School Choice and State Constitutions

School Choice and State Constitutions
A joint publication of
The Institute for Justice and
The American Legislative
Exchange Council
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
www.IJ.org
for
Institute
J
ustice
1129 20th Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 466-3800
www.alec.org
S
c
h
o
o
l

C
h
o
i
c
e

a
n
d

S
t
a
t
e

C
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
0
7
reference
guide
A Guide to Designing School Choice Programs
A joint publication of
The Institute for Justice and
American Legislative Exchange Council
April 2007
Foreword 1
Introduction 2
HowtoUseThisReport 7
StateSummaries
Alabama 10
Alaska 11
Arizona 12
Arkansas 14
California 15
Colorado 17
Connecticut 19
Delaware 21
Florida 22
Georgia 24
Hawaii 26
Idaho 27
Illinois 29
Indiana 31
Iowa 33
Kansas 34
Kentucky 35
Louisiana 38
table of contents
table of contents
Maine 39
Maryland 41
Massachusetts 42
Michigan 44
Minnesota 46
Mississippi 48
Missouri 49
Montana 52
Nebraska 53
Nevada 55
NewHampshire 56
NewJersey 57
NewMexico 58
NewYork 60
NorthCarolina 62
NorthDakota 64
Ohio 65
Oklahoma 67
Oregon 69
Pennsylvania 70
RhodeIsland 72
SouthCarolina 73
SouthDakota 75
Tennessee 77
Texas 78
Utah 79
Vermont 81
Virginia 82
Washington 84
WestVirginia 87
Wisconsin 88
Wyoming 91
ModelLegislation 93
Glossary 95
AdditionalResources 97
AbouttheAuthor 99
Acknowledgments 100
AboutIJ 101
AboutALEC 102
foreword
Wheneverschoolchoicelegislationisconsidered,thestakesare
enormous. Children, parents, teachers and taxpayers all stand to beneft
dramaticallyfromwell-designedprograms.
Thatswhyitissoimportantforallschoolchoicelegislationtobevery
carefullycrafted,startingwithaneyetowarditsconstitutionalityunder
relevantstateconstitutionalprovisions.Notonlyisthissoundand
responsibledrafting,italsoassuresthatwhenachoiceprogramisenacted
andthenchallengedincourtithasthegreatestlikelihoodofbeingupheld.
Thisguidetothekeyconstitutionalprovisionsofall50statesisdesigned
toprovideaconvenientreferenceforlegislatorsandadvocates.Asthe
readerwillsee,schoolchoiceprogramsareconstitutionalinnearlyevery
state.Thekeyistodesigntherightkindofprogram,andthisguideis
meanttohelplegislatorsdojustthat.
Anystatesummaryinthisreportshouldbeastartingpointonly.We
encouragelegislatorstoobtaincopiesoftheAmericanLegislative
ExchangeCouncilsmodellegislationlistedinthisguideandtocontact
theInstituteforJusticeforthemorein-depthanalysisthatwillbe
necessary in crafting specifc legislation.
Welookforwardtoworkingwithyoutosecurethefutureofschoolchoice
inyourstate.
WilliamH.Mellor LoriRoman
PresidentandGeneralCounsel ExecutiveDirector
InstituteforJustice AmericanLegislative
ExchangeCouncil
1
introduction
Isschoolchoiceconstitutional?In
moststates,ifaprogramisdesigned
properly,theanswershouldbeyes.
Sincethebirthofthemodernschool
choicemovementin1990,withthe
creationofascholarshipprogram
forinner-citychildreninMilwaukee,
membersoftheentrenchededucation
establishmenthavefoughttostop
schoolchoice,oftenthroughlegal
attack.
Meanwhile,publicsupportforschool
choicehasgrown,andseventeenyears
later, K-12 school choice fourishes in
Milwaukee(aftertwounsuccessful
legalchallenges)and10otherstates,
plustheDistrictofColumbia.On
February 12, 2007, Utah became the frst
statetoofferuniversalschoolvouchers,
markinganimportantwatershedfor
theschoolchoicemovement.And
in2002,theU.S.SupremeCourt
vindicatedschoolchoiceunderthe
federalConstitutionasitupheld
Clevelandsvoucherprogram.
Yetthelegalbattlecontinues.Lacking
anyfederalconstitutionalclaims,
schoolchoiceopponentsnowrely
solelyonstateconstitutionsintheir
questtomaintaintheeducational
statusquo.
Buttheirargumentsaremostlyred
herrings,andinnearlyeverystate,
thequestionisnotwhethertherecan
beschoolchoice,buthowbestto
A Guide to Designing School Choice Programs
achieve it. This guidethe frst-ever
state-by-statebreakdownofstate
constitutionalprovisionsrelevantto
schoolchoicedemonstratesthata
well-craftedschoolchoiceprogramis
viableinjustabouteverystateinthe
union.Thekeyforpolicymakersis
tounderstandthelegalenvironment
oftheirindividualstatesanddraft
schoolchoicelegislationaccordingly.
Theguideprovidespolicymakerswith
thefactsaboutthestateofthelawon
schoolchoiceandarmsthemwiththe
toolstocreateprogramsmostlikelyto
survivelegalscrutiny.
SCHDDL CHDICE
Thetermschoolchoicedescribesany
policydesignedtoenableparents
tochoosethebesteducational
opportunityfortheirchildren,
includingpublicschooltransfer
options,charterandmagnetschools,
homeschooling,scholarships,
vouchersandtaxcredits/deductions.
Thisguidefocusesonthetwoforms
ofschoolchoicethatbringprivate
schoolsintothemixofavailable
educationaloptionsforparentsofall
fnancial meansvouchers and tax
credits.
Vouchersaresimplystate-funded
scholarshipsforK-12studentsthat
enablethemtoselecttheschool
2
oftheirchoice,justlikethevarious
scholarshipsthatmoststatesandthefederal
governmentprovideforcollegestudents.
Taxcreditprogramscomeinseveral
varieties.Tax-credit-fundedscholarship
programsenableindividualsorcorporations
toreceiveataxcreditfordonatinga
portionoftheirstatetaxliabilitytoprivate
scholarship-grantingorganizations.
Personaltaxcreditsanddeductionsgive
parentsataxbreakforapprovededucational
expenses.
SCHDDL CHDICE AN0
THE FE0EPAL CDNSTITUTIDN
TheU.S.SupremeCourtdelivereda
resoundingvictoryforschoolchoicewhen
itupheldClevelandsschoolvoucher
programin2002inZelman v. Simmons-
Harris.Rejectingachallengeunder
theEstablishmentClauseoftheU.S.
Constitution,theCourtheldthatpublicly
fundedK-12voucherprogramsmayinclude
bothreligiousandnon-religiousoptions,
justascollegeaidprogramslikePellGrants
andtheGIBillhavealwaysdone.The
essentialcharacteristicsofaconstitutional
schoolvoucherprogram,accordingtothe
SupremeCourt,are:
Religiousneutralityprovidingaidtoa
broad group of recipients identifed without
referencetoreligion,andofferingawidearray
ofoptions,againwithoutregardtoreligion.
Trueprivatechoiceparents,notthe
government,choosetheschool,andthe
government itself does nothing to infuence
thechoiceofreligiousornon-religious
optionsonewayortheother.
