systems, leaving them with significantly less personnel and resources. It can be

argued that eliminating Blaine Amendments will strengthen the platform necessary for

expanding school choice efforts. Removal of the Johnson Amendment may also have a similar

effect. If non-profit organizations acquire the ability to endorse or oppose political candidates,

religiously affiliated schools may have the means necessary to advance political agendas that

seek to privatize education.

15

References

100 Cong. Rec. 9,604 (1954) (Statement of Sen. Lyndon Johnson)

Banks, A. (2017, August 16). Thousands of faith leaders ask Congress to protect Johnson

Amendment. Religion News Service. Retrieved from

https://religionnews.com/2017/08/16/thousands-of-faith-leaders-ask-congress-to-

maintain-johnson-amendment/

Barreyre, N. (2011). The Politics of Economic Crises: The Panic of 1873, the End of

Reconstruction, and the Realignment of American Politics. The Journal of the Gilded Age

and Progressive Era, 10(4), 403-423.

Burke, L. M., & Stepman, J. (2014). Breaking down Blaine Amendments’ indefensible

barrier to education choice. Journal of School Choice, 8(4), 637-654.

Byrd, D. (2018, September 12). By a Large Margin, Majority of Americans Want Johnson

Amendment in Place. Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. Retrieved from

https://bjconline.org/majority-of-americans-want-johnson-amendment-protections-in-

place-091218/

Carty, T. J. (2004). Popish Plots, Religious Liberty, and the Emerging Face of American

Catholicism before 1928. In A Catholic in the White House? (pp. 11-25). New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

16

Dove, J. A. (2014). Financial markets, fiscal constraints, and municipal debt: lessons and

evidence from the panic of 1873. Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(1), 71-106.

Fact Sheet on Johnson Amendment: Trump Foundation Litigation and Pending Legislation

(n.d.). National Council of Nonprofits. Retrieved September 26, 2018, from

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/fact-sheet-johnson-amendment-trump-foundation-

litigation-and-pending-legislation

Gjelten, T. (2018, March 22). Another Effort To Get Rid Of The ‘Johnson Amendment’ Fails.

NPR. Retrieved from

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/22/596158332/another-effort-to-get-rid-of-the-johnson-

andment-fails

Goldfeder, M. A., & Terry, M. K. (n.d.). To Repeal or Not Repeal: The Johnson

Amendment. The University of Memphis Law Review, 48, 209-255.

Green, S. K. (1992). The Blaine Amendment Reconsidered. The American Journal of

Legal History, 36(1), 38-69.

Green, S. K. (2010). The second disestablishment: Church and state in nineteenth-

century America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heytens, T. J. (2000). School choice and state constitutions. Virginia Law Review, 117-

162.

Hirschman, C. (2004). The Role of Religion in the Origins and Adaptation of Immigrant

Groups in the United States. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1206-1233.

Jaret, C. (1999). Troubled by newcomers: Anti-immigrant attitudes and action during two

eras of mass immigration to the United States. Journal of American Ethnic History, 9-39.

17

Kelly, P. J. (2003). The election of 1896 and the restructuring of Civil War memory. Civil

War History, 49(3), 254-280.

Klinkhamer, S. M. C. (1956). The Blaine Amendment of 1875: Private Motives for

Political Action. Catholic Historical Review, 15-49.

Komer, R. D., & Neily, C. (2007). School choice and state constitutions: A guide to

designing school choice programs. Institute for Justice.

Laycock, D. (2017). Free speech in the pulpit: Don’t repeal the Johnson Amendment, fix

it. The Christian Century, 134(6), 10-11.

Lucille, S. (1951). The Causes of Polish Immigration to the United States. Polish

American Studies, 85-91.

Metress, S. P., & Metress, E. K. (2006). Irish in Michigan. East Lansing, MI: MSU Press.

Meyer, A. W. (1951). The Blaine Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Harvard Law

Review, 64(6), 939-945.

Meyer, J. W., Tyack, D., Nagel, J., & Gordon, A. (1979). Public education as nation-

building in America: Enrollments and bureaucratization in the American states, 1870-

1930. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 591-613.

