The Baptist Standard | The Texas Baptist Newsjournal
     
 
Friday, November 20, 2009
Home arrow News arrow Arizona high court declares state’s voucher program unconstitutional
Register Register Help Tools
Subscribe to our FirstLook weekly
e-mail preview

 
Arizona high court declares state’s voucher program unconstitutional Print E-mail
By Robert Marus   
Published: March 26, 2009

PHOENIX (ABP) -- The Arizona Supreme Court March 25 delivered the latest in a string of blows to the movement to provide tax funding for tuition at private and religious schools.

A unanimous five-member court said a plain reading of a provision in the Arizona Constitution outlaws two small programs that provided publicly funded vouchers that students could use to attend private and parochial schools. One program was for students with disabilities; another served children in foster care.

“The voucher programs appear to be a well-intentioned effort to assist two distinct student populations with special needs. But we are bound by our constitution,” wrote Justice Michael Ryan in the court’s Cain v. Horne opinion. “There may well be ways of providing aid to these student populations without violating the constitution. But, absent a constitutional amendment, because the Aid Clause does not permit appropriations of public money to private and sectarian schools, the voucher programs violate Article 9, Section 10 of the Arizona Constitution.”

Constitutional amendment to undo the ban

The decision affects about 475 students, who will continue to receive the vouchers until the end of this school year. Unless Arizona voters approve a constitutional amendment to undo the ban on aid to religious institutions, the programs will end.

Attorneys for the state had argued that the Arizona Constitution provision in question -- which bans any public appropriation “in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation” -- should be interpreted the way that the federal Supreme Court has interpreted the religion clauses of the First Amendment. In 2002, a divided court OK'd an Ohio school-voucher program, saying indirect aid to religious schools did not violate the Constitution’s ban on government support for religion.

But the Arizona court agreed with attorneys for religious-liberty and public-school advocates, saying the state’s charter provides more specific guidance than the federal Constitution on indirect government aid to religious institutions.

Parents with children in the program intervened in the case on its behalf. One of them, Andrea Weck, told the Arizona Republic that the scholarships had enabled her to enroll her autistic daughter in a small private school for children with learning disabilities. "The opportunity created by the scholarship program changed Lexie from the inside out," Weck said.

Vouchers have proven to be unpopular 

Voucher programs -- once hailed by education reformers as a way to rescue kids in failing public-school systems and encourage competition that would improve such schools -- have proven unpopular both at the ballot box and in state courts. Voters in California and Utah recently rebuffed statewide voucher programs, and the highest courts in Maine and Florida have cited similar provisions of their states’ charters to prohibit vouchers for religious schools. In early March, Congress voted to discontinue funding for an experimental voucher program in the District of Columbia.

Public-school advocates as well as supporters of strong church-state separation have long opposed voucher programs that include religious schools, saying they violate the spirit of the First Amendment.

Many other states have constitutional provisions similar to Arizona’s. In the 2004 Locke v. Davey decision, the federal Supreme Court said that states could use such provisions to provide a higher bar on government aid to religious institutions than the Constitution requires.

 

--Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.

Related ABP stories:

Maine high court upholds law barring religious vouchers (4/28/2006)

Florida Supreme Court overturns statewide voucher program (1/6/2006)

Supreme Court rules that states can't be forced to fund religion (2/25/2004)





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (2)Add Comment
This is why we do not want to be ruled by a judicial oligarchy
written by Achilles, March 26, 2009
Unfortunately, even though vouchers have been deemed to be consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution over a twenty year period by the U.S. Supreme Court, state judges have taken it upon themselves to protect the government run school system from competition. There is no rational basis for these rulings based on constitutional provisions in the spirit of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rather, these rulings reflect a personal political preference for state education held by many lawyers. Most lawyers are leftist/liberals who want to use public education for social reform. Legalizing competition to government schools would threaten this power to attempt to transform society.

The reason why voters tend to reject voucher systems has to do with fear of losing their neighborhood public schools. This is a real fear since private schools would likely drive the public schools out of business unless they reformed. I am sorry to say that many students and parents in the white middle class do not really want educational excellence and the necessary sacrifices that would be required to achieve higher standards. They are comfortable with the low demands made by the current system. Consider the overwhelmingly positive opinion people in general hold of their own local public school in stark contrast with records of incompetence in educational achievement by public schools.

In league with the students and parents who do not want to exert themselves are public school teachers and administrators with their unions who are terrified of competition. Administrators would largely be put out of work by a voucher system since private schools have very few administrators. Current public school teachers would be replaced by more able teachers or be forced to develop their intellects and knowledge of their subject matter.

Economist Gordon Tullock observed that the true pay-off to monopolists is not so much a higher income as it is a easier life. A perverse coalition is at work in maintaining the government school monopoly to promote government-enforced equality of result and protect students, parents, and teachers from hard work. In the end, Americans will continue to be surpassed by those in other countries who have more demanding educational systems.
Reader Beware!
written by PastorJerry, March 27, 2009
This story is a classic example of the writer or editor skewing a news item in a way that gives an opinion. Instead of "The Arizona Supreme Court March 25 delivered the latest in a string of blows to the movement to provide tax funding for tuition at private and religious schools", the lead could have read "The Arizona Supreme Court March 25 delivered the latest in a string of blows to the movement to provide relief for students who wish to escape poor performing government schools."

In addition, the assertion that voucher programs have been unpopular refers to the ballot box and courts, but not parents or students who are being victimized.

Readers should pay keen attention to potential biases when reading any news story, even in an outstanding publication such as the Standard.

Please read our Comments Covenant. Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Baptist Standard. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2009 The Baptist Standard, All Rights Reserved.