School Choice and State Constitutions...School Choice and State Constitutions A joint publication of The Institute for Justice and The American Legislative Exchange Council by Richard

School Choice and State Constitutions

A joint publication of The Institute for Justice andThe American Legislative Exchange Council

by Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily

referenceguide

School Choice and State ConstitutionsA Guide to Designing School Choice Programs

The Institute for Justice andThe American Legislative Exchange Council

April 2007

by Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily

Foreword 1

Introduction 2

HowtoUseThisReport 7

StateSummaries

Alabama 10Alaska 11Arizona 12Arkansas 14California 15Colorado 17Connecticut 19Delaware 21Florida 22Georgia 24Hawaii 26Idaho 27Illinois 29Indiana 31Iowa 33Kansas 34Kentucky 35Louisiana 38

table of contents

table of contentsMaine 39Maryland 41Massachusetts 42Michigan 44Minnesota 46Mississippi 48Missouri 49Montana 52Nebraska 53Nevada 55NewHampshire 56NewJersey 57NewMexico 58NewYork 60NorthCarolina 62NorthDakota 64Ohio 65Oklahoma 67Oregon 69Pennsylvania 70RhodeIsland 72SouthCarolina 73SouthDakota 75Tennessee 77Texas 78Utah 79Vermont 81Virginia 82Washington 84WestVirginia 87Wisconsin 88Wyoming 91

ModelLegislation 93

Glossary 95

AdditionalResources 97

AbouttheAuthors 99

Acknowledgments 100

AboutIJ 101

AboutALEC 102

forewordWheneverschoolchoicelegislationisconsidered,thestakesare

enormous. Children, parents, teachers and taxpayers all stand to benefit dramaticallyfromwell-designedprograms.

That’swhyitissoimportantforallschoolchoicelegislationtobeverycarefullycrafted,startingwithaneyetowarditsconstitutionalityunderrelevantstateconstitutionalprovisions.Notonlyisthissoundandresponsibledrafting,italsoassuresthatwhenachoiceprogramisenactedandthenchallengedincourtithasthegreatestlikelihoodofbeingupheld.

Thisguidetothekeyconstitutionalprovisionsofall50statesisdesignedtoprovideaconvenientreferenceforlegislatorsandadvocates.Asthereaderwillsee,schoolchoiceprogramsareconstitutionalinnearlyeverystate.Thekeyistodesigntherightkindofprogram,andthisguideismeanttohelplegislatorsdojustthat.

Anystatesummaryinthisreportshouldbeastartingpointonly.WeencouragelegislatorstoobtaincopiesoftheAmericanLegislativeExchangeCouncil’smodellegislationlistedinthisguideandtocontacttheInstituteforJusticeforthemorein-depthanalysisthatwillbenecessary in crafting specific legislation.

Welookforwardtoworkingwithyoutosecurethefutureofschoolchoiceinyourstate.

WilliamH.Mellor LoriRoman PresidentandGeneralCounsel ExecutiveDirector InstituteforJustice AmericanLegislative ExchangeCouncil

�

introduction

Isschoolchoiceconstitutional?Inmoststates,ifaprogramisdesignedproperly,theanswershouldbeyes.

Sincethebirthofthemodernschoolchoicemovementin1990,withthecreationofascholarshipprogramforinner-citychildreninMilwaukee,membersoftheentrenchededucationestablishmenthavefoughttostopschoolchoice,oftenthroughlegalattack.

Meanwhile,publicsupportforschoolchoicehasgrown,and17yearslater,K-12 school choice flourishes in Milwaukee(aftertwounsuccessfullegalchallenges)and10otherstates,plustheDistrictofColumbia.OnFebruary 12, 2007, Utah became the first statetoofferuniversalschoolvouchers,markinganimportantwatershedfortheschoolchoicemovement.Andin2002,theU.S.SupremeCourtvindicatedschoolchoiceunderthefederalConstitutionasitupheldCleveland’svoucherprogram.

Yetthelegalbattlecontinues.Lackinganyfederalconstitutionalclaims,schoolchoiceopponentsnowrelysolelyonstateconstitutionsintheirquesttomaintaintheeducationalstatusquo.

Buttheirargumentsaremostlyredherrings,andinnearlyeverystate,thequestionisnotwhethertherecanbeschoolchoice,buthowbestto

School Choice and State ConstitutionsA Guide to Designing School Choice Programs

achieve it. This guide—the first-ever state-by-statebreakdownofstateconstitutionalprovisionsrelevanttoschoolchoice—demonstratesthatawell-craftedschoolchoiceprogramisviableinjustabouteverystateintheunion.Thekeyforpolicymakersistounderstandthelegalenvironmentoftheirindividualstatesanddraftschoolchoicelegislationaccordingly.

Thisguideprovidespolicymakerswiththefactsaboutthestateofthelawonschoolchoiceandarmsthemwiththetoolstocreateprogramsmostlikelytosurvivelegalscrutiny.

School choice

Theterm“schoolchoice”describesanypolicydesignedtoenableparentstochoosethebesteducationalopportunityfortheirchildren,includingpublicschooltransferoptions,charterandmagnetschools,homeschooling,scholarships,vouchersandtaxcredits/deductions.Thisguidefocusesonthetwoformsofschoolchoicethatbringprivateschoolsintothemixofavailableeducationaloptionsforparentsofallfinancial means—vouchers and tax credits.

Vouchersaresimplystate-fundedscholarshipsforK-12studentsthatenablethemtoselecttheschool

�

oftheirchoice,justlikethevariousscholarshipsthatmoststatesandthefederalgovernmentprovideforcollegestudents.Taxcreditprogramscomeinseveralvarieties.Tax-credit-fundedscholarshipprogramsenableindividualsorcorporationstoreceiveataxcreditfordonatingaportionoftheirstatetaxliabilitytoprivatescholarship-grantingorganizations.Personaltaxcreditsanddeductionsgiveparentsataxbreakforapprovededucationalexpenses.

School choice and the Federal conStitution

TheU.S.SupremeCourtdeliveredaresoundingvictoryforschoolchoicewhenitupheldCleveland’sschoolvoucherprogramin2002inZelman v. Simmons-Harris.RejectingachallengeundertheEstablishmentClauseoftheU.S.Constitution,theCourtheldthatpubliclyfundedK-12voucherprogramsmayincludebothreligiousandnon-religiousoptions,justascollegeaidprogramslikePellGrantsandtheGIBillhavealwaysdone.Theessentialcharacteristicsofaconstitutionalschoolvoucherprogram,accordingtotheSupremeCourt,are:

• “Religiousneutrality”—providingaidtoabroad group of recipients identified without referencetoreligion,andofferingawidearrayofoptions,againwithoutregardtoreligion.

• “Trueprivatechoice”—parents,notthegovernment,choosetheschool,andthegovernment itself does nothing to influence thechoiceofreligiousornon-religiousoptionsonewayortheother.

Aprogramwiththosetwofeaturesisconstitutionalbecauseitaidsfamiliesseekingabettereducationfortheirchildren,nottheschoolstheyhappentochoose.Because

the aid flows to individuals instead ofinstitutions,programsmayincludebothreligiousandnon-religiousoptionswithoutviolatingthefederalConstitution.

School choice, State conStitutionS and religion

AftertheU.S.SupremeCourteliminatedthefederalEstablishmentClauseasapotentialbarriertoschoolchoicein2002,opponentswereleftwithstateconstitutionsastheironlyavenueforattackingschoolchoiceprograms.Primarily,theyrelyonthereligionandeducationprovisionsofstateconstitutions.

compelled Support clauSeS

“CompelledSupport”Clausesareprovisionsin29stateconstitutionsthatwereoriginallyintendedtopreventtheestablishmentofanofficial state religion and to ensure thatpeoplewerenotforcedtopayforthingslikechurchesandministers’salaries.Generally,CompelledSupportClausesrequirethatnooneshallbecompelledtoattendorsupportachurchorreligiousministrywithouthisorherconsent.Theyweresimplymeanttoprotectreligiousminoritiesfromthecolonial-erapracticeofrequiringchurchattendanceandsupportforacolony’sestablishedchurch.

Schoolchoiceisanaltogetherdifferentpolicy.Well-designedvoucherprogramsarereligiously neutral:theyneitherfavornordisfavorthechoiceofreligiousschoolsoverother

�

This guide—the first-ever state-by-state breakdown of state constitutional provisions relevant to school choice—demonstrates that a well-crafted school choice program is viable in just about

every state in the union.

educationaloptions.Parentsparticipatinginvoucherprogramswhoselectreligiousschoolsfreely and independently choose themfromahostofreligiousandnon-religiousalternativesbecausetheybelievethoseschoolsprovidethebesteducationalopportunityfortheirchildren.

Asaresult,nopublicmoneysupportsaparticularchurchorreligiousinstitution;instead,theaidsupportsfamiliesintheirattemptstosecurehigh-qualityeducationfortheirchildren—justlikecollegescholarshipsareunderstoodtosupportstudentsratherthantheschoolstheyhappentoattend.Parentalchoiceiskey.Voucherandtaxcreditprogramssupportparentsandchildren—nomatterwhichschoolstheychoose.

Blaine amendmentS

ThenotoriousBlaineAmendments,foundin37stateconstitutions,grewoutofawell-documentedatmosphereofanti-immigrantandanti-Catholicbigotryinthelatterhalfofthe19thcentury.Atthetime,mostpublicschoolswerethoroughlyProtestantinorientationandpedagogy,anddistinctlyinhospitabletoCatholics.Catholicssoughtfundingfortheirownschools,butaresultinganti-immigrant,anti-CatholicbacklashledtoaproposedamendmenttotheU.S.Constitution

byMaineSen.JamesG.Blaine(hencethetitle“BlaineAmendment”)thatwouldhaveprohibitedthefundingofany“sectarian”schoolsorinstitutions.Intheparlanceofthetimes,“sectarian”wascodefor“Catholic.”Blaine’sattempttoamendtheU.S.Constitutionfailed,butitwaspickedupbymanystatesandevenbecamearequirementforentryintotheunionformanyWesternstates.

TheU.S.SupremeCourthasrecognizedtheBlaineAmendments’“shamefulpedigree”ofreligiousandanti-immigrantdiscrimination,andtheArizonaSupremeCourtdescribedthemas“aclearmanifestationofreligiousbigotry”inupholdingatax-creditscholarshipprogram.

Astheirhistorymakesclear,BlaineAmendmentswereintendedtopreventthegovernmentfromdirectlyfundingCatholicschoolsystems—again,apolicyverydifferentfrommodernschoolchoiceprograms.

NeithervouchernortaxcreditprogramsinvolvethekindsofspecialgrantstoprivatereligiousschoolsthatBlaineAmendmentssoughttoprohibit.Voucherprogramsprovidescholarshipstofamilies—notschools—whocanchoosetousethemattheschooloftheirchoice,religiousornot.Similarly,taxcredits

anddeductionsallowparentstokeepmoreoftheirownmoney,while

tax-creditscholarshipprogramssimplyencourageindividuals

orcorporationstodonatetheirmoneytoprivate

scholarshipfunds.

�

Whetherthroughvouchers,taxcreditsortaxdeductions,anymoneythathappenstoreachareligiousschooldoessoastheincidentalresultofthefreeandindependentchoicesofparentsempoweredbythegovernmenttotakechargeoftheirchildren’seducation—insteadofleavingthatdecision to government officials.

avoiding Blaine and compelled Support proBlemS

Toavoidrunningafoulofstateconstitutions’CompelledSupportClausesandBlaineAmendments,themostimportantdecisionalawmakercanmakeisthechoicebetweenvouchersandtaxcredits.

Statecourtinterpretationsofreligionclausesvarywidely,andonlyahandfulofstateshaveaddressedtheminthecontextofschoolchoice.Butmanystatecourtshaveinterpretedtheseprovisionsinanalogouscases,suchasprogramsthatprovidebenefits like free transportation or seculartextbookstofamiliesusingprivateschools.Thesecases—describedinthisguide—canprovideguidancetolawmakersabouthowstatecourtsmayapplystatereligionclausestoeducationissues.

Forexample,ifastatesupremecourthasalreadyruledthatitsBlaineAmendmentorCompelledSupportClauseprohibitsusingtaxdollarstoprovideeducationalaidtofamiliesusingprivateschools,thentaxcreditplansarelikelyabetterapproach.Sinceforgonetaxrevenuedoesnotconstitutepublicmoney,moststate

supremecourtsdonotorshouldnotregardtax-credit-fundedscholarshipsassubjecttoBlaineAmendmentorCompelledSupportlimitations.Foreachstate,weprovidearecommendationofthebestapproach.

State conStitutionS and education

Everystateconstitutionhasprovisionsdealingwitheducation,whichcanberelevantforlawmakersconsideringschoolchoiceproposals.

So-called“uniformity”clausesareprovisionswithinstateconstitutionsthatrequirethestategovernmenttofunda“uniformsystemoffreepubliceducation,”orwordstothateffect.Wrenchingthosewordsfromtheirpropercontext,schoolchoiceopponentshavebegunarguing,illogically,thatsuchprovisionsdonotsimplyrequirethegovernmenttoestablishpublicschoolsforallchildrenwithinthestate,butforbidthegovernmentfromgoingbeyondthatbaselinerequirementbyprovidingeducationthroughmeansotherthanthetraditionalpublicschoolsystem.

Thisargumentrequiresconstitutionalandlinguisticgymnasticsthatfewstatesupremecourtsarelikelytoacceptandthatalmostnostate’slegalprecedentssupport.1Uniformityclauseswereneverintendedtoimposealimitoneducationalinnovationandcreativity in the way legislators fulfill

1TheWisconsinSupremeCourttwiceconsideredtheargumentandrejectedit.TheFloridaSupremeCourt,inanunprecedentedandwidelycriticizedopinion,acceptedit.

�

theirobligationtoprovidechildrenwithabasiceducation.Rather,theyweresimplyintendedtoensurethatthepublicschoolsystemhascertainminimalcharacteristics.Ifastatechoosestogoaboveandbeyondthatconstitutionalrequirement,auniformityprovisionshouldnotbeabar.

Theeducationarticlesofafewstateconstitutionshavelanguagethatexplicitlyreservesalleducationalexpendituresforpublicschools.Forthosestates,taxcreditprogramsaretheonlyavailableschoolchoiceoptionintheabsenceofaconstitutionalamendment.2Mostotherstateshave“stateschoolfunds,”usuallycalled“commonschoolfunds,”and

2Michiganistheonlystatewhoseconstitutionexplicitly forbids both voucher and tax benefit programs,althoughtheMassachusettsSupremeCourthasinterpreteditsconstitutionbroadlytothesameeffect.Insuchstates,constitutionalamendmentisprobablynecessarytopermiteffec-tiveschoolchoice.

expendituresfromthosefundsmayonlybeusedforpublicschools.Suchfundscontaintheproceedsderivedfromfederallandsgiventothestateforthepurposeofestablishingpublicschools,andlimittheuseofthefundtopublicschools.Inthosestates,vouchersshouldbefundedfromthegeneralfundorsomeothersourcebesidesthestateschoolfund.

a Final note

Thisguideisintendedtoarmpolicymakersandadvocateswiththeessentialbackgroundneededtocraftconstitutionalschoolchoicelegislation—andtoforgeaheadwith confidence in delivering equal educationalopportunitytoallfamilies,regardlessoftheirmeans.Buttheanalysisandrecommendationsinthisreportareverygeneralandshouldbejustthebeginningofyourefforttounderstandschoolchoiceandyourstateconstitution.TheInstituteforJusticeiseagertoprovideexpertlegalreviewofschoolchoice

proposals.Suchreview,ideallyattheearliestpossiblestageintheprocess,isessential.

�

This report, for the first time ever, providesastate-by-statebreakdownofthekeyelementsapolicymakerneedsinordertounderstandthelegalenvironmentforschoolchoiceinanygivenstate—andtocraftappropriatelegislationtoexpandeducationalopportunity.

conStitutional proviSionS

Weprovidethetextofandcitationsforstateconstitutionalprovisionsmostrelevanttoschoolchoice,includingBlaineAmendments,CompelledSupportClauses,anyeducationalprovisionsthatmayimpacthowaschoolchoiceprogramisdesigned,andotherprovisionsasnecessarytohelppolicymakerscraftgoodlegislation.

relevant caSe law

Thissectionlistsanddescribesanyfederalandstatecasesinterpretingkeyconstitutionalprovisions.First,welistanycasesfromfederalcourtsthataroseoutofthatstate.SometimesthesecasesincludeordrawoninterpretationsofstateconstitutionsinadditiontoanyrulingbasedontheU.S.Constitution,sotheycanprovidesomeusefulinformation.Theymayalsoaddressanexistingschoolchoiceprogram.

Next,welistcasesfromstatecourts.Forbothfederalandstatecases,westartwithdecisionsfromthehighestcourt(forexample,theU.S.SupremeCourt

How to Use This Report

forfederalcases,andastatesupremecourtforstatecases)andlistthemostrecent cases first. These are followed bylowercourtcases,again,mostrecent first.

Finally, the report describes any official advisoryopinionsfromstatesupremecourtsandattorneysgeneralthatarerelevanttoschoolchoice.Suchopinionsarenotbindingprecedentandcourtsarenotrequiredtofollowthem,buttheycanbepersuasiveinfuturelitigation.

Allcasesandopinionsincludefulllegalcitationssothoseinterestedinlearning more can find the original sources.

exiSting School choice programS

Hereweprovideasnapshotofschoolchoiceinastate:whetherthestateprovidesPublicSchoolChoice,CharterSchools,orPrivateSchoolChoice—andifso,whatkindofprogramthatis.Wealsoprovidecitationstothestatutesthemselves.

Itisimportantforpolicymakerstounderstandwhatkindsofschoolingoptionschildreninastatealreadyenjoy.Newschoolchoiceprogramsshouldbedesignedtoenhancetheseoptionsasamatterofgoodpolicyandofgoodlaw.Also,existingschoolchoiceprogramsthatincludeprivateschooloptionsprovideevidencethatthefurtherexpansionofschoolchoiceinthatstateisconstitutional.

�

analySiS and recommendationS

Thissectionbringstogetherthekeyelements—stateconstitutionalprovisions,relevantcaselawandexistingschoolchoiceprograms—toprovideabriefanalysisofthelegalenvironmentforschoolchoiceinastate.ThisistheInstituteforJustice’sopinionaboutthesafestapproachtoimplementingschoolchoiceinastateandavoidingconstitutionalproblems.

Thekeydecisionapolicymakermustmakeisthechoicebetweenavoucherapproachandataxcreditapproach(orboth),andweofferarecommendationforeachstate.Wealsopointout,whereapplicable,othermeansofsatisfyingstateconstitutionalrequirements,suchasavoidingtheuseofcommonschoolfunds.

Finally,welistALEC’smodellegislationtoprovideaframeworkfordraftingstate-specific school choice proposals. Lawmakersshouldtakecaretoconsiderthemanyissuespresentedinthedraftingnotessectionofmodelbills. Modifications may be required tobestsuitthelegalandpolicyenvironmentsofagivenstate.

reSourceS

Atthebackofthereport(beginningonpage93),weprovidedescriptionsofALEC’smodelschoolchoicebills,aglossarytoexplainthelegaljargonthatissometimesnecessarywhenexplainingconstitutionalcaselaw,andinformationaboutnationalorganizations that can help in the fight forequaleducationalopportunity.

�

Compelled Support Clause“Thatnooneshallbecompelledbylawtoattendanyplaceofworship;nortopayanytithes,taxes,orotherrateforbuildingorrepairinganyplaceofworship,orformaintaininganyministerorministry….”AlAbAmA Const. Art.I,§3.

Blaine Amendments“Noappropriationshallbemadetoanycharitableoreducationalinstitutionnotundertheabsolutecontrolofthestate,otherthannormalschoolsestablishedbylawfortheprofessionaltrainingofteachersforthepublicschoolsofthestate,exceptbyavoteoftwo-thirdsofallthememberselectedtoeachhouse.”AlAbAmA Const. Art.IV,§73.

“Nomoneyraisedforthesupportofthepublicschoolsshallbeappropriatedtoorusedforthesupportofanysectarianordenominationalschool.”AlAbAmA Const.Art.XIV,§263.

alaBama

EXISTING SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAMS

PublicSchoolChoice: NoCharterSchools: NoPrivateSchoolChoice: No

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Alabama Education Association v. James,373So.2d1076(Ala.1979)

AfterachangeinU.S.SupremeCourtEstablishmentClausejurisprudence,theAlabamaSupremeCourtheldthattuitiongrantstostudentsattendingprivateschoolsareconstitutionalundertheFirstAmendmentofU.S.ConstitutionandAlabama’sBlaineAmendment(ArticleXIV,Section263)becausetheaidgoestothestudent,nottheschool.

Opinion of Justices, 280So.2d547(1973)

Followingthen-currentU.S.SupremeCourtEstablishmentClauseprecedent,theAlabamaSupremeCourtopinedthattuitiongrantstostudentsattending“churchcolleges”wouldviolateboththeFirstAmendmentofU.S.ConstitutionandoneofAlabama’sBlaineAmendments(ArticleXIV,Section263)becausetheywouldexcessivelyentanglethestateandreligion.

TaxcreditprogramsandvouchersbothareschoolchoiceoptionsforAlabama.AlthoughtheAlabamaConstitutioncontainsbothaCompelledSupportClauseandBlaineAmendmentlanguage,theAlabamacourtsareunlikelytointerprettheseclausesexpansivelytoprohibitschoolchoice.Additionally,AlabamacourtstendtofollowfederalEstablishmentClauseprecedentininterpretingtheAlabamaConstitution,andtheU.S.SupremeCourt’sdecisioninZelman v. Simmons-Harris upheldschoolchoiceprograms.

ToavoidpotentialproblemswiththesecondofAlabama’sBlaineAmendments(ArticleXIV,Section263),voucherprogramfundingshouldexplicitlycomefromsourcesotherthanthestate’spublicschoolfund.

Model Legislation: Parental Choice Scholarship Program (Universal Eligibility), Parental Choice Scholarship Program (Means-Tested Eligibility), Special Needs Scholarship Program, Foster Child Scholarship Program, Autism Scholarship, Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax Credit Program

voucherS tax creditS�0

Blaine Amendment“ThelegislatureshallbygenerallawestablishandmaintainasystemofpublicschoolsopentoallchildrenoftheState,andmayprovideforotherpubliceducationalinstitutions.Schoolsandinstitutionssoestablishedshallbefreefromsectariancontrol.Nomoneyshallbepaidfrompublicfundsforthedirectbenefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” AlAskA Const.Art.VII,§1.

alaSka


RELEVANT CASE LAW

Sheldon Jackson College v. State,599P.2d127(Alaska1979)

TheAlaskaSupremeCourtheldthattuitionassistancegrantsforstudentsattendingprivatecollegesviolatesitsBlaineAmendmentbecause(1)only private colleges benefit from the program,(2)themoneyeffectivelysubsidizesprivateeducation,(3)thebenefit provided is substantial, and (4)thereisnodistinctionbetweengivingmoneytothestudentandgivingmoneytotheschool.

Matthews v. Quinton,362P.2d932(Alaska1961),cert. denied,368U.S.517(1962)

ViewingitsBlaineAmendmentasmorerestrictivethanthefederalConstitution,theAlaskaSupremeCourtheldthattransportationofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseviolatestheAlaskaConstitution.

TaxcreditprogramsareAlaska’sbestoptionforaschoolchoiceinitiative.TheyareconsistentwiththeAlaskaConstitutionandrelevantcaselaw.

Avoucherprogram,however,wouldbeproblematic.Alaskacourtshaveinterpretedthestate’sBlaineAmendmentrestrictively.Althoughitsactualtermsbanonly“direct”aid,Alaskacourtshaverejectedthedistinctionbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheinstitutionsthosestudentschoosetoattend,therebylimitingtheuseofpublicfundstopubliceducationalinstitutions.

Model Legislation: Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax Credit Program

voucherS tax creditS��

PrivateSchoolChoice: No

CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: Yes4AlaskaAdministrativeCode06.855

AlaskaStatutesSections14.03.250to14.03.290;4AlaskaAdministrativeCode33.110

Blaine Amendments“Nopublicmoneyorpropertyshallbeappropriatedfororappliedtoanyreligiousworship,exercise,orinstruction,ortothesupportofanyreligiousestablishment.”ArizonA Const. Art.II,§12.

“Notaxshallbelaidorappropriationofpublicmoneymadeinaidofanychurch,orprivateorsectarianschool,oranypublicservicecorporation.”ArizonA Const.Art.IX,§10.

Other Relevant Sections“NeithertheState,noranycounty,city,town,municipality,orothersubdivisionofthestateshallevergiveorloanitscreditintheaidof,ormakeanydonationorgrant,bysubsidyorotherwise,toanyindividual,association,orcorporation….”ArizonA Const.Art.IX,§7.

“Section1.A.Thelegislatureshallenactsuchlawsasshallprovidefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofageneralanduniformpublicschoolsystem,whichsystemshallinclude:1.Kindergartenschools;2.Commonschools;3.Highschools;4.Normalschools;5.Industrialschools;6.Universities,whichshallincludeanagriculturalcollege,aschoolofmines,andsuchothertechnicalschoolsasmaybeessential,untilsuchtimeasitmaybedeemedadvisabletoestablishseparatestateinstitutionsofsuchcharacter.”ArizonA Const.Art.XI,§1.

arizona

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District,509U.S.1(1993)

TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthattheFirstAmendment’sEstablishmentClausedidnotpreventanArizonaschooldistrictfromfurnishingastudentwithasign-languageinterpretertofacilitatehiseducationatareligiousschool.

Kotterman v. Killian,972P.2d606(Ariz.),cert. denied,528U.S.921(1999)

TheArizonaSupremeCourtheldthattuitiontaxcreditsareconstitutionalunderboththeU.S.ConstitutionandtheArizonaConstitution.Theyarepartofareligiouslyneutralgovernmentprogramavailabletoalargespectrumofcitizensanddonothavetheprimaryeffectofadvancingorinhibitingreligion.



PrivateSchoolChoice: Yes

CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrictandInterdistrict/mandatoryArizonaRevisedStatutesSections15-816to15-816.07

ArizonaRevisedStatutesSections15-181to15-189.03

DisplacedPupilsChoiceGrantsforfosterchildrenArizonaRevisedStatutesSections15-817.01to15-817.02

ScholarshipsforPupilswithDisabilitiesArizonaRevisedStatutesSections15-891to15-891.06

IndividualTaxCreditScholarshipsArizonaRevisedStatutesSections43-1089to43-1089.02

CorporateTaxCreditScholarshipsArizonaRevisedStatutesSection43-1183

continued on next page

BothtaxcreditprogramsandvouchersareschoolchoiceoptionsforArizona.TheArizonaConstitutioncontainsBlaineAmendmentlanguageintwoseparateprovisions,butArizonastatecourtshaveinterpretedneitherexpansively.InKotterman,theArizonaSupremeCourtdefinitively upheld the constitutionality of tuition tax credits. Given its strongadherencetofederalprecedentonEstablishmentClauseissues,thecourtisalsolikelytoupholdareligiouslyneutralvoucherprogram.Ithasalreadyheldthatthestatecancontractwithareligiousorganizationforpublicserviceswithoutimproperlyaidingtheorganization’sreligiousmission.Inaddition,theArizonaSupremeCourthasviewedthe“uniformity”languageofitseducationarticle(ArticleXI,Section1)asestablishing a floor for adequacy below which districts may not go, but permittingprogramsthatgofurther.


arizona voucherS tax creditS��

Additionally,theydonotoverlyentanglethegovernmentwithreligionbecausethestatedoesnotdistributefundsormonitortheirapplication.Thecourtrecognizedthat the scholarships benefit children, not schools.InrefusingtoapplyitsBlaineAmendmentsbroadly,theArizonaSupremeCourtrecognizedthebigotryandprejudiceunderlyingtheirenactment.

Hull v. Albrecht,950P.2d1141,1145(Ariz.1997)TheArizonaSupremeCourtheldthatthe“generalanduniformrequirement”oftheArizonaConstitution’seducationarticleappliesonlytothestate’sconstitutionalobligationtofundapublicschoolsystemthat is adequate and that defining adequacy isalegislativetask.Adistrictmaythenchoosetogoabove,butnotbelow,thestatewideminimumstandards,andthiswillnotrunafoulofthegeneral-and-uniformrequirement.