Moore, J. T. (1978). Redeemers Reconsidered: Change and Continuity in the Democratic

South, 1870-1900. The Journal of Southern History, 44(3), 357-378.

Presson, L. (2018, September 22). Hawley is right to oppose Johnson Amendment. Southeast

Missourian. Retrieved from https://www.semissourian.com/story/2553270.html

Salter, J. (2018 September 28). Hawley to speak at university chapel, despite IRS guideline. The

Eagle. Retrieved from

https://www.theeagle.com/news/politics/hawley-to-speak-at-university-chapel-despite-ir

18

-guideline/article_a579bc7e-f1a3-509d-a82b-e0d845914483.html

Shellnutt, K. (2017, December 2017). Johnson Amendment Repeal Removed from Final GOP

Tax Bill. Christianity Today. Retrieved from

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/december/johnson-amendment-repeal-

blocked-final-gop-tax-bill-byrd.html

Singer, P. (2017, November 17). Tax bill’s repeal of ‘Johnson Amendment’ could cost more than

$1 billion. USA Today. Retrieved from

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/10/tax-bills-repeal-johnson-

amendment-could-cost-taxpayers-more-than-1-billion/852554001/

Smith, L. E., & Walker, L. D. (2013). Belonging, believing, and group behavior:

Religiosity and voting in American presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly,

66(2), 399-413.

Stanley, E. W. (2012). LBJ, The IRS, and Churches: The Unconstitutionality of the

Johnson Amendment in light of recent Supreme Court precedent. Regent University Law

Review, 24(2), 237-282.

Trump, D. J. (2018, October 01). Remarks by President Trump at National Prayer

Breakfast. Speech presented at National Prayer Breakfast in DC, Washington.

Wilson, J. (2017, May 9). Donald Trump is right to want to repeal the Johnson Amendment.

Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/05/09/donald-trump-right-want-repeal-

johnson-amendment-essay

19

Appendix 1

Blaine Amendments

Federal (Proposed)

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools,

or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be

under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be

divided between religious sects or denominations.

Alabama

“No appropriation shall be made to any charitable or educational institution not under the

absolute control of the state, other than normal schools established by law for the professional

training of teachers for the public schools of the state, except by a vote of two-thirds of all the

members elected to each house.”

Alabama Const. Art. IV, § 73.

“No money raised for the support of the public schools shall be appropriated to or used for the

support of any sectarian or denominational school.”

Alabama Const. Art. XIV, § 263.

Alaska

“The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to

all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and

institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from

public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”

Alaska Const. Art. VII, § 1

Arizona

“No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship,

exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment.”

20

Arizona Const. Art. II, § 12.

California

“No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or denominational

school, or any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; nor

shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted,

directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of this State.”

California Const. Art. IX, § 8

“Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other

municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever,

or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to

support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any

religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of

personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any city, city and county, town, or

other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever;

provided, that nothing in this section shall prevent the Legislature granting aid pursuant to

Section 3 of Article XVI.”

California Const. Art. XVI, § 5.

Colorado

“No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to

any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any

denominational or sectarian institution or association.”

Colorado Const. Art. V, § 34.

“Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other

public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys

whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to

help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or

scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall

any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or

any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.”

Colorado Const. Art. IX, § 7.

21

Delaware

“No portion of any fund now existing, or which may hereafter be appropriated, or raised by tax,

for educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of any sectarian, church

or denominational school; provided, that all real or personal property used for school purposes,

where the tuition is free, shall be exempt from taxation and assessment for public purposes.”

Delaware Const. Art X, § 3.

Florida

“No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from

the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or

in aid of any sectarian institution.”

Florida Const. Art. I, § 3.

Georgia

“No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any

church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution.”

Georgia Const. Art. I, § II, ¶ VII.

Hawaii

“The State shall provide for the establishment, support and control of a statewide system of

public schools free from sectarian control … nor shall public funds be appropriated for the

support or benefit of any sectarian or nonsectarian private educational institution, except that

proceeds of special purpose revenue bonds authorized or issued under section 12 of Article VII

may be appropriated to finance or assist: 1. Not-for-profit corporations that provide early

childhood education and care facilities serving the general public; and 2. Not-for-profit private

non-sectarian and sectarian elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities.”