Aprogramwiththosetwofeaturesis
constitutionalbecauseitaidsfamiliesseeking
abettereducationfortheirchildren,notthe
schoolstheyhappentochoose.Because
the aid fows to individuals instead
ofinstitutions,programsmayinclude
bothreligiousandnon-religious
optionswithoutviolatingthefederal
Constitution.
SCHDDL CHDICE, STATE
CDNSTITUTIDNS AN0 PELICIDN
AftertheU.S.SupremeCourteliminated
thefederalEstablishmentClauseas
apotentialbarriertoschoolchoicein
2002,opponentswereleftwithstate
constitutionsastheironlyavenuefor
attackingschoolchoiceprograms.
Primarily,theyrelyonthereligion
andeducationprovisionsofstate
constitutions.
CDhPELLE0 SUPPDPT CLAUSES
CompelledSupportClausesare
provisionsin29stateconstitutions
thatwereoriginallyintendedto
preventtheestablishmentofan
offcial state religion and to ensure
thatpeoplewerenotforcedtopayfor
thingslikechurchesandministers
salaries.Generally,Compelled
SupportClausesrequirethatno
oneshallbecompelledtoattend
orsupportachurchorreligious
ministrywithouthisorherconsent.
Theyweresimplymeanttoprotect
religiousminoritiesfromthecolonial-
erapracticeofrequiringchurch
attendanceandsupportforacolonys
establishedchurch.
Schoolchoiceisanaltogetherdifferent
policy.Well-designedvoucher
programsarereligiously neutral:
theyneitherfavornordisfavorthe
choiceofreligiousschoolsoverother
3
educationaloptions.Parentsparticipating
invoucherprogramswhoselectreligious
schoolsfreely and independently choose them
fromahostofreligiousandnon-religious
alternativesbecausetheybelievethose
schoolsprovidethebesteducational
opportunityfortheirchildren.
Asaresult,nopublicmoneysupportsa
particularchurchorreligiousinstitution;
instead,theaidsupportsfamiliesintheir
attemptstosecurehighqualityeducation
fortheirchildrenjustlikecollege
scholarshipsareunderstoodtosupport
studentsratherthantheschoolsthey
happentoattend.Parentalchoiceiskey.
Voucherandtaxcreditprogramssupport
parentsandchildrennomatterwhich
schoolstheychoose.
LAINE AhEN0hENTS
ThenotoriousBlaineAmendments,foundin
37stateconstitutions,grewoutofawell-
documentedatmosphereofanti-immigrant
andanti-Catholicbigotryinthelatterhalf
ofthe19
th
century.Atthetime,mostpublic
schoolswerethoroughlyProtestantin
orientationandpedagogy,anddistinctly
inhospitabletoCatholics.Catholicssought
fundingfortheirownschools,
butaresultinganti-
immigrant,anti-
Catholic
backlash
ledtoa
proposed
amendment
totheU.S.
Constitution
byMaineSen.JamesG.Blaine(hencethe
titleBlaineAmendment)thatwouldhave
prohibitedthefundingofanysectarian
schoolsorinstitutions.Intheparlanceofthe
times,sectarianwascodeforCatholic.
BlainesattempttoamendtheU.S.
Constitutionfailed,butitwaspickedupby
manystatesandevenbecamearequirement
forentryintotheunionformanyWestern
states.
TheU.S.SupremeCourthasrecognizedthe
BlaineAmendmentsshamefulpedigreeof
religiousandanti-immigrantdiscrimination,
andtheArizonaSupremeCourtdescribed
themasaclearmanifestationofreligious
bigotryinupholdingatax-creditscholarship
program.
Astheirhistorymakesclear,Blaine
Amendmentswereintendedtopreventthe
governmentfromdirectlyfundingCatholic
schoolsystemsagain,apolicyverydifferent
frommodernschoolchoiceprograms.
Neithervouchernortaxcreditprogramsinvolve
thekindsofspecialgrantstoprivatereligious
schoolsthatBlaineAmendmentssought
toprohibit.Voucherprogramsprovide
scholarshipstofamiliesnotschoolswho
canchoosetousethemattheschooloftheir
choice,religiousornot.Similarly,taxcredits
anddeductionsallowparentstokeep
moreoftheirownmoney,while
tax-creditscholarship
programssimply
encourage
individuals
orcorporations
todonatetheir
moneytoprivate
scholarshipfunds.
4
Whetherthroughvouchers,taxcredits
ortaxdeductions,anymoneythat
happenstoreachareligiousschool
doessoastheincidentalresultof
thefreeandindependentchoicesof
parentsempoweredbythegovernment
totakechargeoftheirchildrens
educationinsteadofleavingthat
decision to government offcials.
AVDI0INC LAINE AN0
CDhPELLE0 SUPPDPT PPDLEhS
Toavoidrunningafoulofstate
constitutionsCompelledSupport
ClausesandBlaineAmendments,the
mostimportantdecisionalawmaker
canmakeisthechoicebetween
vouchersandtaxcredits.
Statecourtinterpretationsofreligion
clausesvarywidely,andonlyahandful
ofstateshaveaddressedtheminthe
contextofschoolchoice.Butmany
statecourtshaveinterpretedthese
provisionsinanalogouscases,suchas
programs that provide benefts like free
transportationorseculartextbooksto
familiesusingprivateschools.These
casesdescribedinthisguidecan
provideguidancetolawmakersabout
howstatecourtsmayapplystate
religionclausestoeducationissues.
Forexample,ifastatesupremecourt
hasalreadyruledthatitsBlaine
AmendmentorCompelledSupport
Clauseprohibitsusingtaxdollarsto
provideeducationalaidtofamilies
usingprivateschools,thentaxcredit
plansarelikelyabetterapproach.
Sinceforgonetaxrevenuedoesnot
constitutepublicmoney,moststate
supremecourtsdonotorshouldnot
regardtax-credit-fundedscholarships
assubjecttoBlaineAmendment
orCompelledSupportlimitations.
Foreachstate,weprovidea
recommendationofthebestapproach.
STATE CDNSTITUTIDNS AN0
E0UCATIDN
Everystateconstitutionhasprovisions
dealingwitheducation,whichcanbe
relevantforlawmakersconsidering
schoolchoiceproposals.
So-calleduniformityclausesare
provisionswithinstateconstitutions
thatrequirethestategovernment
tofundauniformsystemoffree
publiceducation,orwordstothat
effect.Wrenchingthosewordsfrom
theirpropercontext,schoolchoice
opponentshavebegunarguing,
illogically,thatsuchprovisionsdo
notsimplyrequirethegovernment
toestablishpublicschoolsforall
childrenwithinthestate,butforbid
thegovernmentfromgoingbeyond
thatbaselinerequirementbyproviding
educationthroughmeansotherthan
thetraditionalpublicschoolsystem.
Thisargumentrequiresconstitutional
andlinguisticgymnasticsthatfew
statesupremecourtsarelikelyto
acceptandthatalmostnostateslegal
precedentssupport.
1
Uniformity
clauseswereneverintendedtoimpose
alimitoneducationalinnovationand
creativity in the way legislators fulfll
theirobligationtoprovidechildren
1TheWisconsinSupremeCourttwiceconsidered
theargumentandrejectedit.TheFloridaSupreme
Court,inanunprecedentedandwidelycriticized
opinion,acceptedit.