Pratt v. Arizona Board of Regents,520P.2d514,516(Ariz.1974)

TheArizonaSupremeCourtheldthatthestate did not violate the first of Arizona’s BlaineAmendments(ArticleII,Section12)whenitleasedastateuniversity’sfootballstadiumforprayerworshipatafairmarketvalue.Thecourtnotedthat“[w]ebelievethattheframersoftheArizonaConstitutionintendedby[ArticleII,Section12]toprohibittheuseofthepowerandtheprestigeoftheStateoranyofitsagenciesforthesupportorfavorofonereligionoveranother,orofreligionovernonreligion.”

Community Council v. Jordan,432P.2d460,466(Ariz.1967)

TheArizonaSupremeCourtheldthatbycontractingwiththeSalvationArmy,thestateisnotproviding“aid”inviolationofthesecondofArizona’sBlaineAmendments(ArticleIX,Section10).Thecourtnoted,“The‘aid’prohibitedintheconstitutionofthisstateis,inouropinion,assistanceinanyformwhatsoeverwhichwouldencourageortendtoencouragethepreferenceofonereligionoveranother,orreligionperseovernoreligion.”

continued from previous page

Compelled Support Clause“[N]omancan,ofright,becompelledtoattend,erect,orsupportanyplaceofworship;ortomaintainanyministryagainsthisconsent.”ArkAnsAs Const.Art.II,§24.

Education Articles“Intelligenceandvirtuebeingthesafeguardsoflibertyandthebulwarkofafreeandgoodgovernment,theStateshallevermaintainageneral,suitableand efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to securetothepeopletheadvantagesandopportunitiesofeducation.”ArkAnsAs Const.Art.XIV,§1.

“Nomoneyorpropertybelongingtothepublicschoolfund,ortothisState,forthe benefit of schools or universities, shall ever be used for any other than for the respectivepurposestowhichitbelongs.”ArkAnsAs Const.Art.XIV,§2.

arkanSaS


RELEVANT CASE LAW

Lendall v. Cook,432F.Supp.971,978(E.D.Ark.1977)

Afederaldistrictcourtconcludedthatastatehighereducationscholarshipprogramthatpermittedstudentstochoosereligiousornon-religiouscollegesdidnotviolatetheArkansasConstitution’sCompelledSupportClause.

BothtaxcreditprogramsandvouchersareschoolchoiceoptionsforArkansas.ItsConstitutiondoesnotcontainaBlaineAmendmentanditsCompelledSupportClause,whilereceivinglittlejudicialattention,doesnotforbidreligiouslyneutralschoolchoiceprograms,providedfundsallottedforthepublicschoolsarenotused.




CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryArkansasCodeAnnotated6-18-227

Interdistrict/mandatoryArkansasCodeAnnotated6-18-206

ArkansasCodeAnnotated6-23-101to6-23-601

Blaine Amendments“Nopublicmoneyshalleverbeappropriatedforthesupportofanysectarianordenominationalschool,oranyschoolnotundertheexclusivecontroloftheofficers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine betaught,orinstructionthereonbepermitted,directlyorindirectly,inanyofthecommonschoolsofthisState.”CAliforniA Const.Art.IX,§8.

“NeithertheLegislature,noranycounty,cityandcounty,township,schooldistrict,orothermunicipalcorporation,shallevermakeanappropriation,orpayfromanypublicfundwhatever,orgrantanythingtoorinaidofanyreligioussect,church, creed,orsectarianpurpose,orhelptosupportorsustainanyschool,college,university,hospital,orotherinstitutioncontrolledbyanyreligiouscreed,church, orsectariandenominationwhatever;norshallanygrantordonationofpersonalpropertyorrealestateeverbemadebythestate,oranycity,cityandcounty,town,orothermunicipalcorporationforanyreligiouscreed,church, orsectarianpurposewhatever;provided,thatnothinginthissectionshallpreventtheLegislaturegrantingaidpursuanttoSection3ofArticleXVI.”CAliforniA Const.Art.XVI,§5.

caliFornia

RELEVANT CASE LAW

California Statewide Communities Development Authority v. All Persons Interested,2007Cal.LEXIS1914(Cal.2007)

TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthattheissuanceoftax-exemptbonds for the benefit of “pervasively sectarian”religiousschoolswouldnotnecessarilyviolatethestate’ssecondBlaineAmendment(ArticleXVI,Section5).

California Teachers Association v. Riles,632P.2d953,960(Cal.1981)

TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatlendingtextbookstoprivateschoolsviolatedthestateConstitution’sBlaineAmendments.

Bowker v. Baker,167P.2d256(Cal.1946)TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthattransportingprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseisconstitutionallyacceptablebecauseitisaimedatchildsafetynoteducation, and any benefit to the schoolis“incidental.”



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryCaliforniaEducationCodeSection35160.5

IntradistrictandInterdistrict/voluntaryCaliforniaEducationCodeSections46600to46611

CaliforniaEducationCodeSections47600to47660,CaliforniaEducationCodeSections41365to41367



TaxcreditsareCalifornia’sbestoptionforschoolchoice.VouchersareproblematicgivenCalifornia’sveryrestrictiveinterpretationofitsBlaineAmendments.Thatinterpretationpreventsanypublicbodyfromthestatedowntothelocalschoolboardfromallowinganypublicmoneyfromanysourcewhatsoevertogotoareligiousorprivateschool.Californiacourtshaveexplicitlyrejectedthedistinctionbetweenaidingstudentsversusaidingschools.


caliFornia voucherS tax creditS��

Wilson v. State Board of Education,89Cal.Rptr.2d745(Ct.App.1999)

ACaliforniaCourtofAppealsheldthatcharterschoolsareconsidered“publicschools”forthepurposeofCalifornia’sfirst Blaine Amendment (Article IX, Section8).

Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization v. Los Angeles Community College District,266Cal.Rptr.767,774(Ct.App.1990)

ACaliforniaCourtofAppealsupheldacommunitycollege’stemporaryleaseofsurpluslandtoareligiousorganizationatfairmarketvalueunderCalifornia’ssecondBlaineAmendment(ArticleXVI,Section5).

Board of Trustees v. Cory,145Cal.Rptr.136,139(Ct.App.1978)

CitingBowker,aCaliforniaCourtofAppealsheldthatdirectpaymentoffederalfundstoprivatemedicalschoolsviolates the first of California’s Blaine Amendments because it does not fit within the “incidental” or “indirect benefit exception,”andprovidesfundstoschools“not under the exclusive control of officers ofthepublicschools.”


Compelled Support Clause“Nopersonshallberequiredtoattendorsupportanyministryorplaceofworship,religioussectordenominationagainsthisconsent.Norshallanypreferencebegivenbylawtoanyreligiousdenominationormodeofworship.”ColorAdo Const.Art.II,§4.

Blaine Amendments“Noappropriationshallbemadeforcharitable,industrial,educationalorbenevolentpurposestoanyperson,corporationorcommunitynotundertheabsolutecontrolofthestate,nortoanydenominationalorsectarianinstitutionorassociation.”ColorAdo Const.Art.V,§34.

“Neitherthegeneralassembly,noranycounty,city,town,township,schooldistrictorotherpubliccorporation,shallevermakeanyappropriation,orpayfromanypublicfundormoneyswhatever,anythinginaidofanychurchorsectariansociety,orforanysectarianpurpose,ortohelpsupportorsustainanyschool,academy,seminary,college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectariandenominationwhatsoever;norshallanygrantordonationofland,moneyorotherpersonalproperty,everbemadebythestate,oranysuchpubliccorporationtoanychurch,orforanysectarianpurpose.”ColorAdo Const.Art.IX,§7.

Education Articles“Thegeneralassemblyshall,assoonaspracticable,providefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofathoroughanduniformsystemoffreepublicschoolsthroughoutthestate….”ColorAdo Const.Art.IX,§2.

“Thepublicschoolfundofthestateshall,exceptasprovidedinthisarticleIX,foreverremaininviolateandintactandtheinterestandotherincomethereon,only,shallbeexpendedinthemaintenanceoftheschoolsofthestate,andshallbedistributedamongsttheseveralcountiesandschooldistrictsofthestate,insuchmannerasmaybeprescribedbylaw.”ColorAdo Const.Art.IX,§3.

“Thegeneralassemblyshall,bylaw,providefororganizationofschooldistrictsofconvenientsize,ineachofwhichshallbeestablishedaboardofeducation,to consist of three or more directors to be elected by the qualified electors of the district.Saiddirectorsshallhavecontrolofinstructioninthepublicschoolsoftheirrespectivedistricts.”ColorAdo Const.Art.IX,§15.

colorado


RELEVANT CASE LAW

Owens v. Colorado Congress of Parents,92P.3d933(Colo.2004)

TheColoradoSupremeCourtheldthatapilotvoucherprogramviolatedtheColoradoConstitution’s“localcontrol”provision(ArticleIX,Section15)becauseitrequiredschooldistrictstopassaportionoftheirlocallyraisedfundstononpublicschoolsoverwhoseinstructionthedistrictshadnocontrol.



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrictandInterdistrict/mandatoryColoradoRevisedStatutesSections22-36-101to22-36-106

Interdistrict/mandatoryandIntradistrict/voluntaryColoradoRevisedStatutesSections22-1-122

ColoradoRevisedStatutesSections22-30.5-101to22-30.5-115


colorado

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforColorado.AlthoughColorado’sConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupportClauseandtwoBlaineAmendments,Coloradostatecourtshaveinterpretedthemnarrowly.Inanimportant1982caserejectingaBlaineAmendmentchallengetoColorado’shighereducationgrantprogram,theColoradoSupremeCourtexplicitlynotedthatsuchscholarshipsaidstudents,nottheschoolstheyhappentoattend,religiousorotherwise.

FuturevoucherlegislationshouldnotetheColoradoSupremeCourt’sdecisioninOwensandfundtheprogramexclusivelythroughstateratherthanlocalrevenues.



Americans United for Separation of Church & State Fund, Inc. v. State,648P.2d1072(Colo.1982)

TheColoradoSupremeCourtupheldtheColoradohighereducationgrantprogramagainstachallengebroughtunderoneofitsBlaineAmendments(ArticleIX,Section7)becausetheprogram benefits students, not theirschools,becauseitisavailabletoprivateaswellaspublicschoolstudents,andbecauseiteliminatesanydangerofindirectlysupportingreligiousmissionsbyattachingstatutoryconditionstotheuseofthemoney.


Compelled Support Clause“ItbeingtherightofallmentoworshiptheSupremeBeing,theGreatCreatorandPreserveroftheUniverse,andtorenderthatworshipinamodeconsistentwiththedictatesoftheirconsciences,nopersonshallbylawbecompelledtojoinorsupport,norbeclassedorassociatedwith,anycongregation,churchorreligiousassociation.Nopreferenceshallbegivenbylawtoanyreligioussocietyordenominationinthestate.Eachshallhaveandenjoythesameandequalpowers,rightsandprivileges,andmaysupportandmaintaintheministersorteachersofitssocietyordenomination,andmaybuildandrepairhousesforpublicworship.”ConneCtiCut Const.Art.VII.

Education Articles“Thereshallalwaysbefreepublicelementaryandsecondaryschoolsinthestate.Thegeneralassemblyshallimplementthisprinciplebyappropriatelegislation.”ConneCtiCut Const.Art.VIII.,§1.

“Thefund,calledtheSCHOOLFUND,shallremainaperpetualfund,theinterestofwhichshallbeinviolablyappropriatedtothesupportandencouragementofthepublicschoolsthroughoutthestate,andfortheequalbenefit of all the people thereof. The value and amount of said fund shall be ascertainedinsuchmannerasthegeneralassemblymayprescribe,published,and recorded in the comptroller’s office; and no law shall ever be made, authorizingsuchfundtobedivertedtoanyotherusethantheencouragementandsupportofpublicschools,amongtheseveralschoolsocieties,asjusticeandequityshallrequire.”ConneCtiCut Const.Art.VIII,§4.

connecticut

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Johnson v. Sanders,319F.Supp.421(D.Conn.1970),aff’d,403U.S.955(1971)

AfederaldistrictcourtheldthataConnecticutstatuteauthorizingthestateboardofeducationtocontractwithoperatorsofcertainprivatenonprofit sectarian elementary andsecondaryschoolsforpublicpurchaseofseculareducationalserviceswasunconstitutionalbecauseitexcessivelyentangledthestatewithreligioninviolationoftheEstablishmentClause.

Board of Education v. State Board of Education,709A.2d510(Conn.1998)

TheConnecticutSupremeCourtheldthatalawrequiringtransportationofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpense,evenondayswhenthepublicschoolswerenot



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesInterdistrict/mandatoryConnecticutGeneralStatutesSection10-266aa

Intradistrict/voluntaryConnecticutGeneralStatutesSection10-221e

Intradistrict/voluntaryandInterdistrict/voluntaryConnecticutGeneralStatutesSection10-226h

ConnecticutGeneralStatutesSections10-66aato10-66gg



connecticut

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforConnecticut.TheyareconsistentwiththeConnecticutConstitutionandrelevantConnecticutstatecourtdecisions.

TheConnecticutConstitutioncontainsnoBlaineAmendment,andtheConnecticutSupremeCourthastwiceruledthattransportationprogramsthat include private school students benefit children, not schools. To avoid potentialproblemswithConnecticut’seducationarticle(ArticleVIII,Section4),voucherprogramfundingshouldcomefromsourcesotherthanthestate’spublicschoolfund.



inattendance,didnotviolatetheConnecticutConstitution’sCompelledSupportClause.Ithadthesecularpurposeofensuringchildsafetyandwas for the benefit of the students ridingthebusesratherthantheschoolstowhichtheywerebeingtransported.

Snyder v. Newtown,161A.2d770,775(Conn.1960)

TheConnecticutSupremeCourtheldthattransportingprivateschoolstudentsusingpublicmoneyisconstitutionallyacceptableaslongasmoneydoesnotcomefromthepublicschoolfundbecausesuchtransportationisforthehealth,safetyandwelfareofConnecticutcitizensand only parents and children benefit.


Compelled Support Clause“[Y]etnopersonshalloroughttobecompelledtoattendanyreligiousworship,tocontributetotheerectionorsupportofanyplaceofworship,ortothemaintenanceofanyministry,againsthisorherownfreewillandconsent….”delAwAre Const.ArtI,§1.

Blaine Amendment“Noportionofanyfundnowexisting,orwhichmayhereafterbeappropriated,orraisedbytax,foreducationalpurposes,shallbeappropriatedto,orusedby,orinaidofanysectarian,churchordenominationalschool;provided,thatallrealorpersonalpropertyusedforschoolpurposes,wherethetuitionisfree,shallbeexemptfromtaxationandassessmentforpublicpurposes.”delAwAre Const.ArtX,§3.

Education Articles“TheGeneralAssemblyshallprovidefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofa general and efficient system of free public schools, and may require by law that everychild,notphysicallyormentallydisabled,shallattendthepublicschool,unlesseducatedbyothermeans.”delAwAre Const.ArtX,§1.

“NopartoftheprincipalorincomeofthePublicSchoolFund,noworhereafterexisting,shallbeusedforanyotherpurposethanthesupportoffreepublicschools.”delAwAre Const.ArtX,§4.

“TheGeneralAssembly,notwithstandinganyotherprovisionofthisConstitution,mayprovidebyanActoftheGeneralAssembly,passedwiththeconcurrenceofamajorityofallthememberselectedtoeachHouse,forthetransportationofstudentsof nonpublic, nonprofit Elementary and High Schools.” delAwAre Const.ArtX,§5.

delaware

RELEVANT CASE LAW

State ex rel. Traub v. Brown,172A.835(Del.Super.Ct.1934)

TheSuperiorCourtofDelawareheldthattransportingprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpensewould“helpbuildup,strengthenandmakesuccessful”religiousschoolsinviolationofthestate’sBlaineAmendment.

Opinion of Justices,216A.2d668(Del.1966)

TheJusticesoftheDelawareSupremeCourtopinedinanadvisoryopinionthatabillfortransportingprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpensewouldviolatetheDelawareConstitutionbecauseevenincidentalaidviolatesthelanguageofthestate’sBlaineAmendment.

AtaxcreditprogramisDelaware’sbestoptionforschoolchoice.TheDelawareConstitutioncontainsbothaCompelledSupportClauseandaBlaineAmendment.TherestrictiveinterpretationofthelatterbyDelawarestatecourtsmakesageneralvoucherprogramproblematic.

In1934,aDelawareSuperiorCourtruledinTraub v. Brown thattransportingprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseviolatedthestate’sBlaineAmendment.Ina1966advisoryopinioninresponsetoalegislativebusingproposal,theDelawareSupremeCourtopinedthattheTraub decisionwascorrect.Voterspassedaconstitutionalamendmenttoovercomethisrestrictiveinterpretationofthestate’sBlaineAmendment,butitislikelythatvoucherswouldrequireasimilaramendment.




CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatory14DelawareCodeAnnotated414

Interdistrict/mandatory14DelawareCodeAnnotated401to413

14DelawareCodeAnnotated501to516


Blaine Amendment“Norevenueofthestateoranypoliticalsubdivisionoragencythereofshalleverbetakenfromthepublictreasurydirectlyorindirectlyinaidofanychurch,sect,orreligiousdenominationorinaidofanysectarianinstitution.”floridA Const.Art.I,§3.

Education Articles“TheeducationofchildrenisafundamentalvalueofthepeopleoftheStateofFlorida.Itis,therefore,aparamountdutyofthestatetomakeadequateprovisionfortheeducationofallchildrenresidingwithinitsborders.Adequateprovision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high qualitysystemoffreepublicschoolsthatallowsstudentstoobtainahighqualityeducationandfortheestablishment,maintenance,andoperationofinstitutionsofhigherlearningandotherpubliceducationprogramsthattheneedsofthepeoplemayrequire….”floridA Const. Art.IX,§1(a).

“Theschoolboardshalloperate,controlandsuperviseallfreepublicschoolswithintheschooldistrictanddeterminetherateofschooldistricttaxeswithinthelimitsprescribedherein….”floridA Const.Art.IX,§4(b).

“Theincomederivedfromthestateschoolfundshall,andtheprincipalofthefundmay,beappropriated,butonlytothesupportandmaintenanceoffreepublicschools.”floridA Const.Art.IX,§6.

Florida

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Bush v. Holmes,919So.2d392(Fla.2006)TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthatoneofthestateConstitution’seducationarticles(ArticleIX,Section1(a))mandatestheprovisionofeducationonlythrougha“uniform”publicschoolsystem.Inanunprecedentedruling,thecourtheldthatthestatemayusepublicfundsonlyfortraditionalpublicschoolsandmaynotprovideadditionaleducationalopportunitiesoutsidethetraditionalpubicsystem.

Bush v. Holmes,886So.2d340(Fla.1stDCA2004), aff’d on other grounds,919So.2d392(Fla.2006)

Theen banc FloridaFirstDistrictCourtofAppealheldthatFlorida’spubliclyfundedvoucherprogramviolatedthestate’sBlaineAmendment.

Scavella v. School Board,363So.2d1095(Fla.1978)TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthatastatutecappingreimbursementexpensesfordistrictseducatingspecialneedsstudentsatprivateschoolsdidnotviolatetheuniformityprovisionofthestateConstitution’seducationarticle.

School Board v. State,353So.2d834(Fla.1977)Inoneofitsmostsearchinganalysesofthephrase“uniformsystemoffreepublicschools,”theFloridaSupremeCourt



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryFloridaStatutesSection1002.38

Interdistrict/voluntaryFloridaStatutesSection1002.31

FloridaStatutesSection1002.33



McKayScholarshipsforStudentsWithDisabilitiesFloridaStatutesSection1002.39

VoluntaryPre-kindergartenEducationProgramFloridaStatutesSection1002.53

CorporateTaxCreditScholarshipsFloridaStatutesSection220.187

ThestatusofschoolchoiceinFloridaisunclear.Unfortunately,inanunprecedenteddecision,theFloridaSupremeCourtstruckdownthestate’sgroundbreakingOpportunityScholarshipsvoucherprogramforchildreninchronicallyfailingpublicschools.ThecourtdeclaredthattheprogramviolatedthestateConstitution’s education article, specifically the requirement to providea“uniform”publiceducation.ContrarytostatesupremecourtsinWisconsinandOhio,theFloridacourtdecidedthattheLegislaturemaynotprovideeducationaloptionsbeyondthoseinthepublicschools.Still,thecourtlimiteditsdecisiontoOpportunityScholarshipsonly,leavinguntouchedFlorida’sotherschoolchoiceprograms.

Earlierinthesamecase,aFloridaappellatecourtstruckdownOpportunityScholarshipsunderthestate’sBlaineAmendment.ThatrulingrancountertoyearsofFloridaSupremeCourtrulingson the Blaine Amendment permitting “incidental” benefits to religiousorganizationsastheby-productofprogramsdesignedtoadvancethegeneralwelfare.TheFloridaSupremeCourtdidnotreviewthatissue,andthevalidityoftheappellatecourt’sholdingisunclearunderFloridalaw.

Despitetheuncertaintiessurroundingvouchers,taxcreditprogramsarecompletelyconsistentwiththeFloridaConstitution,evenasinterpretedbyHolmes,becausetheyinvolveprivateratherthanpublicfunds.


Florida voucherS tax creditS��

heldthatitdoesnotrequirethateachcounty’sschoolboardhavetheexactsamenumberofboardmembers.

Nohrr v. Brevard County Educational Facilities Authority,247So.2d304(Fla.1971)

TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthatprovidingtax-exemptrevenuebondproceedstopublicandprivateuniversities,includingreligiouscolleges,doesnotviolatetheU.S.orFloridaconstitutions.Thebondswereissuedforthesecularpurposeofexpandingeducationalfacilities,anyaidtoreligiousorsectarianorganizationswasincidental,andissuingbondswasnotthesameasexpendingpublicfundsfromthetreasury.

Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of Florida, Inc.,239So.2d256,261(Fla.1970)

TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthatastatuteexemptingfromtaxationchurch-runretirementhomeswasconstitutionalunderFlorida’sBlaineAmendmentbecauseithadthesecularpurposeof improving care for the elderly and any benefit flowing to religious interests was incidental.

Southside Estates Baptist Church v. Board of Trustees,115So.2d697(Fla.1959)

TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthataschoolboard’spolicyofallowingreligiousgroupstouseschoolfacilitiesforreligiousservicesduringnon-school hours provides only an incidental benefit tothereligionitselfandthereforedoesnotviolateFlorida’sBlaineAmendment.

Koerner v. Borck,100So.2d398(Fla.1958)TheFloridaSupremeCourtupheldawillthatgaveaparceloflandtoacountyforaparkbutrequiredthatreligiousgroupsbeallowedtocontinueusinganadjacentlakeforbaptismalpurposes.Thecourtheldthatcounty-fundedimprovementstothelake’sdockingareadidnotconstituteaidtoreligiousgroupsinviolationofFlorida’sBlaineAmendmentbecausetheimprovements benefited all users of the lake.

Fenske v. Coddington,57So.2d452(Fla.1952)TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthathavingachapelforreligiousworshipinapublicschooldidnotviolatetheFloridaBlaineAmendmentbecausethechapelwasmaintainedwithfundsfromaprivatetrust.


Blaine Amendment“Nomoneyshalleverbetakenfromthepublictreasury,directlyorindirectly,inaidofanychurch,sect,cult,orreligiousdenominationorofanysectarianinstitution.”GeorGiA Const.Art.I,§II,Para.VII.

Education Articles“PursuanttolawsnoworhereafterenactedbytheGeneralAssembly,publicfundsmaybeexpendedforanyofthefollowingpurposes:(1)Toprovidegrants,scholarships,loans,orotherassistancetostudentsandtoparentsofstudentsforeducationalpurposes....”GeorGiA Const.Art.VIII,§VII,Para.I.

“Authorityisgrantedtocountyandareaboardsofeducationtoestablishandmaintainpublicschoolswithintheirlimits….Noindependentschoolsystemshallhereafterbeestablished.”GeorGiA Const.Art.VIII,§V,Para.I.

georgia

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Taetle v. Atlanta Independent School System,625S.E.2d770,771(Ga.2006)

Inrefusingtovoidaleaseagreementbetweenalocalschooldistrictandachurch,theGeorgiaSupremeCourtheldthat“[a]politicalsubdivisionofthisstatecannotgivemoneytoareligiousinstitutioninsuchawayastopromotethesectarianhandiworkoftheinstitution.Butthatisnottosaythatapoliticalsubdivisionofthestatecannotenterintoanarms-length,commercialagreementwithasectarianinstitutiontoaccomplishanon-sectarianpurpose.”

Richter v. Savannah,127S.E.739(Ga.1925)Withnoanalysis,theGeorgiaSupremeCourtreinstatedataxpayersuitseekingtostopthecityofSavannahfrompayingfortheservicesofaCatholichospital.

Bennett v. La Grange,112S.E.482(Ga.1922)TheGeorgiaSupremeCourtheldthatacity’scontractwithaChristianserviceorganizationtoprovidecareforthecity’spoorviolatedtheprecursortoGeorgia’scurrentBlaineAmendmentbecausetheorganizationcouldnotseparateitsreligiousandsecularmissions.

2000 Ga. AG LEXIS 11(2000OpinionAttorneyGeneralGa.No.2000-5)

TheGeorgiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthatthefederally



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryOfficial Code of Georgia Annotated Section 20-14-41

Intradistrict/mandatoryandInterdistrict/mandatoryOfficial Code of Georgia Annotated Section 20-2-294

Interdistrict/voluntaryOfficial Code of Georgia Annotated Section 20-2-293

Official Code of Georgia Annotated Sections20-2-2060to20-2-2071



georgia

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforGeorgia.TheGeorgiaConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendment,butitalsocontainsaneducationprovision(ArticleVIII,Section7,paragraph1)thatexplicitlyauthorizestheGeneralAssemblytoprovidegrantsandscholarshipstostudentsandparentsforeducationalpurposes,suchasthoseofvoucherprograms.


voucherS tax creditS

fundedGeorgiaReadingChallengeProgramgrantscouldnotbemadedirectlytochurchesandotherreligiousinstitutionsfortheprovisionofafter-schoolcare,opportunitiestoimprovestudentreadingskills,andenhancementofstudentinterestinreadingwithoutviolatingGeorgia’sBlaineAmendment.

1988 Ga. AG LEXIS 35 (1988OpinionAttorneyGeneralGa.126)

In an unofficial opinion expressing the views of the author and not the Attorney General’s Office, theseniorassistantattorneygeneralforGeorgiaopinedthatallowingareligiousorganizationtogenerateincomethroughuseofschoolpropertyunderaleasearrangementatlessthanthefairmarketrentalratewouldviolatetheindirectaidlanguageofGeorgia’sBlaineAmendment.

1988 Ga. AG LEXIS 11(1988OpinionAttorneyGeneralGa.94)

In an unofficial opinion expressing the views of the author and not the Attorney General’s Office, the seniorassistantattorneygeneralforGeorgiaopinedthatacountyschoolsystemcancontractwithareligiousorganizationtoprovideafter-schoolprogramsforitsstudentsifthearrangementdoesnot involve a flow of public or school funds from theschoolsystemtothereligiousorganization.

1972 Ga. AG LEXIS 146(1972OpinionAttorneyGeneralGa.266)

TheGeorgiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthatlegislationproviding$400peracademicyeartoGeorgiastudentsattendingreligiousinstitutionsofhigherlearningthatwerenotprimarilyforreligioustrainingisconsistentwithGeorgia’sBlaineAmendment.

1969 Opinion Attorney General No. 69-125(copyavailablefromtheInstituteforJustice)

TheGeorgiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthattheGeorgiaSupremeCourtwouldconsiderunconstitutionalacontractforgoodsorservicesbetweenapublicelementaryorsecondaryschoolandaprivatereligiousschool.

1945-47 Opinion Attorney General p. 222 (copyavailablefromtheInstituteforJustice)

TheGeorgiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthatacountyboardofeducationmaynotexpendpublicschoolfundstotransportchildrentoschoolsotherthanthoseoperatedbythepublicschoolsystem.