Hawaii Const. Art. X, § 1.

Idaho

“Neither the legislature nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public

corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys

whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian or religious society, or for any sectarian or

religious purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college,

university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church, sectarian or

22

religious denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other

personal property ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation, to any church or for

any sectarian or religious purpose; provided, however, that a health facilities authority, as

specifically authorized and empowered by law, may finance or refinance any private, not for

profit, health facilities owned or operated by any church or sectarian religious society, through

loans, leases, or other transactions.”

Idaho Const. Art. IX, § 5.

Illinois

“Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other

public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever,

anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school,

academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by

any church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money,

or other personal property ever be made by the State, or any such public corporation, to any

church, or for any sectarian purpose.”

Illinois Const. Art. X, § 3.

Indiana

“No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological

institution.”

Indiana Const. Art. 1, § 6.

Kansas

“No religious sect or sects shall control any part of the public educational funds.”

Kansas Const. Art. 6, § 6(c).

Kentucky

“No portion of any fund or tax now existing, or that may hereafter be raised or levied for

educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or

denominational school.”

Kentucky Const. § 189.

23

Maryland

“The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law

establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall

provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.” Maryland Const. Art. VIII, § 1. “The

School Fund of the State shall be kept inviolate, and appropriated only to the purposes of

Education.”

Maryland Const. Art. VIII, § 3.

Massachusetts

“No grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of credit shall be made or

authorized by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of

founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school,

or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive

control, order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the

Commonwealth or federal authority or both … and no such grant, appropriation or use of public

money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized for the purpose of

founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society. Nothing herein

contained shall be construed to prevent the Commonwealth from making grants-in-aid to private

higher educational institution or to students or parents or guardians of students attending such

institutions.”

Massachusetts Const. Amend. Art. XVIII, § 2.

Michigan

“No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect

or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be

appropriated for any such purpose.”

Michigan Const. Art. I, § 4.

“No public monies or property shall be appropriated or paid or any public credit utilized, by the

legislature or any other political subdivision or agency of the state directly or indirectly to aid or

maintain any private, denominational or other non-public, pre-elementary, elementary, or

secondary school. No payment, credit, tax benefit, exemption or deductions, tuition voucher,

subsidy, grant or loan of public monies or property shall be provided, directly or indirectly, to

support the attendance of any student or the employment of any person at any such nonpublic

school or at any location or institution where instruction is offered in whole or in part to such

nonpublic school students ….”

24

Michigan Const. Art. VIII, § 2

Minnesota

“[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or

religious or theological seminaries.”

Minnesota Const. Art. I, § 16.

“In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools

wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious

sect are promulgated or taught.”

Minnesota Const. Art. XIII, § 2.

Mississippi

“No religious or other sect or sects shall ever control any part of the school or other educational

funds of this state; nor shall any funds be appropriated toward the support of any sectarian

school, or to any school that at the time of receiving such appropriation is not conducted as a free

school.”

Mississippi Const. Art. VIII, § 208.

Missouri

“That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any

church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher

thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against

any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.”

Missouri Const. Art. I, § 7.

“Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other

municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever,

anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or

sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution

of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor

shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any

county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian

purpose whatever.”

Missouri Const. Art. IX, § 8.

25

Montana

“(1) The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not

make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any

grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy,

seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in

part by any church, sect, or denomination. (2) This section shall not apply to funds from federal

sources provided to the state for the express purpose of distribution to non-public education.”

Montana Const. Art. X, § 6.

Nebraska

“1. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall

not be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the

state or a political subdivision thereof; Provided, that the Legislature may provide that the state

or any political subdivision thereof may contract with institutions not wholly owned or

controlled by the state or any political subdivision to provide for educational or other services for

the benefit of children under the age of twenty-one years who are handicapped, as that term is

from time to time defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.