5
withabasiceducation.Rather,they
weresimplyintendedtoensurethat
thepublicschoolsystemhascertain
minimalcharacteristics.Ifastate
choosestogoaboveandbeyond
thatconstitutionalrequirement,a
uniformityprovisionshouldnotbe
notabar.
Theeducationarticlesofafewstate
constitutionshavelanguagethat
explicitlyreservesalleducational
expendituresforpublicschools.For
thosestates,taxcreditprogramsare
theonlyavailableschoolchoiceoption
intheabsenceofaconstitutional
amendment.
2
Otherstateshavestate
schoolfunds,andexpenditures
fromthosefundsmayonlybeused
forpublicschools.Inthosestates,
vouchersshouldbefundedfromthe
2Michiganistheonlystatewhoseconstitution
explicitly forbids both voucher and tax beneft
programs,althoughtheMassachusettsSupreme
Courthasinterpreteditsconstitutionbroadly
tothesameeffect.Insuchstates,constitutional
amendmentisprobablynecessarytopermiteffec-
tiveschoolchoice.
generalfundorsomeothersource
besidesthestateschoolfund.
Moststateconstitutionseducation
articlesincludeaprovisioncreatinga
CommonSchoolsFund.Suchfunds
containtheproceedsderivedfrom
federallandsgiventothestateforthe
purposeofestablishingpublicschools,
andlimittheuseoftheFundtopublic
schools.Insuchstates,schoolchoice
programsmustbefundedfromother
staterevenuesources.
A FINAL NDTE
Thisguideisintendedtoarm
policymakersandadvocateswith
theessentialbackgroundneeded
tocraftconstitutionalschoolchoice
legislationandtoforgeahead
with confdence in delivering equal
educationalopportunitytoallfamilies,
regardlessoftheirmeans.Butthe
analysisandrecommendationsinthis
reportareverygeneralandshould
bejustthebeginningofyoureffortto
understandschoolchoiceandyour
stateconstitution.TheInstitutefor
Justiceiseagertoprovideexpertlegal
reviewofschoolchoiceproposals.
Suchreview,ideallyatthe
earliestpossiblestageinthe
process,isessential.
6
This report, for the frst time ever,
providesastate-by-statebreakdown
ofthekeyelementsapolicymaker
needsinordertounderstandthelegal
environmentforschoolchoiceinany
givenstateandtocraftappropriate
legislationtoexpandeducational
opportunity.
CDNSTITUTIDNAL PPDVISIDNS
Weprovidethetextofandcitationsfor
stateconstitutionalprovisionsmost
relevanttoschoolchoice,including
BlaineAmendments,Compelled
SupportClauses,anyeducational
provisionsthatmayimpacthowa
schoolchoiceprogramisdesigned,
andotherprovisionsasnecessary
tohelppolicymakerscraftgood
legislation.
PELEVANT CASE LAW
Thissectionlistsanddescribesany
federalandstatecasesinterpreting
keyconstitutionalprovisions.First,
welistanycasesfromfederalcourts
thataroseoutofthatstate.Sometimes
thesecasesincludeordrawon
interpretationsofstateconstitutions
inadditiontoanyrulingbasedonthe
U.S.Constitution,sotheycanprovide
someusefulinformation.Theymay
alsoaddressanexistingschoolchoice
program.
Next,welistcasesfromstatecourts.For
bothfederalandstatecases,westart
withdecisionsfromthehighestcourt
(forexample,theU.S.SupremeCourt
How to Use This Report
forfederalcases,andastatesupreme
courtforstatecases)andlistthemost
recent cases frst. These are followed
bylowercourtcases,again,most
recent frst.
Finally, the report describes any offcial
advisoryopinionsfromstatesupreme
courtsandattorneysgeneralthat
arerelevanttoschoolchoice.Such
opinionsarenotbindingprecedent
andcourtsarenotrequiredtofollow
them,buttheycanbepersuasivein
futurelitigation.
Allcasesandopinionsincludefull
legalcitationssothoseinterestedin
learning more can fnd the original
sources.
EXISTINC SCHDDL CHDICE
PPDCPAhS
Hereweprovideasnapshotofschool
choiceinastate:whetherthestate
providesPublicSchoolChoice,
CharterSchools,orPrivateSchool
Choiceandifso,whatkindof
programthatis.Wealsoprovide
citationstothestatutesthemselves.
Itisimportantforpolicymakersto
understandwhatkindsofschooling
optionschildreninastatealready
enjoy.Newschoolchoiceprograms
shouldbedesignedtoenhancethese
optionsasamatterofgoodpolicy
andofgoodlaw.Also,existingschool
choiceprogramsthatincludeprivate
schooloptionsprovideevidencethat
thefurtherexpansionofschoolchoice
inthatstateisconstitutional.
7
ANALYSIS AN0
PECDhhEN0ATIDNS
Thissectionbringstogetherthekey
elementsstateconstitutional
provisions,relevantcaselaw,and
existingschoolchoiceprogramsto
provideabriefanalysisofthelegal
environmentforschoolchoiceina
state.ThisistheInstituteforJustices
opinionaboutthesafestapproachto
implementingschoolchoiceinastate
andavoidingconstitutionalproblems.
Thekeydecisionapolicymakermust
makeisthechoicebetweenavoucher
approachandataxcreditapproach(or
both),andweofferarecommendation
foreachstate.Wealsopointout,
whereapplicable,othermeans
ofsatisfyingstateconstitutional
requirements,suchasavoidingthe
useofcommonschoolfunds.
Finally,welistALECsmodellegislation
toprovideaframeworkfordrafting
state-specifc school choice proposals.
Lawmakersshouldtakecareto
considerthemanyissuespresented
inthedraftingnotessectionofmodel
bills. Modifcations may be required
tobestsuitthelegalandpolicy
environmentsofagivenstate.
PESDUPCES
Atthebackofthereport(beginningon
page93),weprovidedescriptionsof
ALECsmodelschoolchoicebills,a
glossarytoexplainthelegaljargon
thatissometimesnecessarywhen
explainingconstitutionalcaselaw,
andinformationaboutnational
organizations that can help in the fght
forequaleducationalopportunity.
8
Compelled Support Clause
Thatnooneshallbecompelledbylawtoattendanyplaceofworship;norto
payanytithes,taxes,orotherrateforbuildingorrepairinganyplaceofworship,
orformaintaininganyministerorministry.AlAbAmA Const. Art.I,3.
Blaine Amendments
Noappropriationshallbemadetoanycharitableoreducationalinstitutionnot
undertheabsolutecontrolofthestate,otherthannormalschoolsestablished
bylawfortheprofessionaltrainingofteachersforthepublicschoolsofthe
state,exceptbyavoteoftwo-thirdsofallthememberselectedtoeachhouse.
AlAbAmA Const. Art.IV,73.
Nomoneyraisedforthesupportofthepublicschoolsshallbeappropriated
toorusedforthesupportofanysectarianordenominationalschool.AlAbAmA
Const.Art.XIV,263.
ALAAhA
EXISTING SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAMS
PublicSchoolChoice: No
CharterSchools: No
PrivateSchoolChoice: No
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Alabama Education Association v. James,
373So.2d1076(Ala.1979)
AfterachangeinU.S.Supreme
CourtEstablishmentClause
jurisprudence,theAlabamaSupreme
Courtheldthattuitiongrantsto
studentsattendingprivateschools
areconstitutionalundertheFirst
AmendmentofU.S.Constitution
andAlabamasBlaineAmendment
(ArticleXIV,Section263)because
theaidgoestothestudent,notthe
school.