��

Blaine Amendment“TheStateshallprovidefortheestablishment,supportandcontrolofastatewidesystemofpublicschoolsfreefromsectariancontrol…norshallpublicfundsbeappropriated for the support or benefit of any sectarian or nonsectarian private educationalinstitution,exceptthatproceedsofspecialpurposerevenuebondsauthorizedorissuedundersection12ofArticleVIImaybeappropriatedtofinance or assist: 1. Not-for-profit corporations that provide early childhood education and care facilities serving the general public; and 2. Not-for-profit privatenonsectarianandsectarianelementaryschools,secondaryschools,collegesanduniversities.”HAwAii Const.Art.X,§1.

hawaii

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Spears v. Honda,449P.2d130(Haw.1969)

TheHawaiiSupremeCourtheldthatastatuteauthorizingthetransportationofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseviolatedthestate’sBlaineAmendment.

Opinion Attorney General Hawaii No. 03-01(2003)(copyavailablefromtheInstituteforJustice)

Hawaii’sAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatapubliclyfundedHawaiischoolvoucherprogramwouldviolateHawaii’sBlaineAmendment,giventheHawaiiSupremeCourt’sbroadinterpretationofthatprovision.

AtaxcreditprogramisthebestschoolchoiceoptionforHawaiigiventhehistoryandrestrictiveinterpretationofthestate’sBlaineAmendment.




CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesHawaiiRevisedStatutesSection302A-1143

HawaiiRevisedStatutesSections302A-1181to302A-1188


Compelled Support Clause“Nopersonshallberequiredtoattendorsupportanyministryorplaceofworship,religioussectordenomination,orpaytithesagainsthisconsent….”idAHo Const.Art.I,§4.

Blaine Amendment“Neitherthelegislaturenoranycounty,city,town,township,schooldistrict,orotherpubliccorporation,shallevermakeanyappropriation,orpayfromanypublicfundormoneyswhatever,anythinginaidofanychurchorsectarianorreligioussociety,orforanysectarianorreligiouspurpose,ortohelpsupportorsustainanyschool,academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlledbyanychurch,sectarianorreligiousdenominationwhatsoever;norshallanygrantordonationofland,moneyorotherpersonalpropertyeverbemadebythestate,oranysuchpubliccorporation,toanychurchorforanysectarianorreligious 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,throughloans,leases,orothertransactions.”idAHo Const.Art.IX,§5.

Education Articles“Thestabilityofarepublicanformofgovernmentdependingmainlyupontheintelligenceofthepeople,itshallbethedutyofthelegislatureofIdaho,toestablishandmaintainageneral,uniformandthoroughsystemofpublic,freecommonschools.”idAHo Const.Art.IX,§1.

“No religious test or qualification shall ever be required of any person as a conditionofadmissionintoanypubliceducationalinstitutionofthestate,eitherasteacherorstudent;andnoteacherorstudentofanysuchinstitutionshalleverberequiredtoattendorparticipateinanyreligiousservicewhatever.Nosectarianorreligioustenetsordoctrinesshalleverbetaughtinthepublicschools, nor shall any distinction or classification of pupils be made on account ofraceorcolor.Nobooks,papers,tractsordocumentsofapolitical,sectarianordenominationalcharactershallbeusedorintroducedinanyschoolsestablishedundertheprovisionsofthisarticle,norshallanyteacheroranydistrictreceiveanyofthepublicschoolmoneysinwhichtheschoolshavenotbeentaughtinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisarticle.”idAHo Const.Art.IX,§6.

idaho

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Doolittle v. Meridian Joint School District,919P.2d334(Idaho1996)

TheIdahoSupremeCourtheldthatalthoughIdaho’sBlaineAmendmentprohibitspayingforaspecialeducationstudent’splacementinareligiousschoolwithpublicfunds,thefederalspecialeducationgrantprogram(IDEA)preemptsthestatelawandrequiresparentstobereimbursedwhena“freeandappropriateeducation”isnotofferedinpublicschoolsasrequiredbytheIDEA.



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryIDAPA08.02.03

Intradistrict/mandatoryandinterdistrict/voluntaryIC33-1401to33-1408

IC33-5201to33-5212,IDAPA08.02.4



idaho

TaxcreditprogramsareaviableschoolchoiceoptionforIdaho.BecauseoftherestrictiveinterpretationofIdaho’sBlaineAmendment,thetaxcreditshouldbeavailabletoparentsregardlessofwhethertheyhavealreadypaidfundstoaprivateorparochialschool.Inthatway,itwillbeclearthatthecreditisarefundofmoneyforgovernmentservicesnotusedandthatitisa benefit to the parent, not the school, as outlined by the Attorney General’s 1997opinion.

TheIdahoSupremeCourtisunlikelytoupholdavoucherprogramthatincludesreligiousschoolsgiventhatthecourtstruckdownastatuteallowingtransportationofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseasaviolationofthestate’sBlaineAmendment.



Epeldi v. Engelking,488P.2d860(Idaho1971)TheIdahoSupremeCourtheldthatthestatecouldnotsubsidizethetransportationofprivateschoolstudentswithoutviolatingIdaho’sBlaineAmendment.

1997 Ida. AG LEXIS 2(1997OpinionAttorneyGeneralIdaho13)

Idaho’sAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatabilltoprovidetaxcreditstoparentswhodonotusepublicschoolswouldlikelybeconstitutionalunderIdaho’sBlaineAmendmentbecause“[t]hecreditisnotdependentuponpaymentofmoneytoasectarianschool,and any benefits to parochial schools are tenuousatbest.”

HedistinguishedanearlierAttorneyGeneral’sopinionbynotingthatunderthetaxcreditproposal“thereisnorequirementthatthetaxpayerpayanymoney to a private or church affiliated schoolbeforebeingabletoclaimthecredit. The benefit flows to the taxpayer/parent,nottotheschool.”Thecreditprovides a benefit to parents for the stated purposeofrelievingtheburdenonthestate’spublicschoolsystem.

1989 Ida. AG LEXIS 6, 10 (1989OpinionAttorneyGeneral42)

Idaho’sAttorneyGeneralopinedthattheIdahoCollegeWorkStudyProgram,whichusespublicfundstopayforstudents’on-campusjobsatpublicorprivateuniversities,violatesIdaho’sBlaineAmendmentbecauseitwouldaid“postsecondaryinstitutionscontrolledbychurches,sectarianorreligiousdenominations.”

1995 Idaho Attorney General Annotated Report 74 (copyavailablefromtheInstituteforJustice)

AnAttorneyGeneral’sGuidelineconcludedthatataxcreditfortuitionpaidtonon-publicschoolswouldbea“grantordonationof…money”inviolationofIdaho’sBlaineAmendment.


Compelled Support Clause“Nopersonshallberequiredtoattendorsupportanyministryorplaceofworshipagainsthisconsent.…”illinois Const.Art.I,§3.

Blaine Amendment“NeithertheGeneralAssemblynoranycounty,city,town,township,schooldistrict,orotherpubliccorporation,shallevermakeanyappropriationorpayfromanypublicfundwhatever,anythinginaidofanychurchorsectarianpurpose,ortohelpsupportorsustainanyschool,academy,seminary,college,university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church orsectariandenominationwhatever;norshallanygrantordonationofland,money,orotherpersonalpropertyeverbemadebytheState,oranysuchpubliccorporation,toanychurch,orforanysectarianpurpose.”illinois Const.Art.X,§3.

illinoiS

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Board of Education v. Bakalis,299N.E.2d737(Ill.1973)

TheIllinoisSupremeCourtheldthatastatuterequiringpublicschoolbusestotransportprivateschoolstudentsdidnotviolateIllinois’BlaineAmendmentbecauseitwasprimarilyahealth-and-safetymeasureforthebenefit of all students and any aid to religiousschoolschosenbyfamilieswasincidental.

People ex rel. Klinger v. Howlett,305N.E.2d129(Ill.1973)

TheIllinoisSupremeCourtheldthatthestatecannotprovidetuitiongrantstoprivateelementaryschoolswithnorestrictionsontheuseofpublicfundsbecauseitcouldleadtopublicsubsidizationofreligiousservices.SuchsubsidizationwouldviolateIllinois’BlaineAmendmentandthefederalEstablishmentClause,whichthecourtheldimposeidenticalrestrictionsontheestablishment of official religions. In addition,thecourtheldthatthestatecouldnottreatprivateschoolstudents



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: Yes105IllinoisCompiledStatutes5/10-21.3a

105IllinoisCompiledStatutes5/27a-1to5/27a-13



TaxCreditsforEducationalExpenses35IllinoisCompiledStatutes5/201m

illinoiS

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforIllinois.Inthemostrecentcases,Illinois’taxcreditprogramwasupheldfromchallengesunderboththeEstablishmentClauseandIllinois’religionclauses.TwostateappellatecourtsupheldtheprograminToneyandGriffith,andtheIllinoisSupremeCourtletthosedecisionsstandwithoutreviewingthem.

TheIllinoisConstitutioncontainsbothaCompelledSupportClauseandaBlaineAmendment,buttheIllinoisSupremeCourthasonlyfounddirect,unrestrictedpaymentsofpublicfundstoreligiousschoolsunconstitutional.Itapprovedthetransportationofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseandtheuseofpublicfundstopayforchildcareservicesatreligiousinstitutions.InBoard of Education v. BakalisandTrost v. Ketteler Manual Training School,theIllinoisSupremeCourtpermittedsomepublicsupportforchildrenattendingreligiousschools,whichsuggeststhecourtunderstandsthatsuchaidsupportschildren,notschools.



andpublicschoolstudentsdifferentlywithrespecttotextbooksandnursingservices.

Cecrle v. Illinois Educational Facilities Authority,288N.E.2d399(Ill.1972)

TheIllinoisSupremeCourtheldthatthestatecouldmaketax-exemptbondsavailabletoprivate,religiousinstitutionswithoutviolatingthefederalEstablishmentClauseortheIllinoisConstitution.

Trost v. Ketteler Manual Training School,118N.E.743(Ill.1918)

TheIllinoisSupremeCourtheldthatthestatecanusepublicfundstopayforchildcareservicesatreligiousinstitutionsbecausethechildrenarenotrequiredtoattendreligiousservicesandtheschoolsreceivenoreimbursementforexpensesassociatedwithreligiousinstruction.

Nichols v. School Directors,93Ill.61(1879)TheIllinoisSupremeCourtheldthatallowingpublicschoolbuildingstobeusedforreligiousceremonieswhentheschoolsarenotinsessiondoesnotcompelapersontosupportareligioninviolationofIllinois’CompelledSupportClause.

Toney v. Bower,744N.E.2d351(Ill.App.4thDist.2001),appeal denied,195Ill.2d573(Ill.2001);andGriffith v. Bower,747N.E.2d423(Ill.App.5thDist.2001),appeal denied,258Ill.Dec.94,755N.E.2d477(Ill.2001)

TwoIllinoiscourtsofappealsheldthatIllinois’taxcreditforeducationalexpensesisconstitutionalbecauseithasaclearlysecularlegislativepurposeofensuringawell-educatedcitizenryandrelievingpublicexpense,hastheprimaryeffectofeffectuatingthosepurposes,andinvolvesnomoregovernmententanglementwithreligionthanmanyotherstatetaxlaws.TheprogramisconstitutionalunderbothIllinois’BlaineAmendmentandthefederalEstablishmentClause.IllinoiscourtsinterpretthestateBlaineAmendmentconsistentlywithfederalEstablishmentClausecaselaw.


Compelled Support Clause“[A]ndnopersonshallbecompelledtoattend,erect,orsupport,anyplaceofworship,ortomaintainanyministry,againsthisconsent.”indiAnA Const.Art.1,§4.

Blaine Amendment“No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theologicalinstitution.”indiAnA Const.Art.1,§6.

Education Article“[I]tshallbethedutyoftheGeneralAssemblytoencourage,byallsuitablemeans, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and toprovide,bylaw,forageneralanduniformsystemofCommonSchools,whereintuitionshallbewithoutcharge,andequallyopentoall.”indiAnA Const.Art.8,§1.

indiana

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Embry v. O’Bannon,798N.E.2d157,166-167(Ind.2003)

TheIndianaSupremeCourtuphelddual-enrollmentprogramsthatallowprivateschoolstudentstoalsoenrollinpublicschoolsandtoreceivepubliclyprovidedservicesintheirprivateschools.ThecourtsaidtheprogramsdonotviolateeitherIndiana’sBlaineAmendmentoritsCompelledSupportClausebecausethey“donotconfer substantial benefits upon any religiousortheologicalinstitution,nordirectlyfundactivitiesofareligiousnature.”Thecourtwentontonotethat “‘incidental benefits’ to religious sectsorsocietiesdonotinvalidateanotherwiseconstitutionalstatutoryprogramplainlyintendedandformulatedtoserveapublicpurpose”—inthiscase,education.

State ex rel. Johnson v. Boyd,28N.E.2d256(Ind.1940)

TheIndianaSupremeCourtheldthatneitherIndiana’sCompelledSupportClausenorIndiana’sBlaineAmendmentwasviolatedwhenaCatholicchurchcloseditsparishschoolanddonatedtheoldschoolbuildings



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryIndianaCodeAnnotatedSections20-3.1-4-1to20-3.1-4-2

Interdistrict/voluntaryIndianaCodeAnnotatedSections20-8.1-6.1-2to20-3.1-6.1-3

IndianaCodeAnnotatedSection20-24-1to20-24-11



indiana

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforIndiana.ThereasoningoftheIndianaSupremeCourt’s2003decisionupholdingdual-enrollmentprogramsprovidesstrongsupportforschoolchoice.Specifically, the opinion suggests that a state program plainly intended to serveapublicpurposelikeeducatingitscitizens’childrenwouldbeupheldregardless of whether it indirectly benefited a religious organization.



tothestate,whichsubsequentlyusedthebuildingasapublicschoolandemployedpriestsasteachers.Rejectingthecontentionthatthechurchorreligion were benefited by the school board’sretentionofthepriests,thecourtnotedthatIndiana’sreligionclausesareconcernedwithdonationstoreligiousschoolsthatfurthertheirreligiousmissions, not incidental benefits that may flow to a religious institution as a resultofprivatechoices—inthiscasetheboard’sdecisionthatthepriestswerequalified to teach the material provided bythepublicschoolcurriculum.

1967 Ind. AG LEXIS 68(1967OpinionAttorneyGeneralInd.9);see also1980 Ind. AG LEXIS 12(1980OpinionAttorneyGeneralInd.96)(schoolboardcannotdenyfreetransportationtoparochialstudentslivingalongestablishedbusroutesbutattendingschoolsoutsidetheschooldistrict)

TheIndianaAttorneyGeneralwrotethatprovidingfreebustransportationforparochialschoolstudentsonthesamebasisaspublicschoolstudentsdoesnotviolateIndiana’sBlaineAmendment because any benefit to parochialschoolsisincidentaltotheprotectionandeducationofchildren.


Compelled Support Clause“[N]orshallanypersonbecompelledtoattendanyplaceofworship,paytithes,taxes,orotherratesforbuildingorrepairingplacesofworship,orthemaintenanceofanyminister,orministry.”iowA Const.Art.I,§3.

iowa

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Luthens v. Bair,788F.Supp.1032(S.D.Iowa1992)AfederaldistrictcourtinIowaheldthatastatetaxdeductionforschoolexpenses,includingprivateschooltuition,doesnotviolatetheEstablishmentClausebecauseitisavailabletoparentsregardlessofwhethertheirchildattendsapublic,privateorreligiousschool,neitheradvancesnorinhibitsreligion,anddoesnotentanglethestatewithreligion.Additionally, the court held that the benefits stemmingfromthedeductiongototheparentsofthechildren,nottheschoolstheychoose.

Rudd v. Ray,248N.W.2d125(Iowa1976)TheIowaSupremeCourtheldthatalawprovidingforchaplainsandreligiousfacilitiesatstatepenitentiariesdoesnotviolateIowa’sCompelledSupportClauseortheFreeExerciseClauseofthefederalConstitutionbecauseprisonersretaintheabilitytoreasonablyexercisetheirfaith.

Knowlton v. Baumhover,166N.W.202(Iowa1918)TheIowaSupremeCourtheldthatalthoughitwascalleda“publicschool,”educationalinstructiongiveninachurchbuildingbyaCatholicpriestconstitutesa“sectarianschool”andIowa’sCompelledSupportClauseprohibitsthelocalschoolboardfromsupportingsuchaschoolwithpublicfunds.



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIowaCodeSection282.18

IowaCodeSection256F


TaxCreditsforEducationalExpensesIowaCodeSection422.9,12

EducationalOpportunitiesAct(IndividualTaxCreditScholarships)IowaCodeSection422.11M

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforIowa.Iowa’sConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupportClause,whichtheIowaSupremeCourthasinterpretedasprohibitingdirectpaymentofpublicfundstoreligiousschools.Ingeneral,however,thecourthasnotedthattheCompelledSupportClauseseekstoachievethesameendasthefederalEstablishmentClauseandshouldbeinterpretedinlinewithfederalEstablishmentClauseprecedent.Therefore,areligiouslyneutralvoucherprogramoftrueprivatechoicethatgivesmoneydirectlytoparentsislikelytobeupheldinaccordancewiththeU.S.SupremeCourt’sdecisioninZelman v. Simmons-Harris.


Compelled Support Clause“[N]orshallanypersonbecompelledtoattendorsupportanyformofworship….”kAnsAs Const.BillofRights§7.

Blaine Amendment“Noreligioussectorsectsshallcontrolanypartofthepubliceducationalfunds.”kAnsAs Const.Art.6,§6(c).

Education Article“Localpublicschoolsunderthegeneralsupervisionofthestateboardofeducationshallbemaintained,developedandoperatedbylocallyelectedboards.Whenauthorizedbylaw,suchboardsmaymakeandcarryoutagreementsforcooperativeoperationandadministrationofeducationalprogramsunderthegeneralsupervisionofthestateboardofeducation,butsuchagreementsshallbesubjecttolimitation,changeorterminationbythelegislature.”kAnsAs Const.Art.6,§5.

kanSaS

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. Bubb,379F.Supp.872(D.Kan.1974)

Afederaldistrictcourtheldthatastatestatuteprovidingtuitiontostudentsattending qualified private universities, where all the qualified schools in the state werechurch-related,hadthevalidsecularpurposeofpromotinghighereducation,didnotprimarilyadvancereligionbecausethecollegeswerenotovertlysectarian,anddidnotoverlyentanglethestatewithreligion.

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Atchison,28P.1000(Kan.1892)

TheKansasSupremeCourtheldthatthecityofAtchisonhadnopowertoimposeapropertytaxonitscitizenstoaidprivate,sectarianschoolsortopromoteprivateinterestsandenterprises.



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesKansasStatutesAnnotatedSection72-8233

KansasStatutesAnnotatedSections72-1903to72-1911


BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforKansas.TheKansasConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupportClauseandaBlaineAmendmentbutneitherhasreceivedmuchjudicialattention.Relativetootherstates’variations,thescopeoftheKansasBlaineAmendmentisverylimited;itonlypreventsreligioussectsfromcontrollingpubliceducationalfunds.Asvoucherscanbefundedfromanynumberofrevenuesourcesandneithervouchersnortax benefit programs give public money directly to religious schools, thereisnopossibilityforreligiouscontrolofthepubliceducationfundasaresultofschoolchoiceprograms.Additionally,Kansas’caselawdemonstratesastrongtendencyforadheringtofederalprecedentonEstablishmentClauseissues.InZelman v. Simmons-Harris,theU.S.SupremeCourtupheldschoolchoiceprogramsunderthefederalConstitution.


Compelled Support Clause“[N]orshallanypersonbecompelledtoattendanyplaceofworship,tocontributetotheerectionormaintenanceofanysuchplace,ortothesalaryorsupportofanyministerofreligion.…”kentuCky Const.§5.

Blaine Amendment“Noportionofanyfundortaxnowexisting,orthatmayhereafterberaisedorleviedforeducationalpurposes,shallbeappropriatedto,orusedby,orinaidof,anychurch,sectarianordenominationalschool.”kentuCky Const.§189.

Education Articles“Nosumshallberaisedorcollectedforeducationotherthanincommonschoolsuntilthequestionoftaxationissubmittedtothelegalvoters,andthemajorityofthevotescastatsaidelectionshallbeinfavorofsuchtaxation:Provided,Thetaxnowimposedforeducationalpurposes,andfortheendowmentandmaintenanceoftheAgriculturalandMechanicalCollege,shallremainuntilchangedbylaw.”kentuCky Const.§184.

“AllfundsaccruingtotheschoolfundshallbeusedforthemaintenanceofthepublicschoolsoftheCommonwealth,andfornootherpurpose,andtheGeneralAssemblyshallbygenerallawprescribethemannerofthedistributionofthepublicschoolfundamongtheschooldistrictsanditsuseforpublicschoolpurposes.”kentuCky Const.§186.

Other Relevant Provisions“Taxesshallbeleviedandcollectedforpublicpurposesonlyandshallbeuniformuponallpropertyofthesameclasssubjecttotaxationwithintheterritoriallimitsoftheauthoritylevyingthetax.…”kentuCky Const.§171.

“EveryactenactedbytheGeneralAssembly,andeveryordinanceandresolutionpassedbyanycounty,city,townormunicipalboardorlocallegislativebody,levyingatax,shallspecifydistinctlythepurposeforwhichsaidtaxislevied,andnotaxleviedandcollectedforonepurposeshalleverbedevotedtoanotherpurpose.”kentuCky Const.§180.

kentucky

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Neal v. Fiscal Court, Jefferson County,986S.W.2d907(Ky.1999)

TheKentuckySupremeCourtheldthatthe Jefferson County fiscal court’s plan to allocatefundsforthetransportationofprivateelementaryschoolstudentsdidnotviolateKentucky’sBlaineAmendment.DistinguishingtheearlierBrady decision,thecourtnotedthatfundswerepaidtothetransportationsystemadministeredbytheboardofeducation,notdirectly to individual schools, and benefits flowed “toward the safety and welfare of elementaryageschoolchildrenandnotintotheaccountsofnon-publicschools.”



CharterSchools: No

PublicSchoolChoice: Yes703KentuckyAdministrativeRegulations5:120



kentucky voucherS tax creditS��

Fiscal Court of Jefferson County v. Brady,885S.W.2d681(Ky.1994)

TheKentuckySupremeCourtheldthattheJefferson County fiscal court’s direct payment ofcountytaxrevenuestoprivateschoolsforschooltransportationsubsidiesviolatedtheKentuckyBlaineAmendment.

Fannin v. Williams,655S.W.2d480(Ky.1983)TheKentuckySupremeCourtheldthataKentuckystatutethatprovidedstate-suppliedtextbookstochildreninprivateschoolsviolatedtheKentuckyBlaineAmendment.

Butler v. United Cerebral Palsy of Northern Kentucky, Inc.,352S.W.2d203(Ky.1961)

TheKentuckyCourtofAppeals,whichwasthenthestate’shighestcourt,heldthatastatuteauthorizingpublicaidtoprivateschoolsforexceptionalchildrendidnotviolate,amongotherconstitutionalprovisions,Kentucky’sBlaineAmendmentbecausethefundswereforchildren’s“welfare”ratherthan“education.”

Rawlings v. Butler,290S.W.2d801(Ky.1956)TheKentuckyCourtofAppealsheldthat(1)acountyschoolboard’srentalofschoolbuildingsfromachurch,wherethechurchdid not attempt to influence or control the schools,didnotviolatetheKentuckyBlaineAmendment; and (2) county fiscal courts maycontributetaxfundstosubsidizethetransportationofprivateschoolstudentswithoutviolatingtheKentuckyConstitution,butmaynotusetaxfundsraisedforpublicschoolpurposesforthetransportationofprivateschoolstudents.

Hodgkin v. Board for Louisville & Jefferson County Children’s Home,242S.W.2d1008(Ky.1951)

Thestate’shighestcourtheldthatasheltermaintainedbythecityofLouisvilleandJeffersonCountydidnotconstitutea“commonschool”andwasthereforenotentitledtoreceivefundsfromtheCommonSchoolFund.However, the court specifically noted that nothingintheKentuckyConstitutionpreventedthestatefromfundingsuchaninstitutionthroughothersourcesofpublicmoney.



kentucky voucherS tax creditS��

Sherrard v. Jefferson County Board of Education,171S.W.2d963(Ky.1942)

TheKentuckyCourtofAppealsheldthattheportionofaKentuckystatuterequiringthatstudentsattendingprivateschoolbegiventhesametransportationrightsasstudentsofpublicschoolsviolatedKentucky’sBlaineAmendment.

Pollitt v. Lewis,108S.W.2d(Ky.1937)TheKentuckyCourtofAppealsheldthatastatutepurportingtogiveaprivatejuniorcollegeorganizationthepowertolevypropertytaxeswithoutsubmittingthequestiontotheelectorateviolatedSection184,oneoftheKentuckyConstitution’seducationarticles.Thejuniorcollegewasnota“publicschool”withinthemeaningofSection184,andthestatutecontainednoprovisionforsubmittingtheproposedtaxtothevoters.

Williams v. Board of Trustees of Stanton Common School District,191S.W.507(Ky.1917)

TheKentuckyCourtofAppealsruledthatanarrangementbetweenacountyboardofeducationandareligiouscollege,underwhichthecollegewaspaidtuitionfeesandbuildingmaintenancefeesfortheeducationofcountyhighschoolstudentsoutofpublicschoolfunds,violatedKentucky’sBlaineAmendment.

Opinion of the Attorney General 83-184(Ky.AG1983)

TheKentuckyAttorneyGeneralopinedthatparentsofadisabledchildarenotentitledtoreimbursementfromaschooldistrictforthecostofaprivateschooleducationuntiltheydemandandarerefusedaccommodationbythelocalschooldistrict.

Opinion of the Attorney General 83-247(Ky.AG1982)

TheKentuckyAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatparochialschoolstudentscouldnotrideonpublicschoolbusesevenwhentheytoowerebeingtransportedtothelocalpublicschool:“[I]fschooldistrictmoneyinanyrespectandinanyamountisusedtotransportnonpublicschoolchildrentheKentuckyConstitutionwouldbeviolated.”


TaxcreditprogramsareaviableschoolchoiceoptioninKentucky.TherestrictivelanguageofKentucky’sConstitutionwithrespecttoeducationfundingandthemorerestrictiveinterpretationofKentucky’sstatereligionclausesmakeinstitutingageneralvoucherprogram difficult, if not impossible.

*Theeducationfundingprovision,Section184,appearstoforecloseageneralvoucheroptionbecauseitrequiresthatallfundsraisedforeducationalpurposesbespentonpublicschools,unlessthevotersapprovetheexpenditurebyreferendum.Butler,however,maycreatealimitedexceptionforprogramsdirectedtospecialeducationstudents.Thefundingforsuchaprogramshouldexplicitlycomefromasourceotherthanthe“commonschoolfund,”andthemoneyshouldbeallottedtoparentsratherthanschools.Mostimportantly,theprogram’spurposeshouldbecouchedinlanguageotherthan“education,”suchaschild“safety”(thelanguageofNeal)andchild“welfare”(thelanguageofButler).

Model Legislation: Special Needs Scholarship Program, Autism Scholarship, Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax Credit Program

Religion Provision“Nolawshallbeenactedrespectinganestablishmentofreligionorprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.”louisiAnA Const.Art.I,§8.1

Education Article“TheLegislatureshallprovidefortheeducationofthepeopleofthestateandshallestablishandmaintainapubliceducationsystem.”louisiAnA Const.Art.VIII,§1.

1LouisianaamendeditsConstitutionin1973todeletetwoBlaineAmendmentsthatdatedto1879.

louiSiana

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education,281U.S.370(1930)TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatstudentsandthestatewere the beneficiaries under a program providing textbooks toparochialschoolstudents,nottheschoolorthereligiousdenomination with which the school is affiliated.

Helms v. Picard,151F.3d347(5thCir.1998)The5thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsexaminedonlyfederalEstablishmentClauseprecedentandheldthatLouisiana’sspecialeducationprogramdidnotoffendtheEstablishmentClausebecause(1)thestatute’spurposeofimprovingeducationalopportunityfordisabledstudentswassecular,and(2)thestatutedidnothavetheeffectofadvancingreligionbecauseitprovidesnoincentiveforparentstoselectreligiousinstitutions.

Seegers v. Parker, 241So.2d213(La.1970)(resultoverturnedbysubsequentconstitutionalamendment)

TheLouisianaSupremeCourtheldthatspendingtaxfundsforseculareducationalservicesfromteachersemployedbyprivateschoolsviolatedthreeprovisionsoftheLouisianaConstitution:theprohibitionagainsttheenactmentofanylawrespectinganestablishmentofreligionandtwoBlaineAmendmentssubsequentlyrepealedin1973.