2. All public schools shall be free of sectarian instruction.

3. The state shall not accept money or property to be used for sectarian purposes; Provided, that

the Legislature may provide that the state may receive money from the federal government and

distribute it in accordance with the terms of any such federal grants, but no public funds of the

state, any political subdivision, or any public corporation may be added thereto.

4. A religious test or qualification shall not be required of any teacher or student for admission or

continuance in any school or institution supported in whole or in part by public funds or

taxation.”

Nebraska Const. Art. VII, § 11.

Nevada

“No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used

for sectarian purpose [sic].”

Nevada Const. Art. 11, § 10.

New Hampshire

26

“Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the

use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination.”

New Hampshire Const. Pt. SECOND, Art. 83.

New Mexico

“[N]o part of the proceeds arising from the sale or disposal of any lands granted to the state by

congress, or any other funds appropriated, levied or collected for educational purposes, shall be

used for the support of any sectarian, denominational or private school, college or university.”

New Mexico Const. Art. XII, § 3.

“Provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools

which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control, and said

schools shall always be conducted in English.”

New Mexico Const. Art. XXI, § 4.

New York

“Neither the state nor any subdivision thereof, shall use its property or credit or any public

money, or authorize or permit either to be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance,

other than for examination or inspection, of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part

under the control or direction of any religious denomination, or in which any denominational

tenet or doctrine is taught, but the legislature may provide for the transportation of children to

and from any school or institution of learning.”

New York Const. Art XI, § 3.

North Dakota

“A high degree of intelligence, patriotism, integrity and morality on the part of every voter in a

government by the people being necessary in order to insure the continuance of that government

and the prosperity and happiness of the people, the legislative assembly shall make provision for

the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools which shall be open to all

children of the state of North Dakota and free from sectarian control. This legislative

requirement shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of North

Dakota.”

North Dakota Const. Art VIII, § 1.

27

“The legislative assembly shall provide for a uniform system of free public schools throughout

the state, beginning with the primary and extending through all grades up to and including

schools of higher education, except that the legislative assembly may authorize tuition, fees and

service charges to assist in the financing of public schools of higher education.”

North Dakota Const. Art VIII, § 2.

Oklahoma

“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or

indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of

religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious

teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”

Oklahoma Const. Art. II, § 5.

Oregon

“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religeous [sic], or theological

institution, nor shall any money be appropriated for the payment of any religeous [sic] services in

either house of the Legislative Assembly.”

Oregon Const. Art. I, § 5.

Pennsylvania

“No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be

appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.”

Pennsylvania Const. Art. 3, § 15.

South Carolina

“No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political

subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational

institution.”

South Carolina Const. Ann. Art. XI, § 4.

South Dakota

“No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the benefit of any sectarian

or religious society or institution.” South Dakota Const. Art. VI, § 3. “No appropriation of lands,

money or other property or credits to aid any sectarian school shall ever be made by the state, or

28

any county or municipality within the state, nor shall the state or any county or municipality

within the state accept any grant, conveyance, gift or bequest of lands, money or other property

to be used for sectarian purposes, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed in any school or

institution aided or supported by the state.”

South Dakota Const. Art. VIII, § 16.

Texas

“No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or

religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be

appropriated for any such purposes.” Texas Const. Art. I, § 7. “The permanent school fund and

the available school fund may not be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian

school.”

Texas Const. Art. VII, § 5(c).

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

“The General Assembly shall not make any appropriation of public funds, personal property, or

real estate to any church or sectarian society, or any association or institution of any kind

whatever which is entirely or partly, directly or indirectly, controlled by any church or sectarian

society .…”

Virginia Const. Art. IV, § 16.

Washington

“No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship,

exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment .…”

Washington Const. Art. I, § 11.

“All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free

from sectarian control or influence.”

Washington Const. Art. IX, § 4.

Wisconsin

29

“[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or

religious or theological seminaries.”

Wisconsin Const. Art. I, § 18.

Wyoming

“No money of the state shall ever be given or appropriated to any sectarian or religious society or

institution.”

Wyoming Const. Art. 1, § 19.

“No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to

any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any

denominational or sectarian institution or association.”

Wyoming Const. Art. 3, § 36.