Opinion of Justices,
280So.2d547(1973)
Followingthen-currentU.S.Supreme
CourtEstablishmentClause
precedent,theAlabamaSupreme
Courtopinedthattuitiongrantsto
studentsattendingchurchcolleges
wouldviolateboththeFirst
AmendmentofU.S.Constitution
andoneofAlabamasBlaine
Amendments(ArticleXIV,Section
263)becausetheywouldexcessively
entanglethestateandreligion.
Taxcreditprogramsandvouchersarebothschoolchoiceoptionsfor
Alabama.AlthoughtheAlabamaConstitutioncontainsbothaCompelled
SupportClauseandBlaineAmendmentlanguage,theAlabamacourtsare
unlikelytointerprettheseclausesexpansivelytoprohibitschoolchoice.
Additionally,AlabamacourtstendtofollowfederalEstablishmentClause
precedentininterpretingtheAlabamaConstitution,andtheU.S.Supreme
CourtsdecisioninZelman v. Simmons-Harris upheldschoolchoice
programs.
Toavoidpotentialproblemswiththesecond
ofAlabamasBlaineAmendments(Article
XIV,Section263),voucherprogramfunding
shouldexplicitlycomefromsourcesother
thanthestatespublicschoolfund.
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
VDUCHEPS TAX CPE0ITS
10
Blaine Amendments
Thelegislatureshallbygenerallawestablishandmaintainasystemofpublic
schoolsopentoallchildrenoftheState,andmayprovideforotherpublic
educationalinstitutions.Schoolsandinstitutionssoestablishedshallbefree
fromsectariancontrol.Nomoneyshallbepaidfrompublicfundsforthedirect
beneft 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)
TheAlaskaSupremeCourtheldthat
tuitionassistancegrantsforstudents
attendingprivatecollegesviolates
itsBlaineAmendmentbecause(1)
only private colleges beneft from the
program,(2)themoneyeffectively
subsidizesprivateeducation,(3)the
beneft provided is substantial, and
(4)thereisnodistinctionbetween
givingmoneytothestudentand
givingmoneytotheschool.
Matthews v. Quinton,362P.2d932
(Alaska1961),cert. denied,368U.S.517
(1962)
ViewingitsBlaineAmendmentas
morerestrictivethanthefederal
Constitution,theAlaskaSupreme
Courtheldthattransportationof
privateschoolstudentsatpublic
expenseviolatestheAlaska
Constitution.
TaxcreditprogramsareAlaskasbestoptionforaschoolchoiceinitiative.
TheyareconsistentwiththeAlaskaConstitutionandrelevantcaselaw.
Avoucherprogram,however,wouldbeproblematic.Alaskacourtshave
interpretedthestatesBlaineAmendmentrestrictively.Althoughitsactual
termsonlybandirectaid,Alaskacourtshaverejectedthedistinction
betweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheinstitutionsthosestudentschoose
toattend,therebylimitingtheuseofpublicfundstopubliceducational
institutions.
Model Legislation: Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax
Credit Program
11
CharterSchools: Yes
PublicSchoolChoice: Yes
4AlaskaAdministrativeCode06.855
AlaskaStatutesSections14.03.250to
14.03.290;4AlaskaAdministrativeCode
33.110
Blaine Amendments
Nopublicmoneyorpropertyshallbeappropriatedfororappliedtoany
religiousworship,exercise,orinstruction,ortothesupportofanyreligious
establishment.ArizonA Const. Art.II,12.
Notaxshallbelaidorappropriationofpublicmoneymadeinaidofany
church,orprivateorsectarianschool,oranypublicservicecorporation.
ArizonA Const.Art.IX,10.
Other Relevant Sections
NeithertheState,noranycounty,city,town,municipality,orothersubdivision
ofthestateshallevergiveorloanitscreditintheaidof,ormakeanydonation
orgrant,bysubsidyorotherwise,toanyindividual,association,orcorporation
.ArizonA Const.Art.IX,7.
Section1.A.Thelegislatureshallenactsuchlawsasshallprovideforthe
establishmentandmaintenanceofageneralanduniformpublicschoolsystem,
whichsystemshallinclude:1.Kindergartenschools;2.Commonschools;
3.Highschools;4.Normalschools;5.Industrialschools;6.Universities,
whichshallincludeanagriculturalcollege,aschoolofmines,andsuchother
technicalschoolsasmaybeessential,untilsuchtimeasitmaybedeemed
advisabletoestablishseparatestateinstitutionsofsuchcharacter.ArizonA
Const.Art.XI,1.
APIZDNA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District,
509U.S.1(U.S.1993)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatthe
FirstAmendmentsEstablishment
ClausedidnotpreventanArizona
schooldistrictfromfurnishing
astudentwithasign-language
interpretertofacilitatehiseducation
atareligiousschool.
Kotterman v. Killian,972P.2d606(Ariz.
1999)
TheArizonaSupremeCourtheldthat
tuitiontaxcreditsareconstitutional
underboththeU.S.Constitution
andtheArizonaConstitution.They
arepartofareligiouslyneutral
governmentprogramavailabletoa
largespectrumofcitizensanddonot
havetheprimaryeffectofadvancing
orinhibitingreligion.Additionally,
theydonotoverlyentanglethe
12
PrivateSchoolChoice: Yes
CharterSchools: Yes
IntradistrictandInterdistrict/mandatory
ArizonaRevisedStatutesSections15-816
to15-816.07
ArizonaRevisedStatutesSections15-181to
15-189.03
DisplacedPupilsChoiceGrantsforfoster
children
ArizonaRevisedStatutesSections15-
817.01to15-817.02
ScholarshipsforPupilswithDisabilities
to15-891.06
IndividualTaxCreditScholarships
to43-1089.02
CorporateTaxCreditScholarships
ArizonaRevisedStatutesSection43-1183
continued on next page
Bothtaxcreditprogramsandvouchersareschoolchoiceoptions
forArizona.TheArizonaConstitutioncontainsBlaineAmendment
languageintwoseparateprovisions,butArizonastatecourtshave
interpretedneitherexpansively.InKotterman,theArizonaSupremeCourt
defnitively upheld the constitutionality of tuition tax credits. Given its
strongadherencetofederalprecedentonEstablishmentClauseissues,the
courtisalsolikelytoupholdareligiouslyneutralvoucherprogram.It
hasalreadyheldthatthestatecancontractwithareligiousorganization
forpublicserviceswithoutimproperlyaidingtheorganizationsreligious
mission.Inaddition,theArizonaSupremeCourthasviewedthe
uniformitylanguageofitseducationarticle(ArticleXI,Section1)as
establishing a foor for adequacy below which districts may not go, but
permittingprogramsthatgofurther.
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
APIZDNA
13
governmentwithreligionbecausethe
statedoesnotdistributefundsormonitor
theirapplication.Thecourtrecognized
that the scholarships beneft children, not
schools.InrefusingtoapplyitsBlaine
Amendmentsbroadly,theArizonaSupreme
Courtrecognizedthebigotryandprejudice
underlyingtheirenactment.