Borden v. Louisiana State Board of Education,123So.655(La.1929)

DespitethepresenceofBlaineAmendmentsinthestateConstitutionatthetimeofitsdecision,theLouisianaSupremeCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityofaprograminwhichpublicfundswereusedtopurchase,amongotherthings,textbooksforparochialschools.Thecourtexplicitlyaccepted the argument that the primary beneficiaries of the aidwerethechildrenratherthantheschoolstheyattend.



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesInterdistrict/voluntaryLouisianaRevisedStatutesAnnotatedSection17:105

LouisianaRevisedStatutesAnnotatedSections17.3971through17.4001


TheLouisianaConstitutionnowcontainsparallellanguagetothefederalConstitution’sreligionclauses,andbothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareconsistentwithLouisiana’scurrentConstitution.InSeegers,theLouisianaSupreme Court specifically noted: “The great similarity oftheestablishmentclauseofourConstitutionandthatoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionallowsustousetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinterpretationsofthefederalclauseasanaidforinterpretingourown.”GiventhattheU.S.SupremeCourt’srulinginZelman upheldschoolvouchersunderthefederalEstablishmentClause,itislikelythatLouisiana’sSupremeCourtwouldfollowthatdecision.


Education Articles“Ageneraldiffusionoftheadvantagesofeducationbeingessentialtothepreservationoftherightsandlibertiesofthepeople;topromotethisimportantobject,theLegislatureareauthorized,anditshallbetheirdutytorequire,theseveraltownstomakesuitableprovision,attheirownexpense,forthesupportandmaintenanceofpublicschools;anditshallfurtherbetheirdutytoencourageandsuitablyendow,fromtimetotime,asthecircumstancesofthepeoplemayauthorize,allacademies,collegesandseminariesoflearningwithintheState;provided,thatnodonation,grantorendowmentshallatanytimebemadebytheLegislaturetoanyliteraryinstitutionnowestablished,orwhichmayhereafterbeestablished,unless,atthetimeofmakingsuchendowment,theLegislatureoftheStateshallhavetherighttograntanyfurtherpowerstoalter,limitorrestrainanyofthepowersvestedinanysuchliteraryinstitution,asshallbejudgednecessarytopromotethebestintereststhereof.”mAine Const.Art.VIII,Pt.1,§1.

“ForthepurposeofassistingtheyouthofMainetoachievetherequiredlevelsoflearningandtodeveloptheirintellectualandmentalcapacities,theLegislature,byproperenactment,mayauthorizethecreditoftheStatetobeloanedtosecurefundsforloanstoMainestudentsattendinginstitutionsofhighereducation,whereversituated,andtoparentsofthesestudents.Fundsshallbeobtainedbytheissuanceofstatebonds,whenauthorizedbytheGovernor,buttheamountofbondsissuedandoutstandingshallnotatonetimeexceedintheaggregate$4,000,000.FundsloanedshallbeonsuchtermsandconditionsastheLegislatureshallauthorize.”mAine Const.Art.VIII,Pt.1,§2.

“Theinhabitantsofanymunicipalityshallhavethepowertoalterandamendtheirchartersonallmatters,notprohibitedbyConstitutionorgenerallaw,whicharelocalandmunicipalincharacter.TheLegislatureshallprescribetheprocedurebywhichthemunicipalitymaysoact.”mAine Const.Art.VIII,Pt.2,§1.

maine

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Eulitt v. Maine Department of Education,386F.3d344(1stCir.2004)

The1stU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatMaine’slawexcludingparentswhochoosereligiousschoolsfromthestate’s“tuitioning”schoolchoicesystemwasstillconstitutionalafterZelman.

Strout v. Commissioner, Maine Department of Education,178F.3d57(1stCir.1999)

The1stU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsupheldMaine’slawexcludingparentswhochoosereligiousschoolsfromthestate’stuitioningschoolchoicesystem.



CharterSchools: No

PublicSchoolChoice: YesMaineRevisedStatutesAnnotatedTitle20-A,Sections5203-5205

TownTuitioningProgram(excludesreligiousschools)MaineRevisedStatutesAnnotatedTitle20-A,Sections2915-2955,5203-5204,5804,5806



maine

TaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforMaine.TheMaineConstitutioncontainsnoprohibitionsonpublicfundingofparentalchoiceprogramsandMainealreadyhasoneofthenation’soldestandmostsuccessfulvoucherprograms—its“tuitioning”system.Thisprogramprovidespublicsupportforparentsintownstoosmalltomaintainpublicschoolstosendtheirchildrentotheschooloftheirchoice.Fornearlyacentury,parentsintuitioningtownswerefreetochoosereligiousschoolsaswellaspublicorprivatenon-religiousschools.Intheearly1980s,MainepassedalawexcludingparentswhochoosereligiousschoolsfromthetuitioningprograminthemistakenbeliefthatithadtodosotocomplywiththefederalEstablishmentClause.Nonetheless,theLegislaturefacesnoconstitutionalhurdletoremovingitsdiscriminatorybanontuitionpaymentsfortuitioningstudentsattendingreligiousschools—ortoofferingbroaderschoolchoiceoptionstomoreMainefamilies.



Anderson v. Town of Durham,895A.2d944(Me.),cert. denied,127S.Ct.661,166L.Ed.2d512(2006)

TheMaineSupremeCourtupheldMaine’sdiscriminatorytuitioninglawasavalidexerciseofstatepower,eventhough the original justification for thatlaw—complyingwiththefederalEstablishmentClause—wasrejectedbytheU.S.SupremeCourtinZelman.

Bagley v. Raymond School Department,728A.2d127(Me.),cert. denied,528U.S.947(1999)

PriortoZelman,theMaineSupremeCourtheldthatdenyingtuitionpaymentstoparentsintownswithoutapublichighschoolwhosenttheirchildrentoreligiousschoolsdidnotviolatetheFreeExerciseClauseoftheFirstAmendmentandactuallywasrequiredtoavoidviolationoftheFirstAmendment’sEstablishmentClause.

School Committee of York v. York,626A.2d935(Me.1993)

TheMaineSupremeCourtheldthattheLegislaturedoesnothaveexclusivecontrolovereducation;municipalitiesretainsomeauthorityovereducationpolicy.

Opinion of Justices,261A.2d58(Me.1970)ThejusticesoftheMaineSupremeCourtopinedthatwhenthestatebuysseculareducationalservicesfromreligiousschools,itsubsidizestheschoolsinviolationoftheFirstAmendmentandMaine’seducationarticles.


Compelled Support Clause“[N]oroughtanypersontobecompelledtofrequent,ormaintain,orcontribute,unlessoncontract,tomaintain,anyplaceofworship,oranyministry….”mArylAnddeCl. of riGHts Art.36.

Education Articles“TheGeneralAssembly,atitsFirstSessionaftertheadoptionofthisConstitution,shallbyLawestablishthroughouttheStateathoroughandefficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise,fortheirmaintenance.”mArylAnd Const.Art.VIII,§1.

“TheSchoolFundoftheStateshallbekeptinviolate,andappropriatedonlytothepurposesofEducation.”mArylAnd Const.Art.VIII,§3.

maryland

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Horace Mann League, Inc. v. Board of Public Works,220A.2d51(Md.1966)

Inupholdingtheconstitutionalityofstategrantstocollegesforacademicbuildings,theMarylandCourtofAppeals,Maryland’shighestcourt,heldthat“[t]husitisseenthatgrantstoeducationalinstitutionsatalevelwherethestatehasnotattemptedtoprovideuniversaleducationalfacilitiesforitscitizenshavenever,inMaryland,beenheldtobeimpermissibleunderArticle36,eventhoughtheinstitutionsmaybeunderthecontrolofareligiousorder.”

Johns Hopkins University v. Williams,86A.2d892(Md.1952)UpholdingaloanissuedbythestatetoaprivateuniversityagainstachallengebroughtunderArticleIII,Section34,whichprohibitsthestatefromsecuringprivatedebts,theMarylandCourtofAppealsheld“[t]hereisnoprohibitionintheConstitutionagainstmakingappropriationstoprivateinstitutions,providedthepurposeispublic,orsemi-public,andthousandsandthousandsofdollarsareappropriatedoutoftheannualreceiptseveryyear.”

Board of Education v. Wheat,199A.628(Md.1938),see also Adams v. County Commissioners of St. Mary’s County,26A.2d377(Md.1942)

TheMarylandCourtofAppealsheldthatusingpublicmoneytoprovidetransportationforchildrenattendingprivateorparochialschoolsdoesnotviolateMaryland’sCompelledSupportClausebecausereligiousinstitutionswouldbeaidedonlyincidentallyastheby-productofproperlegislativeactiontosecuretheeducationofchildren.

St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys v. Brown,45Md.310(Md.1876)AMarylandCourtofAppealsheldthatalthoughthestatecouldnotappropriatemoneytoaninstitutionnotunderstatecontrol,itcouldcontractwithprivateandreligiousinstitutionsforthecare,trainingandeducationofstatewards.



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: No

MarylandCodeAnnotated,EducationSections9-101to9-110


BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforMaryland.TheMarylandConstitutiondoesnotcontainaBlaineAmendmentandMarylandcourtshavealongtraditionofreadingitsCompelledSupportClausenarrowly.TheMarylandCourtofAppealshasupheldtheconstitutionalityoftransportingprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseandofcontractingwithreligiousinstitutionsfortheeducationofstatewards.Inmorerecentdecisions,thecourthasnotedthatevendirectgrantstoprivateeducationalinstitutionsareacceptablewhenthestatehasnotattemptedtoprovideuniversaleducationatthatlevel.Vouchers,whichprovidemoneydirectlytostudentsandparents and only incidentally benefit the schools theychoosetoattend,arethereforelikelytosurviveconstitutionalscrutiny.


Blaine Amendment“Nogrant,appropriationoruseofpublicmoneyorpropertyorloanofcreditshallbemadeorauthorizedbytheCommonwealthoranypoliticalsubdivisionthereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital,institution,primaryorsecondaryschool,orcharitableorreligiousundertakingwhichisnotpubliclyownedandundertheexclusivecontrol,order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the Commonwealthorfederalauthorityorboth…andnosuchgrant,appropriationoruseofpublicmoneyorpropertyorloanofpubliccreditshallbemadeorauthorizedforthepurposeoffounding,maintainingoraidinganychurch,religiousdenominationorsociety.NothinghereincontainedshallbeconstruedtopreventtheCommonwealthfrommakinggrants-in-aidtoprivatehighereducationalinstitutionortostudentsorparentsorguardiansofstudentsattendingsuchinstitutions.”mAssACHusetts Const. Amend.Art.XVIII,§2.

maSSachuSettS

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Wirzburger v. Galvin,412F.3d271(1stCir.2005)The1stU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthattheMassachusettsAttorneyGeneralproperlydeniedcertification of a proposed initiative to amend the state’s Blaine Amendment to allow public financial supporttobedirectedtostudentsattendingprivate, religiously affiliated schools because a separateconstitutionalprovisionplacestheBlaineAmendmentoff-limitstotheinitiativeprocess.ThecourtfurtherheldthatthisotherprovisiondidnotimpairthefreeexerciseofreligionundertheFirstAmendmentbecausetheexclusionsdidnotdiscriminateonthebasisofreligiousbelieforstatus.

Matthew J. v. Massachusetts Department of Education,989F.Supp.380(D.Mass.1998)

AMassachusettsfederaldistrictcourtheldthatthereimbursementofspecialeducationcostsundertheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActforamentallyillhighschoolstudentinaChristianschooloutsidethestatedidnotviolatetheMassachusettsBlaineAmendmentbecausethestatewascompensatingachildtowhomithadabdicateditsresponsibilitiesunderIDEA.

Attorney General v. School Committee of Essex,439N.E.2d770(Mass.1982)

TheMassachusettsSupremeCourtheldthatastatuterequiringtransportationofprivateschoolstudentsonpublicschoolbuseswasacommunitysafetymeasurenot unlike police or fire protection. Any benefit



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryMassachusettsAnnotatedLawsChapter71,Section37D

Interdistrict/voluntaryMassachusettsAnnotatedLawsChapter76,Sections12,12A,12B,12C

MassachusettsAnnotatedLawsChapter71,Section89



maSSachuSettS

Absentconstitutionalamendment,Massachusettslacksanygoodschoolchoiceoption.TheMassachusettsConstitutioncontainsanextremelyrestrictiveBlaineAmendment,whichcannotbealteredviareferendum.TheMassachusettsSupremeCourthasinterpretedthatBlaineAmendmentbroadly and allowed public funds to flow to private school studentsonlyunderthefederalIDEAandfortransportation.Instrikingdownatextbookloanprogram,thecourtrefusedtodistinguishbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheyattend.Inaddition,theMassachusettshighcourthasopinedthateducationtaxcreditswouldalsoviolatethestate’sBlaineAmendment,althoughitsopinionisnotconsideredbindingprecedent.


providedtotheprivateschoolswasremoteanddidnot constitute substantial aid sufficient to violate the MassachusettsConstitution.

Commonwealth v. School Committee of Springfield,417N.E.2d408(Mass.1981)

TheMassachusettsSupremeCourtheldthatusingpublicfundstopayforspecialeducationservicesfromprivateschoolswasnotforthepurposeoffounding,maintaining,oraidingprivateinstitutionsinviolationofMassachusetts’BlaineAmendment.Thecourtnotedthatpayingforspecialeducationservicesinprivateschools was required only after it was first determined thatapublicschoollackedtheabilityordesiretomeettheneedsofspecialeducationstudentsandthatthisrequirement was intended to benefit children, not to aidorpromoteprivateschools.

Bloom v. School Committee of Springfield,379N.E.2d578(Mass.1978)

Seeingnodifferencebetweenloaningtextbookstoprivateschoolstudentsandloaningthemtotheschool,theMassachusettsSupremeCourtheldthatMassachusetts’textbooklendinglawwasunconstitutional.Thecourtfurtherobservedthattextbooksareofuseonlyintheeducationalcontextandthereforearea“basiceducationaltool”tobedistinguishedfromotherbasicgovernmentserviceslike police and fire protection.

Opinion of Justices to Senate,514N.E.2d353(Mass.1987)ThejusticesoftheMassachusettsSupremeCourtopinedthatproposedlegislationthatwouldprovidetaxdeductionsforcertaineducationalexpenses(tuition,textbooksandtransportation)incurredbytaxpayerswhosedependentsattendedpublicornonprofit private primary and secondary schools wouldviolateMassachusetts’BlaineAmendment.

Opinion of Justices,259N.E.2d564(Mass.1970)ThejusticesoftheMassachusettsSupremeCourtopinedthatpurchasebythecommonwealthofseculareducationalservicesfromprivateschoolswouldviolateArticle46,Section2,oftheMassachusettsConstitution,aprecursortoMassachusetts’currentBlaineAmendment.

Opinion of Justices,236N.E.2d523(Mass.1968)ThejusticesoftheMassachusettsSupremeCourtopined that the state could help finance construction projectsatprivateuniversitieswithoutviolatingtheMassachusettsConstitution.


Compelled Support Clause“Nopersonshallbecompelledtoattend,or,againsthisconsent,tocontributetotheerectionorsupportofanyplaceofreligiousworship,ortopaytithes,taxesorotherratesforthesupportofanyministerofthegospelorteacherofreligion….”miCHiGAn Const.Art.I,§4.

Blaine Amendments“No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of anyreligioussectorsociety,theologicalorreligiousseminary;norshallpropertybelongingtothestatebeappropriatedforanysuchpurpose.”miCHiGAn Const.Art.I,§4.

“Nopublicmoniesorpropertyshallbeappropriatedorpaidoranypubliccreditutilized,bythelegislatureoranyotherpoliticalsubdivisionoragencyofthestatedirectlyorindirectlytoaidormaintainanyprivate,denominationalorothernonpublic,preelementary,elementary,orsecondaryschool.Nopayment,credit, tax benefit, exemption or deductions, tuition voucher, subsidy, grant orloanofpublicmoniesorpropertyshallbeprovided,directlyorindirectly,tosupporttheattendanceofanystudentortheemploymentofanypersonatanysuchnonpublicschooloratanylocationorinstitutionwhereinstructionisofferedinwholeorinparttosuchnonpublicschoolstudents….”miCHiGAn Const.Art.VIII,§2.

michigan

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Council of Organizations & Others for Education about Parochiaid v. Governor,566N.W.2d208(Mich.1997)

TheMichiganSupremeCourtheldthatthestate’scharterschoollawdoesnotviolateMichigan’sBlaineAmendmentsbecausethe“academies”are“public.”Thestateexercisescontrolovertheapplication-approvalprocessand it controls the academies’ finances in the samewayitcontrolsotherpublicschools.Moreover,nothingintheMichiganConstitutionrequiresthestatetoretaincompletecontroloveraschoolforittobepublic.

Snyder v. Charlotte Public School District, 365N.W.2d151(Mich.1984)

TheMichiganSupremeCourtheldthattheincidental and indirect benefits flowing to religiousschoolsasaresultofa“sharedtime”statutedidnotviolateMichigan’ssecondBlaineAmendment(ArticleVIII,Section2).“Sharedtime”programsallowstudentstoleavetheirtraditionalclassroomforpartofthedayandspendtimeatvocationalschools.



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryMichiganCompiledLawsSection380.1280

Interdistrict/voluntaryMichiganCompiledLawsSections380.140,388.1705to388.1705c

MichiganCompiledLawsSections380.501to380.507



michigan

Having specifically precluded both tax credit and voucher programs byconstitutionalamendment,therearenoschoolchoiceoptionsforMichiganwithoutaconstitutionalamendment.


Advisory Opinion Constitutionality of 1974 PA 242,228N.W.2d772(Mich.1975)

TheMichiganSupremeCourtadvisedthattextbooksandsuppliesareessentialaidsthatconstituteaprimaryfeatureoftheeducationalprocessandaprimaryelementrequiredforanyschooltoexist.ThecourtconcludedthataMichiganBlaineAmendment(ArticleVIII,Section2)barspublicfundingforsuchprimaryandessentialelementsofaprivateschool’sexistence.

Traverse City School District v. Attorney General,185N.W.2d9,29-31(Mich.1971)

TheMichiganSupremeCourtheldthatoneofthestate’sBlaineAmendments(ArticleVIII,Section2asamended)nowprohibitstheuseofpublicfunds“directlyorindirectlytoaidormaintain”anonpublicschool.

Scalise v. Boy Scouts of America,692N.W.2d858(Mich.Ct.App.2005)

AMichiganCourtofAppealsheldthataschooldistrict’spolicypermittingaboys’groupthatendorsedreligiontouseitsfacilitiesduringnon-schoolhoursdidnotviolateMichigan’sfirst Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section 4) or thefederalEstablishmentClausebecausemanyreligiousandseculargroupsusedthefacilitiesandthedistrictdidnotendorsetheboys’groupoveranyothergroup.

Alexander v. Bartlett,165N.W.2d445(Mich.Ct.App.1968)

AMichiganCourtofAppealsheldthatastatutepermittinglocalschooldistrictstofurnishtransportationwithoutchargeforstudentsofstate-approvedprivateschoolsdidnotviolateMichigan’s first Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section4)becausethestatute’sintendedandactualeffectwastoassistparentsincomplyingwithstatecompulsoryeducationlawswhilerecognizingtheirrighttosendtheirchildrentoreligiousschools.

Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of P.A. 1970,No.100,180N.W.2d265(1970)

TheMichiganSupremeCourtadvisedtheLegislaturethatthe“StateSchoolAidBill”allowingthepurchaseofeducationservicesfromprivateschoolsviolatesneithertheFirstAmendmentnorthe first of Michigan’s Blaine Amendments (Article I,Section4)becauseanysupportgiventoreligiousinstitutionsistenuousatbest.


Compelled Support Clause“[N]orshallanymanbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceofworship,ortomaintainanyreligiousorecclesiasticalministry,againsthisconsent.…”minnesotA Const.Art.I,§16.

Blaine Amendments“[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religioussocietiesorreligiousortheologicalseminaries.”minnesotA Const.Art.I,§16.

“Innocaseshallanypublicmoneyorpropertybeappropriatedorusedforthesupportofschoolswhereinthedistinctivedoctrines,creedsortenetsofanyparticularChristianorotherreligioussectarepromulgatedortaught.”minnesotA Const.Art.XIII,§2.

minneSota

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Mueller v. Allen,463U.S.388(1983)TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatMinnesota’staxdeductionforeducationexpenses,includingthecostoftuition,textbooksandtransportation,doesnotviolatethefederalEstablishmentClausedespiteoverwhelmingly benefiting parents with studentsinparochialschools.Thedeductionhasthesecularpurposeofadvancingeducation,isreligiouslyneutralonitsface,providesonlyindirectsupporttotheschools,anddoesnotfosterexcessiveentanglementbetweenreligionandthegovernment.

Stark v. Independent School District, No. 640,123F.3d1068(8thCir.1997)

The8thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatalthoughapublicelementaryschool’sstudentswereallofonereligionandtheschooladheredtoitslandlord’srequestthattechnologynotbeusedinthebuilding,theMinnesotaConstitutionwasnotviolatedbecausenoreligiousinstructionoccurredattheschool.Therefore,althoughpublicfundswereusedtosupporttheschool,nopublicfundswereexpendedinsupportofreligiousbelieforinstruction.

Minnesota Higher Education Facilities Authority v. Hawk,232N.W.2d106(Minn.1975)

TheMinnesotaSupremeCourtheldthatbonds issued for the purpose of financing



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesMinnesotaStatutesSection124D.03

MinnesotaStatutesSections124D.10to124D.11



TaxCreditsandDeductionsforEducationalExpensesMinnesotaStatutesSections290.01,290.0674

minneSota

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforMinnesota.TheMinnesotaSupremeCourt’s1970decisionregardingbustransportationindicatesthatthecourtdistinguishesbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheychoosetoattend. Significantly, more recently the Minnesota Supreme Court electednottoreviewadecisionoftheMinnesotaCourtofAppealsthatheldthatneitherthestate’sCompelledSupportClausenoritsBlaineAmendmentareviolatedbygovernmentprogramsaimedathelpingstudents,evenifthoseprogramsincidentallyaidreligiousorganizations.

Minnesota has already created school choice tax benefit programs, andtheU.S.SupremeCourtupheldthetaxdeduction.



constructionprojectsatinstitutionsofhighereducationdonotconstituteanexpenditureofpublicfunds,andaccordinglydonotviolatetheMinnesotaConstitution’sCompelledSupportClauseorBlaineAmendments.

Minnesota Civil Liberties Union v. State,224N.W.2d344(Minn.1974)

Applyingnow-outdatedfederalprecedent,theMinnesotaSupremeCourtheldthatastatuteallowingataxcreditforprivateeducationcostsviolatedthefederalEstablishmentClauseonthenow-rejectedpremisethattaxcreditsarethefunctionalequivalentofunrestrictedcashpaymentstoparentsforsendingtheirchildrentoreligiousschools.

Americans United v. Independent School District,179N.W.2d146(Minn.1970)

TheMinnesotaSupremeCourtupheldabusingstatuteallowingprivateschoolstudentstorideonpublicschoolbusesagainstachallengebroughtunderoneofMinnesota’sBlaineAmendments(ArticleXIII,Section2)becausetheprogram’sprimary purpose and effect was neither to benefit norsupportreligiousschools,despiteprovidingincidentalandindirectencouragementofprivateschoolattendance.

Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Mammenga,500N.W.2d136(Minn.Ct.App.1993)

TheMinnesotaCourtofAppealsheldthatastatuteallowinghighschoolstudentstoenrollinclassesatpublicorprivatecollegesatstateexpensedidnotviolateMinnesota’sCompelledSupportClauseorBlaineAmendmentsbecauseany benefits flowing to religious colleges were indirectandincidental,studentscouldattendeitherpublicorprivatecollegestotakenon-religiouscourses,thestatereimbursedonly42percentofactualcosts,andreligiouscollegesseparated funds received to ensure that benefits wereusedfornon-religiouspurposes.


Blaine Amendment“Noreligiousorothersectorsectsshallevercontrolanypartoftheschoolorothereducationalfundsofthisstate;norshallanyfundsbeappropriatedtowardthesupportofanysectarianschool,ortoanyschoolthatatthetimeofreceivingsuchappropriationisnotconductedasafreeschool.”mississippi Const.Art.VIII,§208.

Other Relevant Provision“Nolawgrantingadonationorgratuityinfavorofanypersonorobjectshallbeenactedexceptbytheconcurrenceoftwo-thirdsofthememberselectofeachbranchoftheLegislature,norbyanyvoteforasectarianpurposeoruse.”mississippi Const.Art.IV,§66.

miSSiSSippi

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Chance v. Mississippi State Textbook Rating & Purchasing Board,200So.706,713(Miss.1941)

TheMississippiSupremeCourtheldthatloaningpublictextbookstoprivateschoolpupilsdoesnotviolateMississippi’sBlaineAmendmentbecause“[t]hebooksbelongto,andarecontrolledby,thestate;theyaremerelyloanedtotheindividualpupilthereindesignated.…”Thecourtfurtherheldthatanyaidtoreligiousschoolsisincidentalandwerethestatetodenyuseofthosebooksbasedonthestudent’schoiceofareligiousschool,itmightwellviolateotherpartsoftheMississippiConstitution.

Otken v. Lamkin,56Miss.758(Miss.1879)TheMississippiSupremeCourtheldthatastatuteallottingpartofthecommonschoolfundtostudentsattendingprivateschoolsviolatedtheexpresstermsofMississippi’sBlaineAmendment.



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: Yes

MississippiCodeAnnotatedSection37-28-1to37-28-21


BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforMississippi.ItsConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendmentbuttheMississippiSupremeCourtheldthatthestatecouldprovidetextbookstoprivateandreligiousschoolstudentswithoutviolatingitsterms.Bydistinguishingbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheychoosetoattend,theMississippiSupremeCourthasprovidedstrongsupportforavoucherprogram.


MississippiCodeAnnotatedSection37-15-31

Compelled Support Clause“Thatnopersoncanbecompelledtoerect,supportorattendanyplaceorsystemofworship,ortomaintainorsupportanypriest,minister,preacherorteacherofanysect,church,creedordenominationofreligion;butifanypersonshallvoluntarilymakeacontractforanysuchobject,heshallbeheldtotheperformanceofthesame.”missouri Const.Art.I,§6.

Blaine Amendments“Thatnomoneyshalleverbetakenfromthepublictreasury,directlyorindirectly,inaidofanychurch,sectordenominationofreligion,orinaidofanypriest,preacher,ministerorteacherthereof,assuch;andthatnopreferenceshallbegiventonoranydiscriminationmadeagainstanychurch,sectorcreedofreligion,oranyformofreligiousfaithorworship.”missouri Const.Art.I,§7.

“Neitherthegeneralassembly,noranycounty,city,town,township,schooldistrictorothermunicipalcorporation,shallevermakeanappropriationorpayfromanypublicfundwhatever,anythinginaidofanyreligiouscreed,churchorsectarianpurpose,ortohelptosupportorsustainanyprivateorpublicschool,academy,seminary,college,university,orotherinstitutionoflearningcontrolledbyanyreligiouscreed,churchorsectariandenominationwhatever;norshallanygrantordonationofpersonalpropertyorrealestateeverbemadebythestate,oranycounty,city,town,orothermunicipalcorporation,foranyreligiouscreed,church,orsectarianpurposewhatever.”missouri Const.Art.IX,§8.

Education Article“The proceeds of all certificates of indebtedness due the state school fund, and all moneys,bonds,lands,andotherpropertybelongingtoordonatedtoanystatefundforpublicschoolpurposes,andthenetproceedsofallsalesoflandsandotherpropertyandeffectsthatmayaccruetothestatebyescheat,shallbepaidintothestatetreasury,andsecurelyinvestedunderthesupervisionofthestateboardofeducation,andsacredlypreservedasapublicschoolfundtheannualincomeofwhichshallbefaithfullyappropriatedforestablishingandmaintainingfreepublicschools,andfornootherusesorpurposeswhatsoever.”missouri Const.Art.IX,§5.

miSSouri

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Widmar v. Vincent,454U.S.263(1981)TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatthestate’sBlaineAmendmentsandCompelledSupportClausescannotjustifyastateuniversity’spolicy denying religiously affiliated student groupstherighttomeetinuniversitybuildings.