Hull v. Albrecht,950P.2d1141,1145(Ariz.1997)
TheArizonaSupremeCourtheldthatthe
generalanduniformrequirementofthe
ArizonaConstitutionseducationarticle
appliesonlytothestatesconstitutional
obligationtofundapublicschoolsystem
that is adequate and that defning adequacy
isalegislativetask.Adistrictmaythen
choosetogoabove,butnotbelow,the
statewideminimumstandards,andthiswill
notrunafoulofthegeneral-and-uniform
requirement.
Pratt v. Arizona Board of Regents,520P.2d514,
516(Ariz.1974)
TheArizonaSupremeCourtheldthatthe
state did not violate the frst of Arizonas
BlaineAmendments(ArticleII,Section
12)whenitleasedastateuniversitys
footballstadiumforprayerworshipatafair
marketvalue.Thecourtnotedthat[w]e
believethattheframersoftheArizona
Constitutionintendedby[ArticleII,Section
12]toprohibittheuseofthepowerandthe
prestigeoftheStateoranyofitsagencies
forthesupportorfavorofonereligionover
another,orofreligionovernonreligion.
Community Council v. Jordan,432P.2d460,466
(Ariz.1967)
TheArizonaSupremeCourtheldthatby
contractingwiththeSalvationArmy,the
stateisnotprovidingaidinviolationof
thesecondofArizonasBlaineAmendments
(ArticleIX,Section10).Thecourtnoted,
Theaidprohibitedintheconstitutionof
thisstateis,inouropinion,assistanceinany
formwhatsoeverwhichwouldencourage
ortendtoencouragethepreferenceofone
religionoveranother,orreligionperseover
noreligion.
continued from previous page
[N]omancan,ofright,becompelledtoattend,erect,orsupportanyplaceof
worship;ortomaintainanyministryagainsthisconsent.ArkAnsAs Const.Art.
II,24.
Education Articles
Intelligenceandvirtuebeingthesafeguardsoflibertyandthebulwarkofa
freeandgoodgovernment,theStateshallevermaintainageneral,suitable
and effcient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to
securetothepeopletheadvantagesandopportunitiesofeducation.ArkAnsAs
Const.Art.XIV,1.
Nomoneyorpropertybelongingtothepublicschoolfund,ortothisState,for
the beneft of schools or universities, shall ever be used for any other than for the
respectivepurposestowhichitbelongs.ArkAnsAs Const.Art.XIV,2.
APKANSAS
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Lendall v. Cook,432F.Supp.971,978
(E.D.Ark.1977)
Afederaldistrictcourtconcluded
thataStatehighereducation
scholarshipprogramthatpermitted
studentstochoosereligiousornon-
religiouscollegesdidnotviolatethe
ArkansasConstitutionsCompelled
SupportClause.
Bothtaxcreditprogramsandvouchersareschoolchoiceoptionsfor
Arkansas.ItsConstitutiondoesnotcontainaBlaineAmendmentandits
CompelledSupportClause,whilereceivinglittlejudicialattention,does
notforbidreligiouslyneutralschoolchoiceprograms,providedfunds
allottedforthepublicschoolsarenotused.
14
CharterSchools: Yes
Intradistrict/mandatory
ArkansasCodeAnnotated6-18-227
Interdistrict/mandatory
ArkansasCodeAnnotated6-18-206
ArkansasCodeAnnotated6-23-101to6-
23-601
Blaine Amendments
Nopublicmoneyshalleverbeappropriatedforthesupportofanysectarian
ordenominationalschool,oranyschoolnotundertheexclusivecontrolofthe
offcers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine
betaught,orinstructionthereonbepermitted,directlyorindirectly,inanyofthe
commonschoolsofthisState.CAliforniA Const.Art.IX,8.
NeithertheLegislature,noranycounty,cityandcounty,township,school
district,orothermunicipalcorporation,shallevermakeanappropriation,
orpayfromanypublicfundwhatever,orgrantanythingtoorinaidofany
religioussect,church, creed,orsectarianpurpose,orhelptosupportor
sustainanyschool,college,university,hospital,orotherinstitutioncontrolled
byanyreligiouscreed,church, orsectariandenominationwhatever;norshall
anygrantordonationofpersonalpropertyorrealestateeverbemadebythe
state,oranycity,cityandcounty,town,orothermunicipalcorporationfor
anyreligiouscreed,church, orsectarianpurposewhatever;provided,that
nothinginthissectionshallpreventtheLegislaturegrantingaidpursuantto
Section3ofArticleXVI.CAliforniA Const.Art.XVI,5.
CALIFDPNIA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
California Teachers Association v. Riles,
632P.2d953,960(Cal.1981)
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourt
heldthatlendingtextbooksto
privateschoolsviolatedthestate
ConstitutionsBlaineAmendments.
Bowker v. Baker,167P.2d256(Cal.1946)
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourt
heldthattransportingprivate
schoolstudentsatpublicexpenseis
constitutionallyacceptablebecause
itisaimedatchildsafetynot
education, and any beneft to the
schoolisincidental.
California Statewide Communities
Development Authority v. All Persons
Interested etc.,14Cal.Rptr.3d811
(2004),review granted,California
Statewide Communities Development v.
All Persons Interested,2006Cal.LEXIS
9088(Cal.2006)(unpublisheddecision)
(appealpending;lowercourtdecision
depublished)
ACaliforniaCourtofAppealsheld
thatproposalsfortheissuance
15
CharterSchools: Yes
CaliforniaEducationCodeSection35160.5
IntradistrictandInterdistrict/voluntary
CaliforniaEducationCodeSections46600
to46611
CaliforniaEducationCodeSections47600
to47660,CaliforniaEducationCode
Sections41365to41367
TaxcreditsareCaliforniasbestoptionforschoolchoice.Vouchersare
problematicgivenCaliforniasveryrestrictiveinterpretationofitsBlaine
Amendments.Thatinterpretationpreventsanypublicbodyfromthe
statedowntothelocalschoolboardfromallowinganypublicmoney
fromanysourcewhatsoevertogotoareligiousorprivateschool.
Californiacourtshaveexplicitlyrejectedthedistinctionbetweenaiding
studentsversusaidingschools.
Credit Program
CALIFDPNIA
16
of tax-exempt bonds for the beneft of
pervasivelysectarianreligiousschools
violatedthestatesBlaineAmendments.
Wilson v. State Board of Education,89Cal.
Rptr.2d745(Ct.App.1999)
ACaliforniaCourtofAppealsheldthat
charterschoolsareconsideredpublic
schoolsforthepurposeofCalifornias
frst Blaine Amendment (Article IX,
Section8).
Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization v.
Los Angeles Community College District,266
Cal.Rptr.767,774(Ct.App.1990)
ACaliforniaCourtofAppealsuphelda
communitycollegestemporaryleaseof
surpluslandtoareligiousorganization
atfairmarketvalueunderCalifornias
secondBlaineAmendment(ArticleXVI,
Section5).
Board of Trustees v. Cory,145Cal.Rptr.136,
139(Ct.App.1978)
CitingBowker,aCaliforniaCourtof
Appealsheldthatdirectpaymentof
federalfundstoprivatemedicalschools
violates the frst of Californias Blaine
Amendments because it does not ft
within the incidental or indirect beneft
exception,andprovidesfundstoschools
not under the exclusive control of offcers
ofthepublicschools.
Nopersonshallberequiredtoattendorsupportanyministryorplaceof
worship,religioussectordenominationagainsthisconsent.Norshallany
preferencebegivenbylawtoanyreligiousdenominationormodeofworship.
ColorAdo Const.Art.II,4.