Barrera v. Wheeler,531F.2d402(8thCir.1976)The8thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatchildrenattendingnonpublicschoolsinMissouriareentitledtoreceivefederalfundsforremedialeducationprogramscomparableinquality,scopeandopportunitytochildren



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesInterdistrict/mandatoryMissouriRevisedStatutesSection167.131

Interdistrict/voluntaryMissouriRevisedStatutesSections162.1040to162.1059,162.1060,167.151

MissouriRevisedStatutesSections167.349to167.420




inpublicschools,notwithstandingtheMissouriBlaineAmendments.

Felter v. Cape Girardeau School District,810F.Supp.1062(D.Mo.1993)

AfederaldistrictcourtheldthatusingpublicfundstoprovidetransportationforadisabledstudentfromparochialtopublicschooldoesnotviolatetheEstablishmentClauseoftheU.S.ConstitutionortheMissouriConstitution.

Luetkemeyer v. Kaufmann,364F.Supp.376(D.Mo.1973),aff’d by mem. op.,419U.S.888(1974)

Athree-judgefederaldistrictcourtheldthatthestate’srefusaltoprovideschoolbustransportationtoreligiousschoolpupilsdidnotviolatethestudents’equalprotectionrightsbecausethedecisionwasnotirrational.

Brusca v. Missouri,332F.Supp.275(D.Mo.1971),aff’d,405U.S.1050(1972)

Afederaldistrictcourtheldthataparent’srighttochooseareligiousprivateschoolforhischildrendidnotmeanthatthestate was compelled to finance his child’s privateschooleducation,nordidhehaveaconstitutionalrighttoanycreditforhistaxeswhichsupportedthepublicschoolssimplybecausehewouldnotorcouldnotmakeuseofthem.

Americans United v. Rogers,538S.W.2d711(Mo.1976)

TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatpubliclyfundedhighereducationgrantsdonotviolatetheMissouriConstitutionbecausethepublicpurposeofthestatute,promotinghighereducation,overridesanyincidentalbenefit to a private individual or private college.

Mallory v. Barrera,544S.W.2d556(Mo.1976)TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatuseofanypartoffederalTitleIeducationfundsbythestatetoprovideremedialeducationtoelementaryandsecondaryschoolchildrenonthepremisesofparochialschoolsviolatestheBlaineAmendmentsoftheMissouriConstitution.



miSSouri


Paster v. Tussey,512S.W.2d97(Mo.1974)TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatrequiringpublicschoolboardstoprovidetextbookstoteachersinprivateschoolsviolatestheCompelledSupportClauseoftheMissouriConstitution,whilerequiringtextbookstobeprovidedtopupilsattendingprivateschoolsviolatesaBlaineAmendment(ArticleIX,Section8).

McDonough v. Aylward,500S.W.2d721(Mo.1973)

TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatbeingrequiredtopaytaxesdoesnotinterferewithparents’constitutionalrighttosendtheirchildrentoreligiouslyorientedschools.

Special District for Education & Training of Handicapped Children v. Wheeler,408S.W.2d60(Mo.1966),see also Harfst v. Hoegen,163S.W.2d609,614(Mo.1942)

TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatthestatemaynotusepublicschoolfundstosendpublicschoolspeechteachersintotheparochialschoolstoprovidespeechtherapy.

Berghorn v. Reorganized School District,260S.W.2d573(Mo.1953)

TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatschoolstaughtbyCatholicnunsarenotfreepublicschoolsandthereforemaynotreceivepublicfunds.

McVey v. Hawkins,258S.W.2d927(Mo.1953)TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatuseofstateandschooldistrictfundsfortransportationofparochialschoolstudentsviolatedoneofMissouri’seducationprovisions(ArticleIX,Section5),whichrequiredthatallfundsearmarkedforpublicschoolsbeusedtomaintainfreepublicschoolsandfornootherpurposes.


TaxcreditprogramsareMissouri’sbestoptionforaschoolchoiceprogram.AvoucherprogramwouldrequireastateconstitutionalamendmenttooverturntherestrictiveinterpretationsgiventoitsBlaineAmendmentsbytheMissouriSupremeCourt.


miSSouri

Blaine Amendment“(1)Thelegislature,counties,cities,towns,schooldistricts,andpubliccorporationsshallnotmakeanydirectorindirectappropriationorpaymentfromanypublicfundormonies,oranygrantoflandsorotherpropertyforanysectarianpurposeortoaidanychurch,school,academy,seminary,college,university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part byanychurch,sect,ordenomination.(2)Thissectionshallnotapplytofundsfromfederalsourcesprovidedtothestatefortheexpresspurposeofdistributiontonon-publiceducation.”montAnA Const.Art.X,§6.

Education Articles“Thepublicschoolfundshallforeverremaininviolate,guaranteedbythestateagainstlossordiversion.”montAnA Const.Art.X,§3.

“Thesupervisionandcontrolofschoolsineachschooldistrictshallbevestedinaboardoftrusteestobeelectedasprovidedbylaw.”montAnA Const.Art.X,§8.

montana

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Montana State Welfare Board v. Lutheran Social Services,480P.2d181,186(Mont.1971)

TheMontanaSupremeCourtheldthat“paymentofpublicassistancetoindigentexpectantmothersisnotanunconstitutional‘appropriation,’‘loan,’‘donation,’or‘grant’inviolationoftheMontanaConstitution,simplybecausesuchpersonsmayrequestthecounselingandassistanceof[religious]privateadoptionagencies.”Thecourtwentfurtherandheldthat“[i]nnowaydowe find that [religious] private adoption agencies are directly or indirectly benefited by payments to or on behalf of a qualified recipient,norhavetheyeverreceivedsuchfunds.”

State ex rel. Chambers v. School District,472P.2d1013(Mont.1970)

TheMontanaSupremeCourtheldthataspecialtaxtopayforteachersatalocalCatholicschoolviolatestheexplicittermsofArticleIX,Section8(thepredecessorofthecurrentBlaineAmendment,ArticleX,Section6)becauseitusespublicmoneytoaidasectarianschoolbypayingforitsteachers.



CharterSchools: No



BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforMontana.ThestateConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendmentonwhichtheMontanaSupremeCourtpremisedits1970decisionstrikingdownaspecialtaxforgeneratingfundstopayteachersinprivateschools,which,unlikeschoolchoiceprograms,constitutesadirectappropriationtoprivateschools.TheAmendmenthasreceivedlittlesubsequentattention.TheMontanaSupremeCourtshowedaninclinationinMontana State Welfare Board v. Lutheran Social Servicestorecognizeadistinctionbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheychoosetoattend.


Interdistrict/voluntaryMontanaCodeAnnotatedSections20-5-320,20-5-322to20-5-324

Interdistrict/mandatoryMontanaCodeAnnotatedSections20-5-321to20-5-324

Compelled Support Clause“Nopersonshallbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceofworshipagainsthisconsent.…”nebrAskA Const.Art.I,§4.

Blaine Amendment“1.NotwithstandinganyotherprovisionintheConstitution,appropriationofpublicfundsshallnotbemadetoanyschoolorinstitutionoflearningnotownedorexclusivelycontrolledbythestateorapoliticalsubdivisionthereof;Provided,thattheLegislaturemayprovidethatthestateoranypoliticalsubdivisionthereofmaycontractwithinstitutionsnotwhollyownedorcontrolledbythestateoranypoliticalsubdivision to provide for educational or other services for the benefit of children undertheageoftwenty-oneyearswhoarehandicapped,asthattermisfromtimetotime defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature. 2.Allpublicschoolsshallbefreeofsectarianinstruction.3.Thestateshallnotacceptmoneyorpropertytobeusedforsectarianpurposes;Provided,thattheLegislaturemayprovidethatthestatemayreceivemoneyfromthefederalgovernmentanddistributeitinaccordancewiththetermsofanysuchfederalgrants,butnopublicfundsofthestate,anypoliticalsubdivision,oranypubliccorporationmaybeaddedthereto.4. A religious test or qualification shall not be required of any teacher or studentforadmissionorcontinuanceinanyschoolorinstitutionsupportedinwholeorinpartbypublicfundsortaxation.”nebrAskA Const.Art.VII,§11.1

1Thisprovisionwasamendedin1976.Previously,itprohibitedtheappropriationofpublicfunds“inaidof”anysectarianordenominationalschoolorcollege,oranyeducationalinstitutionthatisnotexclusivelyownedandcontrolledbythestateoragovernmentalsubdivisionthereof.

neBraSka

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Father Flanagan’s Boys Home v. Department of Social Services,583N.W.2d774(Neb.1998)

TheNebraskaSupremeCourtrejectedthestate’sattempttoinvokeitsBlaineAmendmenttoavoidpayingprivateschoolsforeducatingspecialneedsstudentsunderacontractsignedbythestate.ThecourtheldthatpaymentsundersuchacontractarenotthetypeofappropriationsprohibitedbyNebraska’sBlaineAmendment.

Cunningham v. Lutjeharms,437N.W.2d806(Neb.1989)TheNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatlendingtextbookstoprivateschoolsdoesnotviolatetheFirstAmendment’sEstablishmentClausebecauseitmerelymakes available to all children the benefits of a general programtolendschoolbooksfreeofcharge.Thecourtfoundthatthetextbooksweresecularinnatureandtheprogramwouldnotrequireexcessivemonitoring.

State ex rel. Creighton University v. Smith,353N.W.2d267,272(Neb.1984)

TheNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatthefactthat


PrivateSchoolChoice: NoCharterSchools: No

PublicSchoolChoice: YesNebraskaRevisedStatutesSections79-232to79-246



neBraSka

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforNebraska.ItsConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendmentthatwaschangedin1972and1976,whichcreatedalargedivideinthestate’scaselaw.Asaltered,itprohibitsonlyappropriations“to”ratherthan“inaidof”sectarianschools.ApplyingtheupdatedBlaineAmendment,theNebraskaSupremeCourthasheldthatthestatecansupplytextbookstoprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseandcancontractwithreligiousschoolswithoutviolatingtheNebraskaConstitution.Schoolchoiceprogramsintendedtohelpstudentsandhavingonlyincidentaleffectsontheschoolstheyattendarethereforelikelytobeconstitutional.



a private institution derives indirect benefits from a contractwiththestatedoesnot“transformpaymentsforcontractedservicesintoanappropriationofpublicfundsproscribedbyarticleVII,§11,oftheNebraskaConstitution[theBlaineAmendment].”Thecourtorderedthestatedirectorofhealthtoconsideranapplication for a public research grant filed by a religiousuniversity.Thedirectorhadpreviouslyrefused,citingtheBlaineAmendment.

State ex rel. Bouc v. School District,320N.W.2d472(Neb.1982)

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that any benefit accruingtoaprivateschoolasaresultofpubliclysupportedbusingofitsstudentsisincidentalandthereforenotaviolationofNebraska’sBlaineAmendment.

Lenstrom v. Thone,311N.W.2d884(Neb.1981)TheNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatnothingintheNebraskaConstitutionpreventsthestatefromcreating a scholarship program to provide financial assistancetostudentsattendingpublicandprivatepostsecondaryeducationalinstitutionsinNebraska.

Gaffney v. State Department of Education,220N.W.2d550,557(Neb.1974)

InterpretingtheNebraskaBlaineAmendmentwhenitstillprohibitedappropriationofpublicfunds“inaidof”anyprivateschool(languagethathassincebeenremoved),theNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatastatuterequiringtheloanoftextbooksbypublicschoolstononpublicschoolsforstudentsingrades7to12wasunconstitutional.Givingfreetextbooks“lendsstrength”totheschoolthat,inturn,“lendsstrengthandsupporttothesponsoringsectarianinstitution.”

State ex rel. Rogers v. Swanson,219N.W.2d726(Neb.1974)Strikingdownastudentaidstatute,theNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatusingpublicmoneytofundatuitiongrantprogramviolatedthestate’sBlaineAmendment.Accordingtothecourt,noattemptwasmadetorestricttheuseoffundsand,asaresult,someofthefundsinvariablypaidforsectarianinstruction.

State ex rel. Freeman v. Scheve,93N.W.169,172(Neb.1903)TheNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatreadingfromtheBibledoesnotconstitutesectarianinstruction.Thus,whenpublicschoolteachersrequireBiblereading,publicfundsarenotgoingtosectarianinstitutionsinviolationoftheprecursortothestate’scurrentBlaineAmendment.


Blaine Amendment“Nopublicfundsofanykindorcharacterwhatever,State,CountyorMunicipal,shallbeusedforsectarianpurpose[sic].”nevAdA Const.Art.11,§10.

Education Article“Thelegislatureshallprovideforauniformsystemofcommonschools…anyschooldistrictwhichshallallowinstructionofasectariancharacterthereinmaybedeprivedofitsproportionoftheinterestofthepublicschoolfundduringsuchneglectorinfraction.…”nevAdA Const.Art.11,§2.

nevada

RELEVANT CASE LAW

State v. Hallock, 16Nev.373(Nev.1882)TheNevadaSupremeCourtheldthatpublicmoneygiventoaCatholicorphanageviolatestheBlaineAmendmentoftheNevadaConstitution.

Attorney General Opinion 276(11-5-1965)(copyavailablefromtheInstituteforJustice)

TheNevadaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat“[t]herequirementofafederalstatutethataschooldistrictwhichreceivesagrantforspecialaidtoeducationallydeprivedchildrenmakesuchaidavailabletopupilsofprivateschoolsdoesnotviolateNevada’sBlaineAmendment…iffederalmoneysarekeptseparate.”


TheNevadaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat“[t]heprohibitionofexpendituresofpublicfundsforsectarianpurposes,ascontainedinNevada’sBlaineAmendment,wasprimarilyincludedforthepurposeofpreventingsectarianreligiousinstructioninpublicschools,asindicatedbyConst.,Art.11,§9,whichprohibitssectarianinstructioninanyschooloruniversityestablishedunderthestateConstitution.”


TheNevadaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat“[h]omeinstructionofaprivateorparochialschoolstudentbypublicschoolteacherswhensuchstudentisillisanunconstitutionalexpenditureofpublicfundsforsectarianpurpose.However,ifsuchstudentenrollsinthepublicschoolduringhisillnesshemaythenreceivesuchhomeinstruction.”

Attorney General Opinion B-40(2-11-1941)(copyavailablefromtheInstituteforJustice)

TheNevadaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat“[s]tatefundsmaybeusedtohospitalizecrippledchildreninasectarianhospitalwherenoinstructionofanykindisimparted,andsuchusedoesnotviolateNevada’sBlaineAmendment.”



CharterSchools: Yes


NevadaRevisedStatutesSections386.500to386.610


Despiteafewinauspiciousattorneygeneralopinionsfromthe1960sand70s,bothvoucherandtaxcreditprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsinNevada.TheonlycasediscussingNevada’sBlaineAmendmentisfrom1882whentheNevadaSupremeCourtdisallowedadirectappropriationofpublicfundstoaCatholicorphanageinState v. Hallock.Nomorerecentconstitutionalinterpretationsexist,letaloneanyaddressingprogramsaidingstudents.

Standingalone,theHallock decisionwouldnotbartheuseofeducationalvouchers,asthosefundswouldaidparentswhowouldchooseamonganarrayofeducationaloptions.AlthoughNevada’sLegislaturepassedalawrequiringthatmoneyallottedforpublicschoolsbeusedexclusivelyforpublicschools,NevadaRevisedStatutesSection387.045,otherpublicmoney—generalrevenuesorlotteryproceeds,forinstance—couldsupportavoucherprogram.

Alternatively, tax benefits aimed at offsetting the cost of privateeducationareanotherpossibleschoolchoiceoption.TheyfullycomplywiththeUniformandEqualTaxclauseofNevada’sConstitution(ArticleX,Section1)andtheseminalcaseinterpretingthatprovision,State v. Eastabrook,3Nev.173,178(Nev.1867).


Compelled Support Clause“Butnopersonshalleverbecompelledtopaytowardsthesupportoftheschoolsofanysectordenomination….”new HAmpsHire Const.Pt.FIRST,Art.6.

Blaine Amendment“Provided, nevertheless,thatnomoneyraisedbytaxationshalleverbegrantedorappliedfortheuseoftheschoolsorinstitutionsofanyreligioussectordenomination.”new HAmpsHire Const.Pt.SECOND,Art.83.

Other Relevant Provisions“Everymemberofthecommunity…isthereforeboundtocontributehisshareintheexpenseofsuchprotection.…”new HAmpsHire Const.Pt.FIRST,Art.12.

“[A]ndtoimposeandlevyproportionalandreasonableassessments,rates,andtaxes,uponalltheinhabitantsof,andresidentswithin,thesaidstate.…”new HAmpsHire Const.Pt.SECOND,Art.5.

new hampShire

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Trustees of Phillips Exeter Academy v. Exeter,27A.2d569(N.H.1940)

TheNewHampshireSupremeCourtheldthataidtoeducationalinstitutionsbyexemptingthemfromtaxationisaproperexerciseofthelegislativepower.

Opinion of the Justices,616A.2d478(N.H.1992)ThejusticesoftheNewHampshireSupremeCourtopinedthataproposedvoucherprogramviolatedtheNewHampshireConstitutionbecauseitcontainednosafeguardtopreventuseofpublicfundsforreligiouspurposes.

Opinion of the Justices,233A.2d832(N.H.1967)ThejusticesoftheNewHampshireSupremeCourtopinedthatappropriatingmoneyfromasweepstakesfunddirectlytoparochialinstitutionsviolatestheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment.

Opinion of the Justices,113A.2d114(N.H.1955)ThejusticesoftheNewHampshireSupremeCourtopinedthatnursingeducationscholarshipsdonotviolatetheNewHampshireConstitutionbecausetheywerereligiouslyneutralandintendedtofurthertheteachingofthescienceofnursing.



CharterSchools: Yes



AtaxcreditprogramisNewHampshire’sbestoptionforschoolchoice.Itiswell-establishedwithinNewHampshirecaselawthattaxexemptionsaimedatpromotingeducationforallNewHampshirecitizensbutincidentallyaffectingreligiousinstitutionsareconstitutionallyacceptable.TheyservealegitimatepublicpurposeandcomportwithNewHampshire’s“uniformandreasonable”and“fairshare”taxlawsasinterpretedbyNewHampshire’sstatecourts.

TheNewHampshireSupremeCourthasnotruledontheconstitutionalityofvouchersunderitsBlaineAmendment,butitdidsuggestinits1992AdvisoryOpinionthattheywouldviolatetheBlaineAmendment.WhileAdvisoryOpinionsarenotbindinglegalprecedent,theycanbepersuasivetocourtsinsubsequentcases.OnepotentialwayofavoidingtheBlaineAmendmentwouldbetouseanon-taxsourcesuchaslotteryproceedstofundtheprogram.


NewHampshireRevisedStatutesAnnotated194-B:1to194-B:22

NewHampshireRevisedStatutesAnnotated194-B:1to194-B:22

Compelled Support Clause“[N]orshallanypersonbeobligedtopaytithes,taxes,orotherratesforbuildingorrepairinganychurchorchurches,placeorplacesofworship,orforthemaintenanceofanyministerorministry,contrarytowhathebelievestoberightorhasdeliberatelyandvoluntarilyengagedtoperform.”new Jersey Const.Art.I,¶3.

Education Provisions“TheLegislatureshallprovideforthemaintenanceandsupportofathoroughandefficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.” new Jersey Const.Art.VIII,§IV,¶1.

“Thefundforthesupportoffreepublicschools…shallbesecurelyinvested,andremainaperpetualfund;andtheincomethereof,exceptsomuchasitmaybejudgedexpedienttoapplytoanincreaseofthecapital,shallbeannuallyappropriatedtothesupport of free public schools, and for the equal benefit of all the people of the State; anditshallnotbecompetent,exceptashereinafterprovided,fortheLegislaturetoborrow,appropriateorusethesaidfundoranypartthereofforanyotherpurpose,underanypretensewhatever.”new Jersey Const.Art.VIII,§IV,¶2.

new JerSey

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Everson v. Board of Education,330U.S.1(1947)TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthattheFirstAmendmentdoesnotprohibitNewJerseyfromspendingpublicfundstopaythebusfaresofparochialschoolpupilsasapartofageneralprogramunderwhichitpaidthefaresofstudentsattendingpublicschools.

Resnick v. East Brunswick Township Board of Education,389A.2d944(N.J.1978)

TheNewJerseySupremeCourtheldthatthestatecouldallowreligiousgroupsthatfullyreimbursedschoolboardsforrelatedout-of-pocketexpensestouseschoolfacilitiesonatemporarybasisforreligiousserviceswithoutviolatingthefederalorNewJerseyconstitutions.

Clayton v. Kervick,285A.2d11(N.J.1971)ApplyingfederalEstablishmentClauseprecedent,theNewJerseySupremeCourtheldthatsupplyingpublicfundsfortheconstructionofdormsatprivatecollegespassesconstitutionalscrutinyaslongasthebuildingsarenotusedforreligiousinstructionandtheschooldoesnotdiscriminateonthebasisofreligioninitsadmissions.

Everson v. Board of Education,44A.2d333,337(N.J.1945)NewJersey’shighestcourtheldthatthetransportationofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpensewasdesignedtohelpparentscomplywithmandatoryattendancelaws,whichisapublicpurpose,andthereforedoesnotviolatetheNewJerseyConstitution.



CharterSchools: Yes



AsmandatedbyAbbott v. Burke,theNewJerseyCommissionerofEducationmustprovidevouchersforpre-schoolprogramsforallthree-andfour-yearolds,whomayattendpublicorprivateprograms.

BothtaxcreditprogramsandvouchersareschoolchoiceoptionsforNewJersey.ItsConstitutiondoesnotcontainaBlaineAmendment,anditsCompelledSupportClause,whilereceivinglittlejudicialattention,doesnotappeartoprecludetheuseoffundsotherthanthoseallottedforthepublicschoolstosupporteducationalvouchers.


Interdistrict/voluntaryNewJerseyStatutesSections18A:36B-1to18A:36B-13,18A:38-3

NewJerseyStatutesSection18A:36A

Compelled Support Clause“Nopersonshallberequiredtoattendanyplaceofworshiporsupportanyreligioussectordenomination….”new mexiCo Const.Art.II,§11.

Blaine Amendments“[N]opartoftheproceedsarisingfromthesaleordisposalofanylandsgrantedtothestatebycongress,oranyotherfundsappropriated,leviedorcollectedforeducationalpurposes,shallbeusedforthesupportofanysectarian,denominationalorprivateschool,collegeoruniversity.”new mexiCo Const.Art.XII,§3.

“Provisionshallbemadefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofasystemofpublicschoolswhichshallbeopentoallthechildrenofthestateandfreefromsectariancontrol,andsaidschoolsshallalwaysbeconductedinEnglish.”new mexiCo Const.Art.XXI,§4.

Other Relevant Provisions“Noappropriationshallbemadeforcharitable,educationalorotherbenevolentpurposestoanyperson,corporation,association,institutionorcommunity,notundertheabsolutecontrolofthestate....”new mexiCo Const.Art.IV,§31.

“Neitherthestatenoranycounty,schooldistrictormunicipality,exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthisconstitution,shalldirectlyorindirectlylendorpledgeitscreditormakeanydonationtoorinaidofanyperson.…”new mexiCo Const.Art.IX,§14.

new mexico

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Miller v. Cooper,244D.2d(N.M.1952)TheNewMexicoSupremeCourtreaffirmed that religious groups cannot usepublicschoolfacilitiestodisseminatereligiousmaterialbutrefusedtoenjoinreligiousindividualsfromteachinginpublicschools.

Zellers v. Huff, 236P.2d949(N.M.1951)TheNewMexicoSupremeCourtconcludedthatpublicschoolteachersmaynotdressinreligious“garb”andachurchmaynotoperateaschoolsystemwithinthepublicschoolsystem.

Attorney General Opinion No. 99-01(1999)ThisopinionoftheNewMexicoAttorneyGeneralfoundthatvoucherspresentseriousconstitutionalproblems,notwithstandingearlierattorneygeneralopinionstothecontrary,becausetheyconstitutea“donation”toaprivate



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesIntradistrict/mandatoryNewMexicoStatutesAnnotatedSections22-1-4,22-2A-7

IntradistrictandInterdistrict/voluntaryNewMexicoStatutesAnnotatedSection22-12-5

VoluntaryPre-K(withchoiceofpublicandprivateproviders)NewMexicoStatutesAnnotatedSection32A-23)


NewMexicoStatutesAnnotatedSections22-8B-1to22-8B-15


BothvouchersandtaxcreditsappeartobeconsistentwiththeNewMexicoConstitution.

ThereisverylittlecaselawinterpretingeitherNewMexico’sBlaineAmendmentorCompelledSupportClause,andnon-bindingattorneygeneralopinionsconcerningtheireffectsonvouchersarecontradictory.

TheNewMexicoConstitutionalsohasan“anti-donation”clause(ArticleIX,Section14)thatprohibitsthegovernmentfromgivinggiftsofmoney,propertyorcredittoprivateparties.Thiscouldbeanobstacletovouchers,butNewMexicocourtshavenotyetaddresseditinavouchercontext.

NewMexicoschoolchoiceadvocatesshouldnoteNewMexico’scurrentpre-Kvoucherprogram,establishedin2005.ByhavingtheChildren,YouthandFamiliesDepartmentreimburseeligibleprivateprovidersandbycreatingaseparatevoucherfundfromwhichthosepaymentsaremade,thepre-KprogramavoidsNewMexico’sBlaineAmendmentsanditspublicschoolfundingclause.



individualinviolationofthestateConstitution’s“anti-donation”clause(ArticleIX,Section14).

Attorney General Opinion No. 79-7(1979)Inthisopinion,theNewMexicoAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatproposedlegislationappropriatingstatemoneyfortuitiongrantstostudentsattendingprivatecollegesanduniversitiesappearedtobeanoutrightgifttostudentsinviolationthe“anti-donation”clause(ArticleIX,Section14)becausethestate received no consideration or benefit in exchange.

Attorney General Opinion No. 76-6(1976)Inthisopinion,theNewMexicoAttorneyGeneraldeclaredthatavoucherprogramunderwhichtheparentsofexceptionalchildrenwhoseneedswerenotbeingmetbythepublicschoolscouldusethefundstheschooldistrictwouldotherwisehavespentonthechildrentopurchasespecialeducationatprivate,nonsectarianinstitutionswouldbeconsistentwiththeNewMexicoConstitution.


new mexico

Blaine Amendment“Neitherthestatenoranysubdivisionthereof,shalluseitspropertyorcreditoranypublicmoney,orauthorizeorpermiteithertobeused,directlyorindirectly,inaidormaintenance,otherthanforexaminationorinspection,ofanyschoolorinstitutionoflearningwhollyorinpartunderthecontrolordirectionofanyreligiousdenomination,orinwhichanydenominationaltenetordoctrineistaught,butthelegislaturemayprovideforthetransportationofchildrentoandfromanyschoolorinstitutionoflearning.”new york Const.ArtXI,§3.

new york

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Board of Education v. Allen,392U.S.236(1968)TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatNewYork’stextbookloanprogramdoesnotviolatetheFirstAmendmentbyincludingchildreninreligiousschoolsbecauseitwasintended to aid students, not to benefit parochial schools as such. Any benefit parochial schools received was minimalandthereforenotanestablishmentofreligion.

Grumet v. Pataki,720N.E.2d66(N.Y.1999)TheNewYorkCourtofAppeals,NewYork’shighestcourt,heldthatastatutecreatingaseparateschooldistrictfor members of a specific religious denomination had theprimaryeffectofadvancingreligionandthereforeconstitutedanimpermissibleaccommodationtoasinglereligiousgroupinviolationoftheFirstAmendment.

Greve v. Board of Education,351N.Y.S.2d715(N.Y.App.Div.1974),aff’d,325N.E.2d168(N.Y.1975)

TheNewYorkCourtofAppealsheldthatprovidingadeafstudentwithatranslatoratpublicexpensedoesnotviolatetheNewYorkBlaineAmendmentifthetranslatordoesnotteachthestudentreligion.