Blaine Amendments
Noappropriationshallbemadeforcharitable,industrial,educationalor
benevolentpurposestoanyperson,corporationorcommunitynotunderthe
absolutecontrolofthestate,nortoanydenominationalorsectarianinstitutionor
association.ColorAdo Const.Art.V,34.
Neitherthegeneralassembly,noranycounty,city,town,township,schooldistrictor
otherpubliccorporation,shallevermakeanyappropriation,orpayfromanypublic
fundormoneyswhatever,anythinginaidofanychurchorsectariansociety,orfor
anysectarianpurpose,ortohelpsupportorsustainanyschool,academy,seminary,
college, university or other literary or scientifc institution, controlled by any church or
sectariandenominationwhatsoever;norshallanygrantordonationofland,money
orotherpersonalproperty,everbemadebythestate,oranysuchpubliccorporation
toanychurch,orforanysectarianpurpose.ColorAdo Const.Art.IX,7.
Education Articles
Thegeneralassemblyshall,assoonaspracticable,providefortheestablishment
andmaintenanceofathoroughanduniformsystemoffreepublicschools
throughoutthestate.ColorAdo Const.Art.IX,2.
Thepublicschoolfundofthestateshall,exceptasprovidedinthisarticleIX,
foreverremaininviolateandintactandtheinterestandotherincomethereon,
only,shallbeexpendedinthemaintenanceoftheschoolsofthestate,andshallbe
distributedamongsttheseveralcountiesandschooldistrictsofthestate,insuch
mannerasmaybeprescribedbylaw.ColorAdo Const.Art.IX,3.
Thegeneralassemblyshall,bylaw,providefororganizationofschooldistricts
ofconvenientsize,ineachofwhichshallbeestablishedaboardofeducation,
to consist of three or more directors to be elected by the qualifed electors of the
district.Saiddirectorsshallhavecontrolofinstructioninthepublicschoolsof
theirrespectivedistricts.ColorAdo Const.Art.IX,15.
CDLDPA0D
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Owens v. Colorado Congress of Parents,92
P.3d933(Colo.2004)
TheColoradoSupremeCourt
heldthatapilotvoucherprogram
violatedtheColoradoConstitutions
localcontrolprovision(ArticleIX,
Section15)becauseitrequiredschool
districtstopassaportionoftheir
locallyraisedfundstononpublic
schoolsoverwhoseinstructionthe
districtshadnocontrol.
17
CharterSchools: Yes
ColoradoRevisedStatutesSections22-36-
101to22-36-106
Interdistrict/mandatoryandIntradistrict/
voluntary
ColoradoRevisedStatutesSections22-1-122
ColoradoRevisedStatutesSections22-30.5-
101to22-30.5-115
CDLDPA0D
BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforColorado.
AlthoughColoradosConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupportClause
andtwoBlaineAmendments,Coloradostatecourtshaveinterpretedthem
narrowly.Inanimportant1982caserejectingaBlaineAmendmentchallenge
toColoradoshighereducationgrantprogram,theColoradoSupremeCourt
explicitlynotedthatsuchscholarshipsaidstudents,nottheschoolsthey
happentoattend,religiousorotherwise.
FuturevoucherlegislationshouldnotetheColoradoSupremeCourtsdecision
inOwensandfundtheprogramexclusivelythroughstateratherthanlocal
revenues.
Scholarship Program, Foster Child Scholarship Program, Autism Scholarship, Great
Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax Credit Program
18
Americans United for Separation of
Church & State Fund, Inc. v. State,648
P.2d1072(Colo.1982)
TheColoradoSupremeCourtupheld
theColoradohighereducationgrant
programagainstachallengebrought
underoneofitsBlaineAmendments
(ArticleIX,Section7)becausethe
program benefts students, not
theirschools,becauseitisavailable
toprivateaswellaspublicschool
students,andbecauseiteliminates
anydangerofindirectlysupporting
religiousmissionsbyattaching
statutoryconditionsontheuseofthe
money.
ItbeingtherightofallmentoworshiptheSupremeBeing,theGreatCreator
andPreserveroftheUniverse,andtorenderthatworshipinamodeconsistent
withthedictatesoftheirconsciences,nopersonshallbylawbecompelledto
joinorsupport,norbeclassedorassociatedwith,anycongregation,churchor
religiousassociation.Nopreferenceshallbegivenbylawtoanyreligioussociety
ordenominationinthestate.Eachshallhaveandenjoythesameandequal
powers,rightsandprivileges,andmaysupportandmaintaintheministersor
teachersofitssocietyordenomination,andmaybuildandrepairhousesfor
publicworship.ConneCtiCut Const.Art.VII.
Education Articles
Thereshallalwaysbefreepublicelementaryandsecondaryschoolsinthestate.
Thegeneralassemblyshallimplementthisprinciplebyappropriatelegislation.
ConneCtiCut Const.Art.VIII.,1.
Thefund,calledtheSCHOOLFUND,shallremainaperpetualfund,
theinterestofwhichshallbeinviolablyappropriatedtothesupportand
encouragementofthepublicschoolsthroughoutthestate,andfortheequal
beneft of all the people thereof. The value and amount of said fund shall be
ascertainedinsuchmannerasthegeneralassemblymayprescribe,published,
and recorded in the comptrollers offce; and no law shall ever be made,
authorizingsuchfundtobedivertedtoanyotherusethantheencouragement
andsupportofpublicschools,amongtheseveralschoolsocieties,asjusticeand
equityshallrequire.ConneCtiCut Const.Art.VIII,4.
CDNNECTICUT
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Johnson v. Sanders,319F.Supp.421(D.
Conn.1970),affd,403U.S.955(1971)
Afederaldistrictcourtheldthata
Connecticutstatuteauthorizingthe
stateboardofeducationtocontract
withoperatorsofcertainprivate
nonproft sectarian elementary
andsecondaryschoolsforpublic
purchaseofseculareducational
serviceswasunconstitutional
becauseitexcessivelyentangledthe
statewithreligioninviolationofthe
EstablishmentClause.
Board of Education v. State Board of
Education,709A.2d510(Conn.1998)
TheConnecticutSupremeCourtheld
thatalawrequiringtransportation
ofprivateschoolstudentsat
publicexpense,evenondays
whenthepublicschoolswerenot
1
CharterSchools: Yes
ConnecticutGeneralStatutesSections10-266aa
Intradistrict/voluntary
ConnecticutGeneralStatutesSections10-221e
Intradistrict/voluntaryandInterdistrict/
voluntary
ConnecticutGeneralStatutesSections10-
226h
ConnecticutGeneralStatutesSections10-
66aato10-66gg
CDNNECTICUT
Bothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsfor
Connecticut.TheyareconsistentwiththeConnecticutConstitutionand
relevantConnecticutstatecourtdecisions.
TheConnecticutConstitutioncontainsnoBlaineAmendment,andthe
ConnecticutSupremeCourthastwiceruledthattransportationprograms
that include private school students beneft children, not schools. To avoid
potentialproblemswithConnecticutseducationarticle(ArticleVIII,Section
4),voucherprogramfundingshouldcomefromsourcesotherthanthe
statespublicschoolfund.
20
inattendance,didnotviolatethe
ConnecticutConstitutionsCompelled
SupportClause.Ithadthesecular
purposeofensuringchildsafetyand
was for the beneft of the students
ridingthebusesratherthanthe
schoolstowhichtheywerebeing
transported.