Board of Education v. Allen,228N.E.2d791(N.Y.1967),aff’d,392U.S.236(1968)

TheNewYorkCourtofAppealsheldthatNewYork’stextbookloanprogramdoesnotviolatethestate’sBlaineAmendmentbecausetheamendmentwasneverintendedtoprohibitstatepoliciesthatmightultimatelyentail some benefit to parochial schools. The court explicitlyrejectedthereasoningandconclusionoftheJuddcase,whichforbadeinclusionofreligiousschoolstudentsinatransportationprogram,andtheSmithcase,



CharterSchools: Yes

PublicSchoolChoice: YesInterdistrict/voluntaryNewYorkConsolidatedLawServiceEducationalProvisionsSection3202



NewYorkConsolidatedLawServiceEducationalProvisionsSections2850to2857

new york

DespiteaninitiallyrestrictiveinterpretationofitsBlaineAmendment,NewYorkcourtshaveabandonedthatapproachandbothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforNewYork.NewYork’shigheststatecourtheldinBoard of Education v. AllenthattheBlaineAmendmentwasneverintendedtobargovernmentprograms providing incidental benefits to parochial schools.



whichprohibitedprovidingfreetextbookstostudentsinreligiousschools.

Judd v. Board of Education,15N.E.2d576(N.Y.1938),overruled byBoard of Education v. Allen,228N.E.2d791(N.Y.1967)

TheNewYorkCourtofAppealsheldthatalthoughbusingall students to their schools was primarily for the benefit of the child, it still had the effect of giving an incidental benefit toreligiousschoolsandthusviolatedNewYork’sBlaineAmendmentprohibitingindirectaid.

Sargent v. Board of Education,69N.E.722(N.Y.1904)TheNewYorkCourtofAppealsheldthatusingpublicfundstopayCatholicnunstoeducateorphansdoesnotviolatetheNewYorkBlaineAmendmentbecausetheorphanagewasnota“school,”andotherprovisionswithintheNewYorkConstitutionexplicitlyallowforthistypeofexpenditure.

Matter of Richard K. v. Petrone,815N.Y.S.2d270(N.Y.App.Div.2006)

The Appellate Division held that pursuant to specific legislationandthedeepconcernforchildsafetyandwelfareevincedinNewYork’sConstitution,localschoolboardsmustprovidenursingservicestoparochialschoolstudentsorreimburseparentsforacquiringthoseservicesontheirown.

Cook v. Griffin,364N.Y.S.2d632(N.Y.App.Div.1975)TheAppellateDivisionheldthataschoolboardcannottransport private school students on public buses for field tripswithoutsomestatutoryauthorityandthatwhileparentshavetherighttosendtheirchildrentoprivateorparochialschools,thereisnocorrespondingrighttoequalstateaidoncetheymakethatdecision.

College of New Rochelle v. Nyquist,326N.Y.S.2d765(N.Y.App.Div.1971)

TheAppellateDivisionoftheNewYorkSupremeCourtheldthatstateaidcouldgotoaschoolthatwasfoundedandadministeredbyareligiousorderbutwasnotdirectlycontrolledbythatorderanddidnotteachanyparticularreligiousdoctrinetotheexclusionofotherreligiousdenominations.

Smith v. Donahue,195N.Y.S.715(N.Y.App.Div.1922),overruled by Board of Education v. Allen,228N.E.2d791(N.Y.1967)

InholdingthatprovidingtextbookstoparochialschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseviolatedtheU.S.andNewYorkconstitutions,theAppellateDivisionheldthatfurnishingbooksandordinaryschoolsuppliestothepupilsofreligiousschoolsaidsthoseschools.


Religion Provision“AllpersonshaveanaturalandinalienablerighttoworshipAlmightyGodaccordingtothedictatesoftheirownconsciences,andnohumanauthorityshall,inanycasewhatever,controlorinterferewiththerightsofconscience.”nortH CArolinA Const.Art.I,§13

Education Articles“Thepeoplehavearighttotheprivilegeofeducation,anditisthedutyoftheStatetoguardandmaintainthatright.”nortH CArolinA Const.Art.I,§15.

“Religion,morality,andknowledgebeingnecessarytogoodgovernmentandthehappinessofmankind,schools,libraries,andthemeansofeducationshallforeverbeencouraged.”nortH CArolinA Const.Art.IX,§1.

“TheGeneralAssemblyshallprovidebytaxationandotherwiseforageneralanduniformsystemoffreepublicschools.…”nortH CArolinA Const.Art.IX,§2.

“TheproceedsofalllandsthathavebeenorhereaftermaybegrantedbytheUnitedStatestothisState,andnototherwiseappropriatedbythisStateortheUnitedStates;allmoneys,stocks,bonds,andotherpropertybelongingtotheStateforpurposesofpubliceducation;thenetproceedsofallsalesoftheswamplandsbelongingtotheState;andallothergrants,gifts,anddevisesthathavebeenorhereaftermaybemadetotheState,andnototherwiseappropriatedbytheStateorbythetermsofthegrant,gift,ordevise…shallbefaithfullyappropriatedandusedexclusivelyforestablishingandmaintainingauniformsystemoffreepublicschools.”nortH CArolinA Const.Art.IX,§6.(Section7repeatsthistextwithrespecttotheCountyEducationFund)

north carolina

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Smith v. Board of Governors of University of North Carolina,429F.Supp.871(W.D.N.C.),aff’d,434U.S.803(1977)

Afederaldistrictcourtheldthatstatetuitionassistancetostudentsatcollegesdidnotconstituteexcessiveentanglementofthestatewithreligiousactivitiesbecausethecollegeswerenotpervasivelysectarianand,althoughtherewasareligiouspresence,inculcationofreligionwasnotthecolleges’primarypurpose.

Heritage Village Church & Missionary Fellowship, Inc. v. State,263S.E.2d726,730(N.C.1980)

Instrikingdownastatuteimposingmoreburdensomelicensingrequirementsonreligiousorganizationsthanothers,theNorthCarolinaSupremeCourtexplicitlylinkedinterpretationofthereligionclausesintheNorthCarolinaConstitutionto



CharterSchools: Yes




NorthCarolinaGeneralStatutesSections115C-238.29Ato238.29K

BothtaxcreditsandvouchersareschoolchoiceoptionsforNorthCarolina.TheNorthCarolinaConstitutiondoesnothaveaBlaineAmendmentoraCompelledSupportClauseandstatecaseslooktofederalEstablishmentClauseprecedent.InZelman v. Simmons-Harris,theU.S.SupremeCourtupheldschoolchoiceprogramsunderthefederalConstitution.

ToavoidanypotentialproblemswithArticleIX,sections6and7oftheNorthCarolinaConstitution,voucherprogramfundingshouldexplicitlycomefromsourcesotherthanthestate’spublicschoolfund.



interpretationsoftheFirstAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution.

State Education Assistance Authority v. Bank of Statesville,174S.E.2d551,559(N.C.1970)

TheNorthCarolinaSupremeCourtheldthatastateagencycouldissuetax-exemptbondstoacquirestudentloandebtwithoutviolatingtheNorthCarolinaConstitutionbecauseadvancingeducationisapublicpurpose.Thecourtwentontoholdthat“[s]ubjecttoconstitutionallimitations,methodstofacilitateandachievethepublicpurposeofprovidingfortheeducationortrainingofresidentsofthisStateininstitutionsofhighereducationorpost-secondaryschoolsarefordeterminationbytheGeneralAssembly.”


north carolina

Blaine Amendment“Allcolleges,universities,andothereducationalinstitutions,forthesupportofwhichlandshavebeengrantedtothisstate,orwhicharesupportedbyapublictax,shallremainundertheabsoluteandexclusivecontrolofthestate.Nomoneyraisedforthesupportofthepublicschoolsofthestateshallbeappropriatedtoorusedforthesupportofanysectarianschool.”nortH dAkotA Const.ArtVIII,§5.

Education Articles“Ahighdegreeofintelligence,patriotism,integrityandmoralityonthepartofeveryvoterinagovernmentbythepeoplebeingnecessaryinordertoinsurethecontinuanceofthatgovernmentandtheprosperityandhappinessofthepeople,thelegislativeassemblyshallmakeprovisionfortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofasystemofpublicschoolswhichshallbeopentoallchildrenofthestateofNorthDakotaandfreefromsectariancontrol.ThislegislativerequirementshallbeirrevocablewithouttheconsentoftheUnitedStatesandthepeopleofNorthDakota.”nortH dAkotA Const.ArtVIII,§1.

“Thelegislativeassemblyshallprovideforauniformsystemoffreepublicschoolsthroughoutthestate,beginningwiththeprimaryandextendingthroughallgradesuptoandincludingschoolsofhighereducation,exceptthatthelegislativeassemblymay authorize tuition, fees and service charges to assist in the financing of public schoolsofhighereducation.”nortH dAkotA Const.ArtVIII,§2.

north dakota

RELEVANT CASE LAW

D’Errico v. Lesmeister,570F.Supp.158,162(D.N.D.1983)

AfederaldistrictcourtheldthatNorthDakota’shighereducationtuitionassistanceprogramviolatedtheFirstAmendment’sEstablishmentClausebecause“[t]heneteffectisthatstudentsattendingtwosectarianreligiousschoolsinNorthDakotaoperatedforexpressreligiouspurposes are receiving state financial assistance.”

Gerhardt v. Heid,267N.W.127(N.D.1936)TheNorthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthatwearingreligiousgarbwhileteachinginapublicschooldoesnotviolateNorthDakota’sBlaineAmendment because it merely identifies the religionoftheteacherratherthanattemptingtoconvertthestudents.

Todd v. Board of Education,209N.W.369,371(N.D.1926)

TheNorthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthattherequirementofa“uniformsystemoffreepublicschools”doesnotmean“thatschoolfacilitiesprovidedinanydistrictbymeansoftaxesimposedthereinshallbeavailabletopupilsfromotherdistrictswithoutcharge.”



CharterSchools: No



BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforNorthDakota.AlthoughitsConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendment,avoucherprogramfundedfromsourcesotherthanthepublicschoolfundcomplieswithitsterms.ItisunclearwhetherNorthDakotaadherestofederalprecedentonEstablishmentClauseissues,andtheuniformityclausewithinitseducationprovisionshasreceivedverylittlejudicialattention.


Interdistrict/voluntaryNorthDakotaCenturyCodeSections15.1-31-01to15.1-31-07

Compelled Support Clause“Nopersonshallbecompelledtoattend,erect,orsupportanyplaceofworship,ormaintainanyformofworship,againsthisconsent.…”oHio Const.Art.I,§7.

Education Articles“Theprincipalofallfunds,arisingfromthesale,orotherdispositionoflands,orotherproperty,grantedorentrustedtothisStateforeducationalandreligiouspurposes,shallbeusedordisposedofinsuchmannerastheGeneralAssemblyshallprescribebylaw.”oHio Const. Art.VI,§1.

“Thegeneralassemblyshallmakesuchprovisions,bytaxation,orotherwise,as,withtheincomearisingfromtheschooltrustfund,willsecureathoroughand efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or othersect,orsects,shalleverhaveanyexclusiverightto,orcontrolof,anypartoftheschoolfundsofthisstate.”oHio Const.Art.VI,§2.

ohio

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,536U.S.639(2002)TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatCleveland’sScholarshipandTutoringProgramdoesnotviolatetheEstablishmentClausebecausetheprogramisneutralwithrespecttoreligion, provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals,andallowsthoseindividualstofreelychoosebetweenreligiousandnon-religiousschools.

Kosydar v. Wolman,353F.Supp.744(S.D.Ohio1972),aff’d sub nom., Grit v. Wolman,413U.S.901(1973)

TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatstatestatutesthatprovidedtaxcreditstoparentsofpupilsinpredominantlyreligiousschools,whoincurrededucationalexpensesinexcessofthosebornebyparentsgenerallyinsecuringapprovedprimaryandsecondaryschoolingfortheirchildren,violatedtheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment.

Simmons-Harris v. Goff,711N.E.2d203(Ohio1999)TheSupremeCourtofOhioheldtheCleveland



CharterSchools: Yes




Intradistrict/mandatoryOhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSection3302.04e1ab

Intradistrict/mandatoryOhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSection3313.97

Interdistrict/voluntaryOhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSections3313.98to3313.981

OhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSection3314.02

ClevelandScholarship&TutoringProgramOhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSections3313.974to3313.975

AutismScholarshipProgramOhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSection3310.41

OhioEducationalChoiceScholarshipsOhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSection3310.02

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforOhio.TheOhioSupremeCourtupheldCleveland’svoucherprogramunderboththestateandfederalconstitutions,andtheOhioLegislaturehassinceenactedtwomorevoucherprograms,oneforchildrenwithautismandanotherforchildreninfailingpublicschools.



ScholarshipandTutoringProgramdoesnotviolateeitherthefederalEstablishmentClauseorthestateConstitution’sCompelledSupportoreducationclauses,butstruckdowntheprogramafterconcludingitviolatedthesingle-subjectrulecontainedinthestateConstitutionbecauseitwaspassedaspartofthestatebudget.TheLegislaturequicklyre-authorizedtheprogramasstand-alonelegislation.

Protestants & Other Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. Essex,275N.E.2d603(Ohio1971)

TheOhioSupremeCourtheldthatallottingfederalmoneyandequipmenttoprivateschoolstocompensatethemfortestingoreducatingdeafanddisabledstudentsdoesnotviolatetheOhioConstitutionbecausetheaidtotheschoolisincidentalatbest.

Findley v. Conneaut,62N.E.2d318(Ohio1945)TheOhioSupremeCourtheldthatawillprovidingfortheestablishmentofaprivatepolytechnicindustrialschoolinwhichtheteachingofProtestantreligionistobeaprominentfeatureauthorizesthecreationofareligiousschool,forwhichmunicipalitiesarenotallowedtoissuebondsorexpendfundsraisedbytaxation.

Board of Education v. Minor,23OhioSt.211(Ohio1872)Inrefusingtoenforceresolutionspassedbythestateboardofeducationthatwouldprohibitthereadingofallreligiousmaterialsinpublicschools,theOhioSupremeCourtheldthatthestateConstitutionneitherprohibitsnorrequiresreligiousinstruction,orthereadingofreligiousbooks,inthepublicschoolsofthestate.

Honohan v. Holt,244N.E.2d537(OhioCt.Com.Pl.FranklinCounty1968)

AnOhioCourtofCommonPleasheldthattheindirect benefits flowing to religious schools from the transportationoftheirpupilsatpublicexpensedonotconstitutethesupportprohibitedbytheCompelledSupportClauseoftheOhioConstitution.

Moore v. Board of Education,212N.E.2d833(OhioCt.Com.Pl.MercerCounty1965)

AnOhioCourtofCommonPleasheldthatreligioussegregationofstudentsinpublicschoolsisnotperseinvalid,noristhewearingofreligiousgarbbyteachersimpermissible.Thecourtdidhold,however,thattheparticular“releasetime”program,whichallowedtostudentstoleaveclassforreligiousinstructioninadjacentclassroomsorbuildings,amountedtotheuseofpublicfundsforoperationofparochialschoolsandwasthereforeunconstitutional.


ohio

Blaine Amendment“Nopublicmoneyorpropertyshalleverbeappropriated,applied,donated,orused, 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,orotherreligiousteacherordignitary,orsectarianinstitutionassuch.”oklAHomA Const.Art.II,§5.

Education Articles“Provisionsshallbemadefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofasystemofpublicschools,whichshallbeopentoallthechildrenofthestateandfreefromsectariancontrol;andsaidschoolsshallalwaysbeconductedinEnglish:Provided,thatnothinghereinshallprecludetheteachingofotherlanguagesinsaidpublicschools.”oklAHomA Const.Art.I,§5.

“SectionthirteenineveryportionoftheState,whichhasbeengrantedtotheState,shall be preserved for the use and benefit of the University of Oklahoma and the UniversityPreparatorySchool,one-third;ofthenormalschoolsnowestablished,orhereaftertobeestablished,one-third;andoftheAgriculturalandMechanicalCollegeandColoredAgriculturalandNormalUniversity,one-third.ThesaidlandsortheproceedsthereofasaboveapportionedtobedividedbetweentheinstitutionsastheLegislaturemayprescribe:Provided,Thatthesaidlandssoreserved,ortheproceedsofthesalethereof,orofanyindemnitylandsgrantedinlieuofsectionthirteenshallbesafelykeptorinvestedandpreservedbytheStateasatrust,whichshallneverbediminished,butmaybeaddedto,andtheincomethereof, interest, rentals, or otherwise, only shall be used exclusively for the benefit ofsaideducationalinstitutions.SucheducationalinstitutionsshallremainundertheexclusivecontroloftheStateandnopartoftheproceedsarisingfromthesaleordisposalofanylandsgrantedforeducationalpurposes,ortheincomeorrentalsthereof,shallbeusedforthesupportofanyreligiousorsectarianschool,college,oruniversity,andnoportionofthefundsarisingfromthesaleofsectionsthirteenoranyindemnitylandsselectedinlieuthereof,eitherprincipalorinterest,shalleverbediverted,eithertemporarilyorpermanently,fromthepurposeforwhichsaidlandsweregrantedtotheState.”oklAHomA Const.Art.XI,§5.

oklahoma

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Burkhardt v. City of Enid,717P.2d608(Okla.1989)TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatamunicipality’spurchaseofalocalcommunitycollegeandsubsequentleaseofthecollegebacktoitsoriginalownersdidnotviolateOklahoma’sBlaineAmendmentbecausethecollegewasnotreligious.Thecourtnotedthat,evenifitwere,thecitycouldstillenterintothearrangementassuming it received sufficient consideration.

Meyer v. City of Oklahoma City,496P.2d789(Okla.1972)TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatmaintenancebyOklahomaCityofacrossonthecity’sfairgrounds,ataslightbutcontinuingpublicexpense,didnotviolateOklahoma’sBlaineAmendmentbecauseitwasnotoperated for the use or benefit of any particular religion



CharterSchools: Yes




Intradistrict/mandatoryOklahomaStatutesTitle70Section1210.541andOklahomaAdministrativeCodeSection210:10-13-18

Interdistrict/mandatoryOklahomaStatutesTitle70Sections8-101.1to8-112

OklahomaStatutesTitle70Sections3-130to3-162

TaxcreditprogramsarethebestschoolchoiceoptionforOklahoma.ItsConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendmentonwhichtheOklahomaSupremeCourtpremiseditsdecisiontostrikedownaprivateschooltransportationbillaftertheU.S.SupremeCourt’sdecisioninEversonupholdingatransportationprograminNewJerseyundertheEstablishmentClause.Thisfailuretodistinguishbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheyattendwouldprobablyforeclosevoucherlegislation.



orsectanditsreligioussymbolismwasobscuredbythecommercialatmosphereinwhichitwasplaced.

Board of Education for Independent School District No. 52 v. Antone,384P.2d911,913-14(Okla.1963)see also Gurney v. Ferguson,122P.2d1002(Okla.1941)

TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthattransportingpupilsofparochialschoolsatpublicexpenseaidedtheschoolsandwasforbiddenbyOklahoma’sBlaineAmendment.

State ex rel. Town of Pryor v. Williamson,347P.2d204(Okla.1959)

TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatthestate’sBlaineAmendmentdidnotprohibitthebuildingandmaintenanceofanon-denominational,non-sectarianchapelonstategroundsatpublicexpense.

Murrow Indian Orphans Home v. Childers,171P.2d600(Okla.1946)

TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatthestate’sBlaineAmendmentdidnotprohibitthestatefromcontractingwithreligiousorphanagestoprovidecareforneedychildren.

Sharp v. Guthrie,152P.203,408(Okla.1915)Inupholdingacity’sabilitytosellapublicparktoareligiousuniversityforadollar,theOklahomaSupremeCourtreasoned:“[t]hecityhavingtherighttoselltheproperty,andtheconsiderationbeingadequate,itwouldmakenodifferencewhetherthegranteebeasectarianinstitution or not, for a sale upon a sufficient consideration wouldnotbewithintheprohibitionofsection5,art.2oftheConstitution[Oklahoma’sBlaineAmendment].”

Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. St. Joseph’s Parochial School,127P.1087(Okla.1912)

TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatacityfranchisecontractthatrequiredatramlinetoprovidehalffareridesforallschoolchildren,whethertheyarepublicorparochialschoolstudents,doesnotviolatethestate’sBlaineAmendment.Initsreasoning,thecourtnotedthatchildrenhavearighttoattendprivateschoolandthatthereducedfareshelppromoteeducationofchildren.Inaddition,thecourtstressedthatthecitycouldnotdiscriminateonthebasisofreligioninacontract.

Connell v. Gray,127P.417(Okla.1912)TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatthepresidentofastatecollegecouldnotrequirestudentstopayforaChristianathleticassociationasaconditionoftheirenrollmentwithoutviolatingthestate’sBlaineAmendment.


oklahoma

Blaine Amendment “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religeous [sic], ortheologicalinstitution,norshallanymoneybeappropriatedforthepaymentofanyreligeous[sic]servicesineitherhouseoftheLegislativeAssembly.”oreGon Const.Art.I,§5.

oregon

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Dickman v. School District,366P.2d533(Or.1961)

TheOregonSupremeCourtheldthatseculartextbookscouldnotbesuppliedtoparochialschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseunderOregon’sBlaineAmendment.

Fisher v. Clackamas County School District,507P.2d839(Or.Ct.App.1973)

ApplyingthereasoningofDickman,theOregonCourtofAppealsheldthatOregon’sBlaineAmendmentpreventedthestatefrompayingthesalariesofteacherswhoteachsecularsubjectstoparochialschoolstudentsonly.



CharterSchools: Yes



OregonRevisedStatutesSections338.005to338.185

TaxcreditprogramsareOregon’sbestschoolchoiceoption.Havingrefusedtodistinguishbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheychoosetoattend,theOregonSupremeCourtisunlikelytoupholdvoucherlegislation.


Interdistrict/voluntaryOregonRevisedStatutesSections339.125,339.133

Compelled Support Clause“[N]omancanofrightbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceofworship,ortomaintainanyministryagainsthisconsent.…”pennsylvAniA Const.Art.1,§3.

Blaine Amendment“NomoneyraisedforthesupportofthepublicschoolsoftheCommonwealthshallbeappropriatedtoorusedforthesupportofanysectarianschool.”pennsylvAniA Const.Art.3,§15.

Other Relevant Provision“Noappropriationshallbemadeforcharitable,educationalorbenevolentpurposestoanypersonorcommunitynortoanydenominationalandsectarianinstitution,corporationorassociation:Provided,Thatappropriationsmaybemadefor…loansforhighereducationalpurposestoresidentsoftheCommonwealthenrolledininstitutionsofhigherlearningexceptthatnoscholarship,grantsorloansforhighereducationalpurposesshallbegiventopersonsenrolledinatheologicalseminaryorschooloftheology.”pennsylvAniA Const.Art.3,§29.

pennSylvania

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Christen G. v. Lower Merion School District,919F.Supp.793(E.D.Pa.1996)

AfederaldistrictcourtheldthatinaccordancewiththeIDEAastatecouldreimburseparentsforprivateschooltuitionwithoutviolatingeithertheU.S.orPennsylvaniaconstitutionsbecausethepaymentsdonotadvancereligion.

Haller v. Department of Revenue,728A.2d351(Pa.1999)

ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtheldthatataxexemptionforthesaleanduseof“religiouspublications”soldby“religiousgroups”violatestheFirstAmendment’sEstablishmentClausebecauseitshowsapreferenceforreligiouscommunicationswithoutsomeoverarchingsecularpurpose.Theexemption’snarrowfocusmakesitunconstitutional.

Springfield School District v. Department of Education,397A.2d1154(Pa.1979)

ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtheldthatfreeschoolbustransportationprovidedtoparochialschoolchildrendoesnotviolatethefederalor state constitutions because any benefit to a religiousinstitutionisindirectandincidental.



CharterSchools: Yes




24PennsylvaniaCodeSection13-1316

24PennsylvaniaCodeSections17-1701-Ato17-1751-A

EducationImprovementTaxCredits24PennsylvaniaCodeSections20-2001-Bto20-2008-B

Pre-KTaxCredits24PennsylvaniaCodeSection24-2003-B

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforPennsylvania.ThePennsylvaniaConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupportClauseandaBlaineAmendment.Thelatterrestrictstheuseoffunds“raisedforthepublicschools”butcanbeavoidedentirelybyfundingvouchersfromothergovernmentrevenue.StatecaselawdemonstratesastrongadherencetofederalEstablishmentClauseprecedentandincludesadistinctionbetween“appropriations”and“paymentsforservicesrendered,”whichshouldensurevoucherlegislation’scompliancewiththeBlaineAmendment.



Wiest v. Mt. Lebanon School District,320A.2d362,366-67(Pa.1974)

InholdingthatareligiousinvocationatthestartofapublicschoolgraduationceremonydoesnotviolatetheFirstAmendment,thePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtalsoconcludedthatsuchaninvocationwouldnotoffendPennsylvania’sCompelledSupportClausebecauseitiscoextensivewiththeFirstAmendment.

Rhoades v. School District,226A.2d53(Pa.1967)ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityofastatuteauthorizingtransportationofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseasahealthandsafetymeasure.

Schade v. Allegheny County Institution District,126A.2d911(Pa.1956)

ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtheldthatpayingpublicfundstoreligiousorphanagesdidnotviolatePennsylvania’sBlaineAmendmentbecausetheywerenot“appropriations,”butratherpaymentsforservicesrendered.NothinginthePennsylvaniaConstitutionpreventsthestatefromcontractingwithreligiousinstitutionsandthenpayingitsdebtsuponperformance.

Collins v. Martin,139A.122(Pa.1927)Instrikingdownawelfareappropriationinwhich public money would flow to private or religioushospitals,thePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtheldthatthePennsylvaniaConstitutionplainlystatedthatthepeople’smoneyshouldnotbegivenforcharity,benevolenceoreducationtopersonsorcommunities,orforanypurposetosectariananddenominationalinstitutions,corporationsorassociations.

Collins v. Kephart,117A.440(Pa.1921)UnderanearlierversionofPennsylvania’sBlaineAmendment,thePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtheldthatreligioushospitalswerebarredfromreceivingstatefundsdespitetheirstatusas“worthycharities.”

Giacomucci v. Southeast Delco School District,742A.2d1165(Pa.Commw.Ct.1999)

ThePennsylvaniaCommonwealthCourtheldthatalocalschoolboardlackedthestatutoryauthoritytoinstituteavoucherprogram.


pennSylvania

Compelled Support Clause“[N]opersonshallbecompelledtofrequentortosupportanyreligiousworship,place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person’s voluntary contract.…”rHode islAnd Const.Art.I,§3.

rhode iSland

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Rhode Island Federation of Teachers v. Norberg,630F.2d855(1stCir.1980)

The1stU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthataRhodeIslandstatuteallowingataxdeductionforeducationalexpensesviolatedtheEstablishmentClause.Thedeductionwasoverwhelminglyclaimedbyparentsofstudentsinparochialschools,whichmeantithadmorethananincidentaleffectontheadvancementofreligion,accordingtothecourt.Inaddition,ensuringthatonlysecularmaterialsweredeductedwouldresultinexcessiveentanglement.TheU.S.SupremeCourtlaterupheldasimilarprograminMinnesotainMueller v. Allen.

Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District v. Pontarelli,460A.2d934(R.I.1983)

TheRhodeIslandSupremeCourtheldthatacommunitywasnotrequiredtopayfortheeducationofresidentstudentswhochose to attend religiously affiliated high schools because the communityhadalreadyprovidedforfreeeducationatcertainpublichighschoolsoutsidethecommunity.

Bowerman v. O’Connor,247A.2d82(R.I.1968)TheRhodeIslandSupremeCourtupheldatextbookloanprogramchallengedunderthestate’sCompelledSupportClause.ThecourtreasonedthatRhodeIsland’sCompelledSupportClauseisnomorerestrictivethanthefederalEstablishmentClauseandtheU.S.SupremeCourthadupheldasimilarprograminNewYorkinBoard of Education v. Allen.

General Finance Corp. v. Archetto,176A.2d73(R.I.1961)ExaminingfederalEstablishmentClausejurisprudence,theRhodeIslandSupremeCourtupheldastatutegrantingtaxexemptionforreligiousbuildingsagainstaFirstAmendmentchallenge.



CharterSchools: Yes



RhodeIslandGeneralLawsSections16-77-1to16-77-11

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforRhodeIsland.GiventhatRhodeIslandcourtsadheretofederalEstablishmentClauseprecedentwheninterpretingthestate’sCompelledSupportClause,itislikelythattheZelmandecision,withitsdistinctionbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheychoosetoattend,willbepersuasive.