Snyder v. Newtown,161A.2d770,775
(Conn.1960)
TheConnecticutSupremeCourt
heldthattransportingprivateschool
studentsusingpublicmoneyis
constitutionallyacceptableaslong
asmoneydoesnotcomefromthe
publicschoolfundbecausesuch
transportationisforthehealth,safety
andwelfareofConnecticutcitizens
and only parents and children beneft.
[Y]etnopersonshalloroughttobecompelledtoattendanyreligiousworship,
tocontributetotheerectionorsupportofanyplaceofworship,ortothe
maintenanceofanyministry,againsthisorherownfreewillandconsent.
delAwAre Const.ArtI,1.
Blaine Amendment
Noportionofanyfundnowexisting,orwhichmayhereafterbeappropriated,or
raisedbytax,foreducationalpurposes,shallbeappropriatedto,orusedby,orinaid
ofanysectarian,churchordenominationalschool;provided,thatallrealorpersonal
propertyusedforschoolpurposes,wherethetuitionisfree,shallbeexemptfrom
taxationandassessmentforpublicpurposes.delAwAre Const.ArtX,3.
Education Articles
TheGeneralAssemblyshallprovidefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceof
a general and effcient system of free public schools, and may require by law that
everychild,notphysicallyormentallydisabled,shallattendthepublicschool,
unlesseducatedbyothermeans.delAwAre Const.ArtX,1.
NopartoftheprincipalorincomeofthePublicSchoolFund,noworhereafter
existing,shallbeusedforanyotherpurposethanthesupportoffreepublic
schools.delAwAre Const.ArtX,4.
TheGeneralAssembly,notwithstandinganyotherprovisionofthisConstitution,
mayprovidebyanActoftheGeneralAssembly,passedwiththeconcurrenceofa
majorityofallthememberselectedtoeachHouse,forthetransportationofstudents
of nonpublic, nonproft Elementary and High Schools. delAwAre Const.ArtX,5.
0ELAWAPE
RELEVANT CASE LAW
State ex rel. Traub v. Brown,172A.835
(Del.Super.Ct.1934)
TheSuperiorCourtofDelaware
heldthattransportingprivateschool
studentsatpublicexpensewould
helpbuildup,strengthenand
makesuccessfulreligiousschools
inviolationofthestatesBlaine
Amendment.
Opinion of Justices,216A.2d668(Del.
1966)
TheJusticesoftheDelaware
SupremeCourtopinedinan
advisoryopinionthatabillfor
transportingprivateschoolstudents
atpublicexpensewouldviolatethe
DelawareConstitutionbecauseeven
incidentalaidviolatesthelanguage
ofthestatesBlaineAmendment.
AtaxcreditprogramisDelawaresbestoptionforschoolchoice.The
DelawareConstitutioncontainsbothaCompelledSupportClauseanda
BlaineAmendment.TherestrictiveinterpretationofthelatterbyDelaware
statecourtsmakesageneralvoucherprogramproblematic.
In1934,aDelawareSuperiorCourtruledinTraub v. Brown thattransporting
privateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseviolatedthestatesBlaine
Amendment.Ina1966advisoryopinioninresponsetoalegislativebusing
proposal,theDelawareSupremeCourtopinedthattheTraub decision
wascorrect.Voterspassedaconstitutionalamendmenttoovercomethis
restrictiveinterpretationofthestatesBlaineAmendment,butitislikelythat
voucherswouldrequireasimilaramendment.
Model Legislation: Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax Credit
Program
21
CharterSchools: Yes
14DelawareCodeAnnotated414
14DelawareCodeAnnotated401to413
14DelawareCodeAnnotated501to516
Blaine Amendment
Norevenueofthestateoranypoliticalsubdivisionoragencythereofshallever
betakenfromthepublictreasurydirectlyorindirectlyinaidofanychurch,sect,
orreligiousdenominationorinaidofanysectarianinstitution.floridA Const.
Art.I,3.
Education Articles
TheeducationofchildrenisafundamentalvalueofthepeopleoftheState
ofFlorida.Itis,therefore,aparamountdutyofthestatetomakeadequate
provisionfortheeducationofallchildrenresidingwithinitsborders.Adequate
provision shall be made by law for a uniform, effcient, safe, secure, and high
qualitysystemoffreepublicschoolsthatallowsstudentstoobtainahighquality
educationandfortheestablishment,maintenance,andoperationofinstitutions
ofhigherlearningandotherpubliceducationprogramsthattheneedsofthe
peoplemayrequire.floridA Const. Art.IX,1(a).
Theschoolboardshalloperate,controlandsuperviseallfreepublicschools
withintheschooldistrictanddeterminetherateofschooldistricttaxeswithin
thelimitsprescribedherein.floridA Const.Art.IX,4(b).
Theincomederivedfromthestateschoolfundshall,andtheprincipalofthe
fundmay,beappropriated,butonlytothesupportandmaintenanceoffree
publicschools.floridA Const.Art.IX,6.
FLDPI0A
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Bush v. Holmes,919So.2d392(Fla.2006)
TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthatthestateConstitutions
educationarticle(ArticleIX,1(a))mandatestheprovision
ofeducationonlythroughauniformpublicschoolsystem.
Inanunprecedentedruling,thecourtheldthatthestatemay
usepublicfundsonlyfortraditionalpublicschoolsandmay
notprovideadditionaleducationalopportunitiesoutsidethe
traditionalpubicsystem.
Bush v. Holmes,886So.2d340(Fla.1
st
DCA2004), affd on
other grounds,919So.2d392(Fla.2006)
Theen banc FloridaFirstDistrictCourtofAppealheldthat
Floridaspubliclyfundedvoucherprogramviolatedthe
statesBlaineAmendment.
Scavella v. School Board,363So.2d1095(Fla.1978)
TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthatastatutecapping
reimbursementexpensesfordistrictseducatingspecialneeds
studentsatprivateschoolsdidnotviolatetheuniformity
provisionofthestateConstitutionseducationarticle.
School Board v. State,353So.2d834(Fla.1977)
Inoneofitsmostsearchinganalysesofthephraseuniform
systemoffreepublicschools,theFloridaSupremeCourt
22
CharterSchools: Yes
FloridaStatutesSection1002.38
Interdistrict/voluntary
McKayScholarshipsforStudentsWith
Disabilities
VoluntaryPre-kindergartenEducation
Program
ThestatusofschoolchoiceinFloridaisunclear.Unfortunately,
inanunprecedenteddecision,theFloridaSupremeCourtstruck
downthestatesgroundbreakingOpportunityScholarships
voucherprogramforchildreninchronicallyfailingpublic
schools.Thecourtdeclaredthattheprogramviolatedthestate
Constitutions education article, specifcally the requirement to
provideauniformpubliceducation.Contrarytostatesupreme
courtsinWisconsinandOhio,theFloridacourtdecidedthat
theLegislaturemaynotprovideeducationaloptionsbeyond
thoseinthepublicschools.Still,thecourtlimiteditsdecisionto
OpportunityScholarshipsonly,leavinguntouchedFloridasother
schoolchoiceprograms.
Earlierinthesamecase,aFloridaappellatecourtstruckdown
OpportunityScholarshipsunderthestatesBlaineAmendment.