RhodeIslandGeneralLawsSection16-2-19

CorporateTaxCreditScholarshipsRhodeIslandGeneralLawsSections44-62-1to44-62-7

Blaine Amendment“NomoneyshallbepaidfrompublicfundsnorshallthecreditoftheStateorany of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or otherprivateeducationalinstitution.”soutH CArolinA Const.Ann.Art.XI,§4.1

Education Article“TheGeneralAssemblyshallprovideforthemaintenanceandsupportofasystemoffreepublicschoolsopentoallchildrenintheStateandshallestablish,organizeandsupportsuchotherpublicinstitutionsoflearning,asmaybedesirable.”soutH CArolinA Const.Ann.Art.XI,§3.

1Priortoitsamendmentin1973,theBlaineAmendmentread:“ThepropertyorcreditoftheStateofSouthCarolina,orofanycounty,city,town,township,schooldistrict,orothersubdivisionofthesaidState,oranypublicmoney,fromwhateversourcederived,shallnot,bygift,donation,loan,contract,appropriation,orotherwise,beused,directlyorindirectly,inaidormaintenanceofanycollege,school,hospital,orphanhouse,orotherinstitution,societyororganization,ofwhateverkind,whichiswhollyorinpartunderthedirectionorcontrolofanychurchorofanyreligiousorsectariandenomination,societyororganization.”SouthCarolinaConst.Ann.Art.XI,§9.(repealed)

South carolina

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Durham v. McLeod, 192S.E.2d202,204(S.C.1972)2

TheSouthCarolinaSupremeCourtheldthatusingpublicmoneytoguaranteestudentloansforstudentsattendingprivateschoolsdidnotviolateSouthCarolina’sBlaineAmendmentbecausetheprogramisreligiouslyneutralandsupportshighereducation,notinstitutionsofhighereducation.ItwasonthatbasisthatthecourtdistinguisheditsholdinginHartness.

Hartness v. Patterson,179S.E.2d907(S.C.1971)3

TheSouthCarolinaSupremeCourtheldthatgivingpublictuitiongrantstostudentsattendingprivateschoolsviolatesSouthCarolina’sBlaineAmendmentbecausethere

2Decidedundersince-repealedversionoftheSouthCarolinaBlaineAmendmentthathadprohibited“directorindirect”aidtoparochialschools.

3Decidedundersince-repealedversionoftheBlaineAmendmentthathadprohibited“directorindirect”aidtoparochialschools.



CharterSchools: Yes




Interdistrict/VoluntarySouthCarolinaCodeAnnotatedSections59-63-45,59-63-490

SouthCarolinaCodeAnnotatedSections59-40-10to59-40-210

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforSouthCarolina.TheyarecompletelyconsistentwiththeSouthCarolinaConstitutionandrelevantSouthCarolinastatecourtdecisions.

In1973,SouthCarolinaamendeditsBlaineAmendmentbyeliminatingthebanon“indirect”fundingofprivateeducationalinstitutions.Accordingtotheauthoritative“WestCommittee,”1thechangereflected the framers’ intent to allow public funds to be used to assist studentswhoindependentlychoosetoattendprivateeducationalinstitutions,buttoprohibitdirectgovernmentsubsidizationofthoseinstitutions.

Fromtheschoolchoiceperspective,thischangeisimportantfortworeasons.First,avoucherprogramrepresentspreciselythetypeoffundingtheframersofthecurrentversionofitsBlaineAmendment(ArticleXI,Section4)wishedtoallow.Second,SouthCarolinaSupremeCourtcaseslikeHartness v. Patterson thatrejectthedistinctionbetweenaidtostudentsandaidtoinstitutionsarenolongervalid,astheywerepremisedonconstitutionallanguagethatwaslaterdeletedin order to allow student benefit programs.

Whencraftingschoolchoicelegislation,SouthCarolinalegislatorsmaywanttopatternitontheSouthCarolinaHigherEducationExcellenceEnhancementProgram,2whichdoesanexcellentjobofadheringtotherequirementsoftheSouthCarolinaConstitutionandthejurisprudenceofSouthCarolinacourts.Theprogramincludesadetailedlegislativefindings section that explicitly recognizes the role of private institutionsinhelpingthestatemeettheneedsoflow-incomeandeducationallydisadvantagedstudents.Additionally,fundsfortheprogramareappropriatedfromtheEducationLotteryAccount,andthereareexpressrulesgoverningtheiruse.


1FinalReportoftheCommitteetoMakeaStudyoftheSouthCarolinaConstitu-tionof1895.

2SCCA2-77-10throughSCCA2-77-50.


canbenodistinctionbetweengivingmoneytostudentsfortuitionandgivingmoneytoinstitutions.

2003 S.C. AG LEXIS 3(2003)TheSouthCarolinaAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatdistributingstatelotteryfundsdirectlyto“historicallyblackcolleges”—whetherornottheywerereligious—violatesSouthCarolina’sBlaineAmendment because it is a “direct benefit [to]certainprivateeducationalinstitutions.”

2003 S.C. AG LEXIS 42 (2003)TheSouthCarolinaAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatusinglotteryfundstocontractwithprivateschoolstoprovideeducationforlow-income,educationallydisadvantagedstudentscompliedwithSouthCarolina’sBlaineAmendmentbecausetheprogramwasreligiouslyneutral,wasexplicitlyintendedtohelpstudents,had findings to support that purpose, gavemoneythroughcontractsratherthanoutrightgrants,andlimitedthemannerinwhichthemoneycouldbespent.


South carolina

Compelled Support Clause“[N]opersonshallbecompelledtoattendorsupportanyministryorplaceofworshipagainsthisconsentnorshallanypreferencebegivenbylawtoanyreligiousestablishmentormodeofworship.”soutH dAkotA Const.Art.VI,§3.

Blaine Amendments“No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the benefit of anysectarianorreligioussocietyorinstitution.”soutH dAkotA Const.Art.VI,§3.

“Noappropriationoflands,moneyorotherpropertyorcreditstoaidanysectarianschoolshalleverbemadebythestate,oranycountyormunicipalitywithinthestate,norshallthestateoranycountyormunicipalitywithinthestateacceptanygrant,conveyance,giftorbequestoflands,moneyorotherpropertytobeusedforsectarianpurposes,andnosectarianinstructionshallbeallowedinanyschoolorinstitutionaidedorsupportedbythestate.”soutH dAkotA Const.Art.VIII,§16.

Other Relevant Provision“Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofsection3,ArticleVIandsection16,ArticleVIII,theLegislaturemayauthorizetheloaningofnonsectariantextbookstoallchildrenofschoolage.”soutH dAkotA Const.Art.VIII,§20.1

1 This provision was added to the South Dakota Constitution in 1986, and specifically negates theresultsintheElbeandMcDonaldcases.

South dakota

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Elbe v. Yankton Independent School District,372N.W.2d113(S.D.1985)

TheSouthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthatSouthDakota’stextbookloanprogramwasaviolationofSouthDakota’sBlaineAmendmentsanddeclinedtooverturnasimilarearlierrulinginMcDonald.

In re N. C. B. Careers,298N.W.2d526(S.D.1980)

TheSouthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthattaxexemptionsforreligiousinstitutionsarenotthefunctionalequivalentofappropriationsandthereforedonotviolateSouthDakota’sBlaineAmendments.Merelyrelievingthechurchofanobligationtosupportthestateisnotthesamethingasthestatesupportingthechurch.

McDonald v. School Board, 246N.W.2d93(S.D.1976)

Inholdingthatatextbookloanprogramwasunconstitutional,theSouthDakotaSupreme



CharterSchools: No




IntradistrictandInterdistrict/mandatorySouth Dakota Codified Laws Sections 13-28-30to13-28-49

Interdistrict/mandatorySouth Dakota Codified Laws Sections 13-28-21to13-28-23

AtaxcreditprogramisthebestschoolchoiceoptionforSouthDakotagiventherestrictiveinterpretationofthestate’sreligionclauses.TheSouthDakotaSupremeCourthasexplicitlyrejectedthedistinctionbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheychoosetoattend.AlthoughArticleVIII,Section20waslaterenactedtoauthorizetextbookloanstoprivateschoolstudents,theSouthDakotaSupremeCourtcasesthatpromptedtheamendmentarestillgoodlawoutsidethecontextoftextbookloanprograms.



CourtconcludedthatSouthDakota’sBlaineAmendmentswereintendedtoprohibitineveryform,whetherasagiftorotherwise,theappropriationofthepublicfundsforthebenefit of or to aid any sectarian school or institution.

South Dakota High School Interscholastic Activities Association v. St. Mary’s Inter-Parochial High School,141N.W.2d477(S.D.1966)

Inholdingthatprivateschoolscanjoinapublichighschoolathleticassociationand play on public school fields, the South DakotaSupremeCourtreasonedthatthestate’sCompelledSupportClauseandBlaineAmendmentswerenotintendedtopermitgovernmentdiscriminationagainstitscitizensbasedonreligion.

State ex rel. Finger v. Weedman,226N.W.348(S.D.1929)

TheSouthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthatthestateschoolboardmaynotcompelstudentstoreadfromtheKingJamesBiblebecausedoingsoviolatesreligiousfreedomestablishedbyfederalandSouthDakotaconstitutions.

Synod of Dakota v. State,50N.W.632(S.D.1891)TheSouthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthatthestatewasnotobligatedtopayforeducationalservicesprovidedbyareligiousschoolbecausedoingsowouldviolateSouthDakota’sBlaineAmendments.Thecourtprovidedadetailedanalysisof what it means to “benefit” or “aid” a sectarianinstitutionandexplicitlyrejectedadistinctionbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingschools.

1992 Opinion Attorney General S.D. 69,Op.No.92-04

SouthDakotaAttorneyGeneralopinedthatanystatuterequiringthetransportationofprivateschoolstudentsonpublicschoolbuseswouldviolateSouthDakota’sBlaineAmendments because the benefits received bytheprivateschoolswouldbemorethan“incidental.”


South dakota

Compelled Support Clause“[T]hatnomancanofrightbecompelledtoattend,erect,orsupportanyplaceofworship,ortomaintainanyministeragainsthisconsent.…”tennessee Const.Art.I,§3.

tenneSSee

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. Blanton,433F.Supp.97(M.D.Tenn.1977),aff’d,434U.S.803(1977)

AfederaldistrictcourtheldthatTennessee’sStudentAssistanceProgramdoesnotviolatetheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendmentbecausemoneyispaiddirectlytothestudentratherthantheinstitutionandwithoutreferencetothepublicorprivatenatureoftheschool.

Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. Dunn,384F.Supp.714(M.D.Tenn.1974),vacated,Blanton v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State,421U.S.958(1975)

AfederaldistrictcourtheldthatTennessee’sTuitionGrantProgramviolatestheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendmentbecausemoneyispaiddirectlytotheschoolastudentchoosestoattendwithnolimitsonthemannerinwhichthatmoneycanbeused.WhilethecasewasonappealtotheU.S.SupremeCourt,theTennesseeLegislatureamendedtheprogram,leadingtheSupremeCourttovacatethedecisionandremandittothelowercourt.TheLegislaturethenrepealedthewholestatuteandreplaceditwiththeTennesseeStudentAssistanceProgram,whichwasupheldbytheU.S.SupremeCourtin1977inAmericans United for Separation of Church & State v. Blanton.

Carden v. Bland,288S.W.2d718(Tenn.1956)TheTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthatreadingBiblepassagesandrecitingtheLord’sPrayerdidnotamounttotheestablishmentofastatereligion.



CharterSchools: Yes



TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSections49-13-101to49-13-127

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforTennessee.ItsConstitutioncontainsnoBlaineAmendmentanditsCompelledSupportClausehasreceivedlittlejudicialattention.InCarden,theTennesseeSupremeCourtnotedthatTennessee’sCompelledSupportClauseandtheFirstAmendmentwerepracticallysynonymous.


Intradistrict/mandatoryTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection49-1-602

IntradistrictandInterdistrict/voluntaryTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSections49-6-3104to49-6-3105

Compelled Support Clause“Nomanshallbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceofworship,ortomaintainanyministryagainsthisconsent.”texAs Const.Art.I,§6.

Blaine Amendments“No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of anysect,orreligioussociety,theologicalorreligiousseminary;norshallpropertybelongingtotheStatebeappropriatedforanysuchpurposes.”texAs Const.Art.I,§7.

“Thepermanentschoolfundandtheavailableschoolfundmaynotbeappropriatedtoorusedforthesupportofanysectarianschool.”texAs Const.Art.VII,§5(c).

Education Article

“Ageneraldiffusionofknowledgebeingessentialtothepreservationofthelibertiesandrightsofthepeople,itshallbethedutyoftheLegislatureoftheStatetoestablishandmakesuitableprovisionforthesupportandmaintenanceofanefficient system of public free schools.” texAs Const.Art.VII,§1.

texaS

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Church v. Bullock, 109S.W.115(Tex.1908)TheTexasSupremeCourtheldthatreadingfromtheKingJamesBibleandrecitingtheLord’sPrayerdidnotturnaTexaspublicschoolintoa“sectarian”institutionbecausebotharecriticaltodevelopingstudents’moralfaculties.

1975 Tex. AG LEXIS 285, LetterAdvisoryNo.105TheTexasAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatdistributionofstate-ownedtextbookstoprivateschoolpupilswouldnotviolateaBlaineAmendment(ArticleI,Section7)oftheTexasConstitutionbecauseitwouldprovideonly“minimal benefits to the sectarian activities of nonpublicschools.”

1973 Tex. AG LEXIS 231, 15-16OpinionNoH-66TheTexasAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatprovidingpublicfundstoparochialschoolsthroughtuitionequalizationgrantsunderareligiouslyneutralprogramisnotinherentlyunconstitutionalundertheTexasConstitutionbecausealthoughTexas’secondBlaineAmendment(ArticleVII,Section5)“prohibitsaidtosects[,]”“notalldenominationalinstitutionsaresectarianintheconstitutionalsense.”



CharterSchools: Yes



TexasEducationCodeAnnotatedSections12.001to12.156

BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforTexas.ThefewinterpretationsofTexas’BlaineAmendmentsanditsCompelledSupportClausethatexistdonoprohibitprovidingaidtoparentstoenablethemtoselectpublicorprivateschoolsfortheirchildren.Suchprogramsmustbefundedbysourcesotherthanthepermanentandavailable school funds defined in the education article of the TexasConstitution.


Intradistrict/mandatoryandInterdistrict/voluntaryTexasEducationCodeAnnotatedSections29.201to29.204

Intradistrict/voluntaryTexasEducationCodeAnnotatedSections25.031to25.034,25.035to25.039

Blaine Amendments“[N]opublicmoneyorpropertyshallbeappropriatedfororappliedtoanyreligiousworship,exerciseorinstruction,orforthesupportofanyecclesiasticalestablishment.”utAH Const.Art.I,§4.

“NeitherthestateofUtahnoritspoliticalsubdivisionsmaymakeanyappropriationforthedirectsupportofanyschooloreducationalinstitutioncontrolledbyanyreligiousorganization.”utAH Const.Art.X,§9.

Education Articles“TheLegislatureshallprovidefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofthestate’seducationalsystem,including:(a)apubliceducationsystem,whichshallbeopentoallchildrenofthestate;and(b)ahighereducationsystem.Bothsystemsshallbefreefromsectariancontrol.”utAH Const.Art.X,§1.

“ThepubliceducationsystemshallincludeallpublicelementaryandsecondaryschoolsandsuchotherschoolsandprogramsastheLegislaturemaydesignate.…”utAH Const.Art.X,§2.

“(1)ThereisestablishedapermanentStateSchoolFundwhichshallconsistofrevenuefromthefollowingsources:(a)proceedsfromthesalesofalllandsgrantedbytheUnitedStatestothisstateforthesupportofthepublicelementaryandsecondaryschools;(b)5%ofthenetproceedsfromthesalesofUnitedStatespubliclandslyingwithinthisstate;(c)allrevenuesderivedfromnonrenewableresourcesonstatelands,otherthan sovereign lands and lands granted for other specific purposes;(d)allrevenuesderivedfromtheuseofschooltrustlands;(e)revenuesappropriatedbytheLegislature;and(f)otherrevenuesandassetsreceivedbythefundunderanyotherprovisionoflaworbybequestordonation.

(2)(a)TheStateSchoolFundprincipalshallbesafelyinvestedandheldbythestateinperpetuity.(b)OnlytheinterestanddividendsreceivedfrominvestmentoftheStateSchoolFundmaybeexpendedforthesupportofthepubliceducationsystem as defined in Article X, Section 2 of this constitution …

(3)ThereisestablishedaUniformSchoolFundwhichshallconsistofrevenuefromthefollowingsources:(a)interestanddividendsfromtheStateSchoolFund;(b)revenuesappropriatedbytheLegislature;and(c)otherrevenuesreceivedbythefundunderanyotherprovisionoflaworbydonation.

(4)TheUniformSchoolFundshallbemaintainedandusedforthesupportofthe state’s public education system as defined in Article X, Section 2 of this constitutionandapportionedastheLegislatureshallprovide.”utAH Const.Art.X,§5.

“(5)Allrevenuefromtaxesonintangiblepropertyorfromataxonincomeshallbeusedtosupportthesystemsofpubliceducationandhighereducationasdefined in Article X, Section 2.” utAH Const.Art.XIII,§5.

utah voucherS tax creditS�9


CharterSchools: Yes




Intradistrict/mandatoryUtahCodeAnnotatedSection53A-2-213

Interdistrict/mandatoryUtahCodeAnnotatedSections53A-2-207to212

UtahCodeAnnotatedSections53A-1a-501to514

CarsonSmithScholarshipsforSpecialNeedsStudentsUtahCodeAnnotatedSections53A-1a-701to710

ParentsforChoiceinEducationAct(universalvouchers)UtahCodeAnnotated195353A-1a-801through811

BothtaxcreditsandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforUtah.TheyarecompletelyconsistentwiththeUtahConstitutionandrelevantUtahstatecourtdecisions.

InitsmostthoroughanalysisofthemoregeneraloftheUtahConstitution’sBlaineAmendments(ArticleI,Section4)todate,theUtahSupremeCourtheldinWhitehead thatifpublic“moneyorpropertyareprovidedonanondiscriminatorybasis”andtheyare“equallyaccessibletoall,”thegovernmentprogramatissuecomplieswiththeUtahConstitution.Avoucherprogram,inwhichstudentsusepubliclyfundedscholarshipstoattendprivate,religiousorpublicschools of their choice, undoubtedly satisfies those requirements.

Legislatorsshouldstressthatthepurposeofthevoucherprogramistoexpandeducationalopportunitiesonanon-discriminatorybasis,andthat the public funds used for vouchers are not for the benefit of the schoolsthatchildrendecidetoattend,butforthechildrenthemselves.Inaddition,iffundsderivedfromtheincometaxareused,theLegislature should be sure to state that publicly financed scholarship programsareapartofthepubliceducationsystemundertheeducationarticle(ArticleX,Section2).



RELEVANT CASE LAW

Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead, 870P.2d916(Utah1993)

TheUtahSupremeCourtheldthattheSaltLakeCityCouncil’spolicyofopeningmeetingswiththePledgeofAllegianceand prayer does not offend the first Blaine Amendment(ArticleI,Section4)oftheUtahConstitutionbecausepublicfundswerenotusedtodirectlyaidanyparticularreligion.


utah

Compelled Support Clause“[A]ndthatnopersonoughtto,orofrightcanbecompelledtoattendanyreligiousworship,orerectorsupportanyplaceofworship,ormaintainanyminister,contrarytothedictatesofconscience.…”vermont Const.Ch.I,Art.3.

vermont

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Chittenden Town School District v. Vermont Department of Education,738A.2d539(Vt.),cert. denied,528U.S.1066(1999)

TheVermontSupremeCourtheldthatpermittingparentsin“tuitioning”towns—wherethetownpaystuitiontotheparent’sschoolofchoiceinsteadofmaintainingpublicschools—tochoosereligiousschoolsviolatedtheVermontConstitution’sCompelledSupportClausebecausetherearenorestrictionstoensurethatstatefundswouldnotsupportreligiousworship.

Campbell v. Manchester Board of School Directors,641A.2d352(Vt.1994)

NotingchangesinFirstAmendmentjurisprudence,theVermontSupremeCourtheldthatrequiringalocalschooldistricttoreimburseaparentwhosenthischildtoaparochialschooldidnotviolatetheFirstAmendment.ThedecisionoverrulesSwart v. South Burlington Town School District,167A.2d514(Vt.1961),whichheldtheopposite.

Vermont Educational Buildings Financing Agency v. Mann,247A.2d68(Vt.1968)

TheVermontSupremeCourtheldthatastatuteallowingastateagencytoissuetax-exempt revenue bonds to finance constructionofbuildingsonbehalfofprivatecollegesanduniversitiesneitheradvancednorinhibitedreligionandthereforedidnotviolatetheFirstAmendment.



CharterSchools: No



TownTuitioningSystem(excludesreligiousschools)VermontStatutesAnnotatedTitle16,Sections166,821-836

TaxcreditsareVermont’sbestschoolchoiceoption.ItsConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupportClausethattheVermontSupremeCourthasreadtoexcludeparentswhochoosereligiousschoolsfromparticipatinginthecurrentvoucherprogram.


Interdistrict/voluntaryVermontStatutesAnnotatedTitle16,Section1093

Compelled Support Clause“Nomanshallbecompelledtofrequentorsupportanyreligiousworship,place,orministrywhatsoever.…”virGiniA Const.Art.I,§16.

Blaine Amendment“TheGeneralAssemblyshallnotmakeanyappropriationofpublicfunds,personalproperty,orrealestatetoanychurchorsectariansociety,oranyassociationorinstitutionofanykindwhateverwhichisentirelyorpartly,directlyorindirectly,controlledbyanychurchorsectariansociety.…”virGiniA Const.Art.IV,§16.

Education Articles“TheGeneralAssemblyshallprovideforthecompulsoryelementaryandsecondaryeducationofeveryeligiblechildofappropriateage,sucheligibilityandagetobedeterminedbylaw.Itshallensurethattextbooksareprovidedatnocost to each child attending public school whose parent or guardian is financially unabletofurnishthem.”virGiniA Const.Art.VIII,§3.

“Thesupervisionofschoolsineachschooldivisionshallbevestedinaschoolboard,tobecomposedofmembersselectedinthemanner,fortheterm,possessingthequalifications, and to the number provided by law.” virGiniA Const.Art.VIII,§7.

“NoappropriationofpublicfundsshallbemadetoanyschoolorinstitutionoflearningnotownedorexclusivelycontrolledbytheStateorsomepoliticalsubdivision thereof; provided, first, that the General Assembly may, and the governingbodiesoftheseveralcounties,citiesandtownsmay,subjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeimposedbytheGeneralAssembly,appropriatefundsforeducationalpurposeswhichmaybeexpendedinfurtheranceofelementary,secondary,collegiateorgraduateeducationofVirginiastudentsinpublicandnonsectarianprivateschoolsandinstitutionsoflearning,inadditiontothoseownedorexclusivelycontrolledbytheStateoranysuchcounty,cityortown;second,thattheGeneralAssemblymayappropriatefundstoanagency,ortoaschoolorinstitutionoflearningownedorcontrolledbyanagency,createdandestablishedbytwoormoreStatesunderajointagreementtowhichthisStateisapartyforthepurposeofprovidingeducationalfacilitiesforthecitizensoftheseveralStatesjoininginsuchagreement;third,thatcounties,cities,townsanddistrictsmaymakeappropriationstononsectarianschoolsofmanual,industrialortechnicaltrainingandalsotoanyschoolorinstitutionoflearningownedorexclusivelycontrolledbysuchcounty,city,townorschooldistrict.”virGiniA Const.Art.VIII,§10.

“TheGeneralAssemblymayprovideforloansto,andgrantstooronbehalfof, students attending nonprofit institutions of higher education in the Commonwealthwhoseprimarypurposeistoprovidecollegiateorgraduateeducationandnottoprovidereligioustrainingortheologicaleducation.…”virGiniA Const.Art.VIII,§11.

virginia

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Phan v. Virginia,806F.2d516(4thCir.1986)The4thU.SCircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatnothingintheVirginiaConstitutionpreventsthestatefromreimbursingadisabled



CharterSchools: YesPublicSchoolChoice: No



VirginiaCodeAnnotatedSections22.1-212.5to22.1-212.16

TaxcreditprogramsareVirginia’sbestschoolchoiceoption.

*Virginia’sConstitutioncontainsanexpressprovisionallowingpubliclyfundedvouchersatprivate,non-religiousschools.However,theInstituteforJusticeregardsexcludingthechoiceofreligiousschoolsasquestionableconstitutionallyundertheFirstAmendmentandEqualProtectionClauses.



studentattendinganout-of-statereligiouscollegeforincidentallivingexpenses.

Virginia College Building Authority v. Lynn,538S.E.2d682(Va.2000)

TheVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatissuingbondsonbehalfofreligiousinstitutionsdidnotviolateVirginia’sCompelledSupportClausebecauseitdidnotresultingovernmentalindoctrination,itdeterminedeligibilityforaidneutrally,andanyfundsreceivedstemmedfromtheprivatechoicesofinvestors,notthegovernment.

Miller v. Ayres,191S.E.2d261(Va.1972)TheVirginiaSupremeCourtquestionedthecontinuedvalidityofAlmondgiventhe1956and1971rewritesofthestate’sBlaineAmendment,whichthecourtencouragedinAlmond.Nevertheless,thecourtheldthat“loans”giventostudentswithoutanyrequirementforrepaymentorpublicserviceamountedto“gifts”andgiftsarenotwithinthetermsallowedbyoneofVirginia’seducationprovisions(ArticleVIII,Section11).

Almond v. Day,89S.E.2d851(Va.1955)TheVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatusingpublicfundstopaytheprivateschooleducationcostsforveterans’childrenviolatedtheVirginiaConstitution.Byenablingtheattendanceofstudentswhowouldlikelynotbethereotherwise,theprogramprovidedimpermissiblesupporttothereligiousschoolstheychose.

1995 Va. AG LEXIS 61(Va.AG1995)TheVirginiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthatnothingintheVirginiaConstitutionprohibitsbusingofprivateschoolstudents,includingthoseattendingreligiousschools.

1994 Va. AG LEXIS 1(Va.AG1994)TheVirginiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthattheVirginiaConstitutionwouldpermitavoucherprogramthatincludedprivateschools,butnotreligiousschools.


virginia

Blaine Amendments“Nopublicmoneyorpropertyshallbeappropriatedfororappliedtoanyreligiousworship,exerciseorinstruction,orthesupportofanyreligiousestablishment.…”wAsHinGton Const.Art.I,§11.

“Allschoolsmaintainedorsupportedwhollyorinpartbythepublicfundsshallbe forever free from sectarian control or influence.” wAsHinGton Const.Art.IX,§4.

Education Article“Thelegislatureshallprovideforageneralanduniformsystemofpublicschools.”wAsHinGton Const.Art.IX,§2.

waShington

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Locke v. Davey,540U.S.712(2004)TheU.S.SupremeCourtupheldWashingtonstate’sexclusionofatheologymajorfromastate-fundedcollegescholarshipprogram.TheCourtheldthatWashingtoncouldjustifythisexclusionasawaytoavoidanunconstitutionalestablishmentofreligionunderthestateConstitution.Importantly,theCourtcarvedoutonlyanarrowexception—publicfundingforthereligioustrainingofclergy—tothegeneralrulerequiringequaltreatmentofreligiousandnon-religiousoptions.Indeed,thescholarshipprogramallowedstudentstoselectreligiousschools,aswellaspublicandnon-religiousprivateschools,muchlikeK-12schoolchoiceprograms.Itonlyexcludedstudentsactuallytrainingtobeministers.

Garnett v. Renton School District No. 403,987F.2d641,646(9thCir.1993)

The9thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatthefederalEqualAccessActprovidesreligiousstudentgroupsanequalrighttouseschoolgroundsonthesamebasisasotherclubs.WashingtonarguedthatitsstateConstitutionwoulddenysuchequalaccess,butthecourtheldthatstatelawmustyieldtofederallaw.

State ex rel. Gallwey v. Grimm,48P.3d274(Wash.2002)

TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthatastateeducationalgrantprogramfor“placebound”students—those who the state identified as not



CharterSchools: No



Intradistrict/mandatoryWashingtonRevisedCodeSection28A.225.270

Interdistrict/mandatoryWashingtonRevisedCodeSections28A.225.220to28A.225.240,28A.225.280to28A.225.310



likelytocompleteafour-yeardegreewithoutpublic financial assistance—that included religiousschoolsdoesnotviolateWashington’sfirst Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section 11) becausetheprogramwasnotintendedtoaidreligiousschools.Theprogramstipulatesthatparticipatingstudentsmaynotselectschoolsthatrequirereligiousinstructionorworship.Additionally,thecourtheldthatWashington’sotherBlaineAmendment(ArticleIX,Section4)didnotapplytoinstitutionsofhighereducation.

Malyon v. Pierce County,935P.2d1272(Wash.1997)TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthatasheriff’sdepartment’schaplaincyprogramdoesnot violate Washington’s first Blaine Amendment (ArticleI,Section11)becausethechaplainsarenotpaidfortheirtime.

Witters v. Commission for Blind,717P.2d1119(Wash.1989)

TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthatWashington’s first Blaine Amendment (Article I,Section11)preventedthestatefromusingpublicfundstopayforahandicappedstudent’sseminarystudies.

Higher Education Facilities Authority v. Gardner,699P.2d1240(Wash.1985)

InaccordancewithitsholdinginSpellman,theWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthatgrantingtax-exemptrevenuebondproceedstoreligiouscollegesdidnottransferpublicfundsorpropertytoasectarianinstitution.Forthatreason, Washington’s first Blaine Amendment (ArticleI,Section11)didnotapply.

Health Care Facilities Authority v. Spellman,633P.2d866(Wash.1981)

Inupholdingastatutethatprovidedtax-exemptbond proceeds for nonprofit hospitals, the WashingtonSupremeCourtheldthatalthoughthebondswereenabledbyapublicbody,“themoneywasnotacquiredeitherfororfromthegeneralpublic”andthereforedidnotviolateWashington’s first Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section11).

Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v. Board of Regents,436P.2d189(Wash.1967)

TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthat


waShington


AtaxcreditprogramisWashington’sbestschoolchoiceoption.TheWashingtonConstitutioncontainsBlaineAmendmentlanguageintwoprovisions.BothhavebeeninterpretedbytheWashingtonSupremeCourtasbeingmorerestrictivethantheirfederalEstablishmentClausecounterpart.



whenpublicschoolstudentsreadtheBibleasapieceofliteratureamongotherworksinaclassrequiredforgraduation,itdoesnotviolateeitherofWashington’sBlaineAmendments.Theclassimposesnoreligiousorsectarianmessageonitsstudents.

Perry v. School District No. 81,344P.2d1036(Wash.1954)

TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthatallowingreligiousgroupstodistributeattendancecardsandmakeannouncementsaboutthereleased-timeprogramonpublicschoolgroundsisauseofschoolfacilitiessupportedbypublicfundsforthepromotionofareligiousprogramandthereforeviolatesWashington’s first Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section11).

Mitchell v. Consol. School District,135P.2d79(Wash.1943);see also Visser v. Nooksack Valley Sch. Dist.,207P.2d198(Wash.1949)

TheWashingtonSupremeCourtstruckdownatransportationprogramforprivateschoolstudents.ThecourtsaidtheprogramviolatedWashington’sBlaineAmendmentsbecausethepublicwouldincursomeadditionalexpenseifprivateschoolstudentsweretransportedonpublicschoolbuses.

Saucier v. Employment Security Department,954P.2d285(Wash.Ct.App.1998)

TheWashingtonCourtofAppealsheldthatalthoughtheSalvationArmyshouldbetreatedasachurchanditsreceiptofappropriatedgrantsanditsexemptionfrompayingunemploymentinsurancetaxesconfer“appropriated”fundsandbenefits, such an appropriation does not violate Washington’s first Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section11)becausethestate’spurposeindoingsoistofundaseculardrugtreatmentprogram.


waShington

Compelled Support Clause“[A]ndthelegislatureshallnotprescribeanyreligioustestwhatever,orconferanypeculiarprivilegesoradvantagesonanysectordenomination,orpassanylawrequiringorauthorizinganyreligioussociety,orthepeopleofanydistrictwithinthisState,tolevyonthemselves,orothers,anytaxfortheerectionorrepairofanyhouseforpublicworship,orforthesupportofanychurchorministry,butitshallbeleftfreeforeverypersontoselecthisreligiousinstructor,andtomakeforhissupport,suchprivatecontractasheshallplease.”west virGiniA Const.Art.III,§15.

weSt virginia

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Cooper v. Board of Education,478S.E.2d341(W.Va.1996)TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatthe14thAmendment’sEqualProtectionClausewasnotviolatedwhenthestatestoppedtransportingprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpense.Thestatemaytreatpublicandprivateschoolstudentsdifferentlywhenallottingstate education funds if it has a valid financial reason for doing so.

Janasiewicz v. Board of Education,299S.E.2d34(W.Va.1982)AcknowledgingchangesinfederalEqualProtectionjurisprudence,theWestVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatfailingtoprovidetransportationtoprivateschoolstudentswasnotaviolationofthe14th Amendment. However, the court reaffirmed its earlier conclusionthatschoolboardswererequiredbystatutetoprovideeithertransportationoranequivalentstipendtoprivateschoolstudentsandthatdoingsodidnotconstituteaviolationoftheFirstAmendmentandWestVirginia’sCompelledSupportClause.

State ex rel. Hughes v. Board of Education,174S.E.2d711(W.Va.1970),cert. denied,403U.S.944(1971)

TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatacountyschoolboard’srefusaltotransportCatholicschoolstudentsonitsbusesviolatedtheprovisionsofaWestVirginiastatuterequiringittotransport“allchildrenofschoolage.”Itthenwentfurtherandheldthattheschoolboard’spolicydeprivesCatholicchildrenandtheirparentsoftheirrightofreligiousfreedominviolationoftheprovisionsoftheFirstAmendmentandevenmoreclearlyinviolationofthecomprehensiveprovisionsoftheCompelledSupportClause.

Gissy v. Board of Education,143S.E.111(W.Va.1928)TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourtrequiredapublicschoolboardtoreimburseparentswhocompliedwithWestVirginia’smandatoryeducationstatutebysendingtheirchildrentoaprivate,parochialschoolbecausenopublichighschoolexistedintheirdistrict.Theschoolboardhadarguedthatitwasonlyrequiredtoreimburseforpublicschooltuition.



CharterSchools: No



BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforWestVirginia.TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourthasgenerallyinterpreteditsCompelledSupportClauseinaparallelfashiontotheFirstAmendment,andthereisnoindicationinitscaselawthatitwouldnotapplyZelmantoupholdastatevoucherprogram.


Intradistrict/mandatoryWestVirginiaCodeSection18-2E-5k

Intradistrict/voluntaryWestVirginiaCodeSection18-5-16

Interdistrict/voluntaryWestVirginiaCodeSection18-5-16a

Compelled Support Clause“[N]orshallanypersonbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceofworship,ortomaintainanyministry,withoutconsent.…”wisConsin Const.Art.I,§18.

Blaine Amendment“[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies,orreligiousortheologicalseminaries.”wisConsin Const.Art.I,§18.

Education Articles“[AsamendedApril1972]Thelegislatureshallprovidebylawfortheestablishmentofdistrictschools,whichshallbeasnearlyuniformaspracticable;andsuchschoolsshallbefreeandwithoutchargefortuitiontoallchildrenbetweentheagesof4and20years;andnosectarianinstructionshallbeallowedtherein.…”wisConsin Const.Art.X,§3.

“Provisionshallbemadebylawfortheestablishmentofastateuniversity…andnosectarianinstructionshallbeallowedinsuchuniversity.”wisConsin Const.Art.X,§6.

wiSconSin

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. McCallum,324F.3d880(7thCir.2003)

The7thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatthestate’scontractwithaChristian“halfwayhouse”didnotviolatetheEstablishmentClausebecauseprisonerswereabletochoosethatparticularprogramfromarangeofother,secularoptionsandprisonerswerenotpressuredtobeChristianorconverttoChristianitybeforeparticipating.Thecourtcomparedthe“halfwayhouse”programtotheeducationvouchersatissueinZelmanandconcludedthatneitherprovidedunconstitutionalsupporttoreligion.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Bugher,55F.Supp.2d962(W.D.Wis.1999)

Afederaldistrictcourtheldthatthestate’ssubsidizationofInternetwiringatareligiousschooldoesnotviolatetheEstablishmentClausebecauseallschoolsareeligibleforsubsidies,withoutregardtowhethertheyarereligiouslyaffiliated, because the telecommunications conduitsprovidedareneutralastoinformationpassing through them, benefits flowing to religiousschoolsaresmallrelativetothetotalprogram,andreligiousschoolsarenotbeingrelievedofburdentheypreviouslybore,astheywouldnotbeparticipatinginthisparticularInternetlinkagebutfortheavailabilityofsubsidy.



CharterSchools: Yes




IntradistrictandInterdistrict/voluntaryWisconsinStatutesSection121.85

Interdistrict/mandatoryWisconsinStatutesSections118.51,118.52,121.58

MilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgramWisconsinStatutesSection119.23

WisconsinStatutesSection118.40


Vincent v. Voight,614N.W.2d388(Wis.2000)In a suit challenging the state’s school finance system,theWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthatitseducationprovisionrequiringuniformpublicschools(ArticleX,Section3)relatedtothecharacterofinstructionofferedinthepublicschools,andnotthesize,boundariesorcompositionoftheschooldistricts.Theclausedoesnotrequireabsoluteuniformityineithereducationalofferingsorper-pupilexpendituresamongschooldistricts.

Jackson v. Benson,578N.W.2d602(Wis.),cert. denied,525U.S.997(1998)

TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthattheMilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgramdoesnotviolateeitherthestate’sCompelledSupportClauseoritsBlaineAmendmentbecausestudentsarenotcompelledtoattendreligiousschools and any benefits to such schools are incidental. The court also affirmed the conclusionsofDavis,anearlieruniformitychallengetotheschoolchoiceprogram.

Davis v. Grover,480N.W.2d460(Wis.1992)TheWisconsinSupremeCourtupheldtheMilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgramfromalegalchallengeunderWisconsin’s“uniformityprovision”(ArticleX,Section3).Thecourtalsorejectedopponents’claimthattheprogramviolatedArticle4,Section18oftheWisconsinConstitution,aprohibitiononprivateorlocalbills.

State ex rel. Wisconsin Health Facilities Authority v. Lindner,280N.W.2d773(Wis.1979)

TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthattheWisconsinHealthFacilitiesAuthority,whichwascreatedtoimprovehealthcareservicesbyprovidingtax-exemptbondstoCatholichospitals,amongothers,doesnotviolateWisconsin’sCompelledSupportClauseorBlaine Amendment because the aid flows predominantlytothesecularaspectsofhealthcareandthereforedoesnothavetheprimaryeffectofadvancingreligion.

State ex rel. Holt v. Thompson,225N.W.2d678(Wis.1975)

TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthata“releasedtimestatute,”whichallowsstudents


wiSconSin


voucherS tax creditS90

toleaveschoolforpartofthedaytoreceivereligiousinstruction,doesnotviolatetheEstablishmentorEqualProtectionclausesoftheU.S.ConstitutionorthefreedomofworshipordistrictschoolsectionsoftheWisconsinConstitution.Studentsonlyleaveandprayiftheywanttoandnopublicfundsareusedtoaccommodatethosewhodo.

State ex rel. Warren v. Nusbaum,219N.W.2d577(Wis.1974)

TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthatthestatemaycontractwithprivateinstitutionstoprovideeducationalservicesfordisabledchildrenwithoutviolatingtheFirstAmendmentorWisconsin’sCompelledSupportClauseorBlaineAmendmentbecausetheprimaryeffectofthecontractwasnottheadvancementofreligion,buttheprovisionofeducationalservicestohandicappedkids.

State ex rel. Reynolds v. Nusbaum,115N.W.2d761(Wis.1962)

Seeingnodifferencebetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheinstitutionthosestudentschoosetoattend,theWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthattransportingprivateschoolstudentsonpublicschoolbusesviolatedWisconsin’sBlaineAmendment.Althoughthecourtconcededthatthestatemayindirectlyaidreligiousgroupsbyproviding fire and police protection, it struck thisstatutebecause,thecourtsaid,ithadthepracticaleffectofsinglingoutaparticularreligious group for special benefits.

State ex rel. Conway v. District Board of Joint School District,156N.W.477(Wis.1916)

TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthatWisconsinpublicschoolsmayholdtheirgraduationceremoniesinlocalchurcheswithoutviolatingthestateConstitution’sreligionclausesoritseducationprovisions.Taxpayerswerenotcompelledtopayforuseofthechurchortheservicesofthepriestwhogavethenonsectarianintroductoryprayer.Additionally,noreligiousinstructionoccurredduringtheceremonyandnodenominationwasfavoredoverothers.


BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforWisconsin.ItsConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupportClauseandaBlaineAmendment,buttheWisconsinSupremeCourtinterpretsbothinaccordancewithfederalEstablishmentClausejurisprudence.EvenbeforeZelman,theWisconsinSupremeCourtupheldthegroundbreakingMilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgramfromalegalchallengeundertheFirstAmendmentandWisconsin’sCompelledSupportClauseandBlaineAmendment.TheWisconsinSupreme Court also rejected the first-ever “uniformity” challenge toaschoolchoiceprogram,holdingthatwhiletheLegislatureisrequiredtoprovidepublicschoolingtoall,itcanalsoofferadditionaleducationalopportunitiesoutsidethetraditionalpublicschoolsystem.


wiSconSin

Blaine Amendments“Nomoneyofthestateshalleverbegivenorappropriatedtoanysectarianorreligioussocietyorinstitution.”wyominG Const.Art.1,§19.

“Noappropriationshallbemadeforcharitable,industrial,educationalorbenevolentpurposestoanyperson,corporationorcommunitynotundertheabsolutecontrolofthestate,nortoanydenominationalorsectarianinstitutionorassociation.”wyominG Const.Art.3,§36.

Education Article“[N]orshallanyportionofanypublicschoolfundeverbeusedtosupportorassistanyprivateschool,oranyschool,academy,seminary,collegeorotherinstitutionoflearningcontrolledbyanychurchorsectarianorganizationorreligiousdenominationwhatsoever.”wyominG Const.Art.7,§8.

wyoming

RELEVANT CASE LAW

State ex rel. McPherren v. Carter,215P.477(Wyo.1923)

TheWyomingSupremeCourtheldthatasupplementalawardofpublicfundstothewidowofasheriffkilledinthelineofdutydoesnotviolateArticle3,Section36,asanunconstitutionalgifttoaprivateperson.Itisthefunctionalequivalentofa“paymentforservicerendered”ratherthananoutrightgift.

1982 Wyo. AG LEXIS 21(Wyo.AG1982)TheWyomingAttorneyGeneralconcludedthatholdingpublicschoolbaccalaureateservicesinsideachurchwherereligiousactivitiesincludingprayerandsingingofhymnsmayoccurwouldviolateneithertheFirstAmendmentnortheWyomingConstitution.

voucherS tax creditS9�


CharterSchools: Yes



WyomingStatutesSections21-3-301to21-3-314

AtaxcreditprogrammaybeWyoming’sbestchoiceforschoolchoice.ItsConstitutioncontainstwoBlaineAmendments,neitherofwhichhasreceivedmuchjudicialattention,butArticle3,Section36,appearstoexplicitlyforbidappropriatingmoneytoindividualsforeducationalpurposes.


WyomingStatutesSection21-4-502

model legislationTheAmericanLegislativeExchangeCouncil’sEducationTaskForcehasdraftedseveralpiecesofmodellegislationdesignedtoprovideaframework for crafting state-specific programs. For a copy of any of the modellegislationlistedbelowcontactALEC’sheadquartersinWashington,D.C.Thislistrepresentsallschoolchoiceprogramsmentionedthroughoutthispublication.

Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act (Universal Eligibility)Thisbillcreatesascholarshipprogramforallstudentstoattendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheirchoice.

Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act (Means-Tested Eligibility)Thisbillcreatesascholarshipprogramforstudentsfromlow-andmiddle-incomefamiliestoattendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheirchoice.

Special Needs Scholarship Program ActThisbillcreatesascholarshipprogramforstudentswithspecialneedstoattendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheirchoice.

Foster Child Scholarship Program ActThisbillcreatesascholarshipprogramforstudentsinfostercaretoattendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheirchoice.

Autism Scholarship Act Thisbillprovidesstudentswithautismtheoptiontoattendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheirchoice.

Great Schools Tax Credit Program ActThisbillauthorizesataxcreditforindividualorcorporatecontributionstoorganizationsthatprovideeducationalscholarshipstoeligiblestudentstoattendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheirchoice.

Family Education Tax Credit Program ActThisbillauthorizesataxcreditforindividualfamilies’educationalexpensesincludingtuition,feesandotherrelatedexpenses.

9�

Charter Schools ActThisbillallowsgroupsofcitizenstoseekchartersfromthestatetocreateandoperateinnovative,outcome-basedschoolsexemptfrommanyofthestatelawsandregulationsgoverningpublicschools.

Open Enrollment ActThisbillcreatesaprocessbywhichstudentswouldbeabletoattendthepublicschooloftheirchoicethroughoutthestate.

9�

glossaryAttorney General Opinion:Formalorinformalresponsesofthestateattorneygeneraltolegalquestions.Suchopinionsarenotbindingonthecourtsbutcanbepersuasive.

Blaine Amendment: Anystateconstitutionalprovisionthat,likethefailedamendmenttothefederalConstitutionofthesamename,prohibitsprovidingpublicfundsto“sectarian”schools.Theseamendmentsweredesignedtoretainamonopolyonstateeducationfundsforthethen-genericallyProtestantpublicschools,whiledenyingequalfundingtoCatholic(i.e.,“sectarian”)schools.

Charter Schools:Deregulatedpublicschoolsusuallyoperatedbyaboardofdirectorsindependentofanyschooldistrict.

Compelled Support Clause:Anystateconstitutionalprovisionthatprovidesthatnooneshallbecompelledtosupportachurchorministrywithouthisconsent.

Education Provisions:Theprovisionsinallstateconstitutionsestablishingapubliceducationsystem.

Equal Protection Clause:AclausefoundintheU.S.Constitutionandmanystateconstitutionsassuringpeople“theequalprotectionofthelaws,”usuallyunderstoodtoprohibitdiscriminationonthebasisofrace,color,nationaloriginandreligion.

Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses:ThereligionclausesoftheFirstAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution:“Congressshallmakenolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.”TheU.S.SupremeCourtmadetheseclausesbindingonstateandlocalgovernmentsinthe1940s.

FAPE:FreeandAppropriatePublicEducation,thebasicentitlementtheIDEAcreatesforchildrenrequiringspecialeducation.

IDEA:ThefederalIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct,whichprovidesspecialeducationfundstostatesinreturnfortheirmeetingfederalstandardsforservicesandprocedures.

Parallel Interpretation:Interpretingsimilarlanguageinthefederalandstateconstitutioninasimilarwaytoarriveatasimilarresult.

Precedent: Alegalconceptreferringtoacasethathasresolvedaparticularlegalquestionthatlowercourtsareboundtofollowandthatthedecidingcourtwillusuallyfollow,absentastrongreasonforconcludingitiswrongorhasbecomeunworkable.

9�

Public School Choice:Policiesallowingstudentstoenrollinpublicschoolstheywouldnotbeassignedtobasedupontheirresidence.Intradistrictchoiceallowsstudentstotransfertootherschoolswithinthesamedistrict,whileinterdistrictchoicepermitstransferstoschoolsinotherdistricts.Suchprogramscanbevoluntary,inwhichthereceivingschoolordistrictmayormaynotagreetoacceptanytransferstudents,ormandatory,inwhichthereceivingschoolordistrictcannotdenyadmittancetotransferstudents.

Released-Time Programs: Publicschoolprogramsthatallowstudentstobereleasedduringschoolhourstoreceivereligiousinstructionatoff-campusprivatefacilities.

School Choice: Broadlyspeaking,anysortofeducationalprogramallowingparentstochoosewhichschooltheirchildrenattend.Narrowlyspeaking,aneducationalprogramthatenablesparentstochooseaprivateschoolfortheirchildren.

Supreme Court Advisory Opinions:Answerstolegalquestionsposedtothecourtbygovernorsorstatelegislatures.Theydonotconstitutebindingprecedentbecausetheyarenotrenderedinanadversarialsettinglikealawsuit,but,asthepersonalopinionsofthesittingjusticesofthestatesupremecourt,theycanbepersuasive.

Tax Credit:Taxreliefthatpermitsparentstomoreeasilyfundaprivateeducationfortheirchildreneitherdirectlyorbyencouragingothertaxpayerstocontributetocharitableorganizationsprovidingscholarships.

Voucher:Intheschoolchoicecontext,aprogramthatprovidestuitionfundingtoafamilythatallowsthemtochooseaprivateschoolfortheirchildren—apubliclyfundedscholarshipforK-12students.

9�

additional

Alliance for School Choicewww.allianceforschoolchoice.org

TheAllianceforSchoolChoiceworkstobuildsupportforandimplementpubliclyfundedschoolchoiceprogramsthatprovidelow-incomefamilieswitheducationalopportunity.Indoingso,theAlliancenotonlyprotectsthoseprogramsthatarealreadyservingfamiliesinneed,butalsoexpandsandenhancesthemandinitiatesnew,largerandevenmoreeffectivemodels.

Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedomwww.cato.org/education

Cato’sCenterforEducationalFreedomwasfoundedontheprinciplethatparentsarebestsuitedtomakeimportantdecisionsregardingthecareandeducationoftheirchildren.TheCenter’sscholarsseektoshiftthetermsofpublicdebateinfavorofthefundamentalrightofparentsandtowardafuturewhenstate-runschoolsgivewaytoadynamic,independentsystemofschoolscompetingtomeettheneedsofAmericanchildren.

Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundationwww.friedmanfoundation.org

TheMiltonandRoseD.FriedmanFoundation,dubbed“thenation’sleadingvoucheradvocates”byThe Wall Street Journal, is a non-profit organizationestablishedin1996.Theoriginsofthefoundationlieinthe Friedmans’ long-standing concern about the serious deficiencies in America’selementaryandsecondarypublicschools.Thebestwaytoimprovethequalityofeducation,intheirview,istoequipallparentswiththefreedomtochoosetheschoolsthattheirchildrenattend.TheFriedmanFoundation builds upon this vision, clarifies its meaning to the public and amplifies the national call for true education reform through school choice.

9� resources

Heartland Institute & School Reform Newswww.heartland.org

The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organizationwhosemissionistodiscoverandpromotefree-marketsolutionstosocialandeconomicproblems.School Reform NewsistheHeartlandInstitute’snationalmonthlyoutreachpublicationforschoolreformers.

Heritage Foundationwww.heritage.org/schoolchoice

Foundedin1973,theHeritageFoundationisaresearchandeducationalinstitute—athinktank—whosemissionistoformulateandpromoteconservativepublicpoliciesbasedontheprinciplesoffreeenterprise,limitedgovernment,individualfreedom,traditionalAmericanvalues,anda strong national defense. The Foundation’s State Profiles Web site for schoolchoiceprovidessnapshotsofschoolchoiceoptionsandanoverviewofthepublicandprivateeducationsystemineachofthe50states,aswellasresearchandcommentaryonschoolchoiceandothereducationreforms.

Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Researchwww.manhattan-institute.org

TheManhattanInstitute’sCenterforCivicInnovationconductseducationresearchthatfocusesonimprovingtwomainreformsofpubliceducation:schoolchoiceandaccountability.

9�

about the authors99

RichardD.KomerhasservedasaseniorlitigationattorneyattheInstituteforJusticesince1993.Anexpertonstateandfederalconstitutionallawonschoolchoice,heservedascounselinIJ’ssuccessfuldefenseofschoolchoiceprogramsinMilwaukee,Arizona,IllinoisandCleveland—includingthelandmarkU.S.SupremeCourtvictoryforschoolchoiceinZelman v. Simmons-Harris.HehasalsoauthorednumerousSupremeCourtamicusbriefsonconstitutionalissuessurroundingschoolchoice.

PriortohisworkattheInstitute,Komerworkedasacivilrightslawyerforthefederalgovernment,workingattheDepartmentsofEducationandJustice,aswellasattheEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommissionasaspecialassistanttotheChairman,ClarenceThomas.HismostrecentgovernmentemploymentwasasDeputyAssistantSecretaryforCivilRightsattheDepartmentofEducation.

HereceivedhislawdegreefromtheUniversityofVirginiain1978andhisB.A.fromHarvardCollegein1974.

SeniorAttorneyClarkNeilyjoinedtheInstituteforJusticein2000.InadditiontobeingaleaderoftheInstitute’sschoolchoiceteam,helitigateseconomicliberty,propertyrights,FirstAmendmentandotherconstitutionalcasesinfederalandstatecourts.

NeilyhasrepresentedparentsandchildrenindefenseofschoolchoiceinFlorida,Maine,Arizonaandelsewhere,andwastheleadattorneyintheInstitute’ssuccessfuldefenseoftheMackinacCenterforPublicPolicyagainstalawsuitbytheMichiganEducationAssociationchallengingtheCenter’srighttoquotetheMEA’spresidentinfundraisingliterature.

Neilyhasmadenumerouspublicappearancesandcounseledadvocatesandlegislatorsnationwideinsupportofschoolchoice.

BeforejoiningtheInstituteforJustice,NeilyspentfouryearsasalitigatorattheDallas-based firm Thompson & Knight. Neily received his undergraduate and law degreesfromtheUniversityofTexas,wherehewastheChiefArticlesEditoroftheTexasLawReview.Afterlawschool,heclerkedforJudgeRoyceLamberthontheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbia.

�00acknowledgmentsTheauthorswouldliketoacknowledgetheassistanceofMarkO’Neill,graduateofGeorgeMasonUniversitySchoolofLaw,whoconductedmuchoftheresearchforthisreport,andIJDirectorofCommunicationsLisaKnepper,forguidingthereportthrougheditingandproduction.ProductionandDesignDirectorDonWilsondidanoutstandingjobdesigningthematerialinanaccessibleformat,andIJ’steamofparalegalsandclerksprovidedessentialhelpincheckingtheaccuracyofalllegalcitations.

TheInstituteforJusticeandtheAmericanLegislativeExchangeCouncilalsowishtogratefullyacknowledgetheMiltonandRoseD.FriedmanFoundation,especiallyExecutiveDirectorandCOORobertEnlow,fortheirinspirationandsupport.

The Institute for Justice is a non-profit, public interest law firm that litigates tosecureschoolchoice,economicliberty,privatepropertyrights,freedomofspeechandothervitalindividuallibertiesandtorestoreconstitutionallimitsonthepowerofgovernment.Foundedin1991,IJisthenation’sonlylibertarian public interest law firm, pursuing cutting-edge litigation in the courtsoflawandinthecourtofpublicopiniononbehalfofindividualswhosemostbasicrightsaredeniedbygovernment.

IJhelpedsecurethelandmarkU.S.SupremeCourtvictoryforschoolchoiceinClevelandinZelman v. Simmons-Harris,andhassuccessfullydefendedschoolchoiceprogramsnationwide,includinginMilwaukee,ArizonaandIllinois.

�0�

TheAmericanLegislativeExchangeCouncil(ALEC)isthenation’slargestnon-partisan,individualmembershiporganizationofstatelegislators,withover 2,400 legislator members from all fifty states, and 87 former members servingintheU.S.Congress.ALECworkstoadvancetheJeffersonianprinciplesoffreemarkets,limitedgovernment,federalism,andindividuallibertythroughanon-partisan,public-privatepartnershipbetweenAmerica’sstatelegislatorsandconcernedmembersoftheprivatesector,thefederalgovernment,andthegeneralpublic.ALECsupportseffortstoofferparentsmorechoicesineducationbothasamatterofprincipleandasapromisingsolutiontotheincreasingchallengesfacingAmerica’sK-12educationsystem.Asapartofthiscommitment,ALECcontinuestolookforwaystobetterinformandengageitsstatelegislativemembersandthegeneralpublicregardingthelegislativeopportunitiesthatmayexistintheirstates.

�0�

Documents

School Choice and State Constitutions...School Choice and State Constitutions A joint publication of The Institute for Justice and The American Legislative Exchange Council by Richard