ThatrulingrancountertoyearsofFloridaSupremeCourtrulings
on the Blaine Amendment permitting incidental benefts to
religiousorganizationsastheby-productofprogramsdesignedto
advancethegeneralwelfare.TheFloridaSupremeCourtdidnot
reviewthatissue,andthevalidityoftheappellatecourtsholding
isunclearunderFloridalaw.
Despitetheuncertaintiessurroundingvouchers,taxcredit
programsarecompletelyconsistentwiththeFloridaConstitution,
evenasinterpretedbyHolmes,becausetheyinvolveprivaterather
thanpublicfunds.
Model Legislation: Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family
Education Tax Credit Program
FLDPI0A
23
heldthatitdoesnotrequirethateachcountys
schoolboardhavetheexactsamenumberofboard
members.
Nohrr v. Brevard County Educational Facilities
Authority,247So.2d304(Fla.1971)
TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthatproviding
tax-exemptrevenuebondproceedstopublicand
privateuniversities,includingreligiouscolleges,
doesnotviolatetheU.S.orFloridaconstitutions.
Thebondswereissuedforthesecularpurpose
ofexpandingeducationalfacilities,anyaidto
religiousorsectarianorganizationswasincidental,
andissuingbondswasnotthesameasexpending
publicfundsfromthetreasury.
Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of Florida, Inc.,
239So.2d256,261(Fla.1970)
TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthatastatute
exemptingfromtaxationchurch-runretirement
homeswasconstitutionalunderFloridasBlaine
Amendmentbecauseithadthesecularpurpose
of improving care for the elderly and any beneft
fowing to religious interests was incidental.
Southside Estates Baptist Church v. Board of Trustees,
115So.2d697(Fla.1959)
TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthataschool
boardspolicyofallowingreligiousgroupstouse
schoolfacilitiesforreligiousservicesduringnon-
school hours provides only an incidental beneft
tothereligionitselfandthereforedoesnotviolate
FloridasBlaineAmendment.
Koerner v. Borck,100So.2d398(Fla.1958)
TheFloridaSupremeCourtupheldawillthat
gaveaparceloflandtoacountyforaparkbut
requiredthatreligiousgroupsbeallowedto
continueusinganadjacentlakeforbaptismal
purposes.Thecourtheldthatcounty-funded
improvementstothelakesdockingareadidnot
constituteaidtoreligiousgroupsinviolation
ofFloridasBlaineAmendmentbecausethe
improvements benefted all users of the lake.
Fenske v. Coddington,57So.2d452(Fla.1952)
TheFloridaSupremeCourtheldthathavinga
chapelforreligiousworshipinapublicschooldid
notviolatetheFloridaBlaineAmendmentbecause
thechapelwasmaintainedwithfundsfroma
privatetrust.
Blaine Amendment
Nomoneyshalleverbetakenfromthepublictreasury,directlyorindirectly,
inaidofanychurch,sect,cult,orreligiousdenominationorofanysectarian
institution.GeorGiA Const.Art.I,II,Para.VII.
Education Articles
PursuanttolawsnoworhereafterenactedbytheGeneralAssembly,public
fundsmaybeexpendedforanyofthefollowingpurposes:(1)Toprovidegrants,
scholarships,loans,orotherassistancetostudentsandtoparentsofstudentsfor
educationalpurposes.GeorGiA Const.Art.VIII,VII,Para.I.
Authorityisgrantedtocountyandareaboardsofeducationtoestablishand
maintainpublicschoolswithintheirlimits.Noindependentschoolsystem
shallhereafterbeestablished.GeorGiA Const.Art.VIII,V,Para.I.
CEDPCIA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Taetle v. Atlanta Independent School System,625S.E.2d
770,771(Ga.2006)
Inrefusingtovoidaleaseagreementbetweenalocal
schooldistrictandachurch,theGeorgiaSupreme
Courtheldthat[a]politicalsubdivisionofthisstate
cannotgivemoneytoareligiousinstitutioninsuch
awayastopromotethesectarianhandiworkof
theinstitution.Butthatisnottosaythatapolitical
subdivisionofthestatecannotenterintoanarms-
length,commercialagreementwithasectarian
institutiontoaccomplishanon-sectarianpurpose.
Richter v. Savannah,127S.E.739(Ga.1925)
Withnoanalysis,theGeorgiaSupremeCourtreinstated
ataxpayersuitseekingtostopthecityofSavannahfrom
payingfortheservicesofaCatholichospital.
Bennett v. La Grange,112S.E.482(Ga.1922)
TheGeorgiaSupremeCourtheldthatacityscontract
withaChristianserviceorganizationtoprovidecare
forthecityspoorviolatedtheprecursortoGeorgias
currentBlaineAmendmentbecausetheorganization
couldnotseparateitsreligiousandsecularmissions.
2000 Ga. AG LEXIS 11(2000OpinionAttorneyGen.
Ga.No.2000-5)
TheGeorgiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthatthe
24
CharterSchools: Yes
Offcial Code of Georgia Annotated Section
20-14-41
Intradistrict/mandatoryandInterdistrict/
mandatory
20-2-294and
20-2-293
Offcial Code of Georgia Annotated
Sections20-2-2060to20-2-2071
CEDPCIA
Georgia.TheGeorgiaConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendment,
butitalsocontainsaneducationprovision(ArticleVIII,Section
7,paragraph1)thatexplicitlyauthorizestheGeneralAssembly
toprovidegrantsandscholarshipstostudentsandparentsfor
educationalpurposes,suchasthoseofvoucherprograms.
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
25
federally-fundedGeorgiaReadingChallenge
Programgrantscouldnotbemadedirectlyto
churchesandotherreligiousinstitutionsforthe
provisionofafter-schoolcare,opportunitiesto
improvestudentreadingskills,andenhancement
ofstudentinterestinreadingwithoutviolating
GeorgiasBlaineAmendment.
1988 Ga. AG LEXIS 35 (1988OpinionAttorney
GeneralGa.126)
In an unoffcial opinion expressing the views of
the author and not the Attorney Generals Offce,
theseniorassistantattorneygeneralforGeorgia
opinedthatallowingareligiousorganizationto
generateincomethroughuseofschoolproperty
underaleasearrangementatlessthanthefair
marketrentalratewouldviolatetheindirectaid
languageofGeorgiasBlaineAmendment.
1988 Ga. AG LEXIS 11(1988OpinionAttorney
GeneralGa.94)
In an unoffcial opinion expressing the views of the
author and not the Attorney Generals Offce, the
seniorassistantattorneygeneralforGeorgiaopined
thatacountyschoolsystemcancontractwith
areligiousorganizationtoprovideafter-school
programsforitsstudentsifthearrangementdoes
not involve a fow of public or school funds from
theschoolsystemtothereligiousorganization.
1972 Ga. AG LEXIS 146(1972OpinionAttorney
Gen.Ga.266)
TheGeorgiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthatlegislation
providing$400peracademicyeartoGeorgiastudents
attendingreligiousinstitutionsofhigherlearningthat
werenotprimarilyforreligioustrainingisconsistent
withGeorgiasBlaineAmendment.
1969 Opinion Attorney Gen. No. 69-125(copy
availablefromtheInstituteforJustice)
TheGeorgiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat
theGeorgiaSupremeCourtwouldconsider
unconstitutionalacontractforgoodsorservices
betweenapublicelementaryorsecondaryschool
andaprivatereligiousschool.
1945-47 Opinion Attorney General p. 222 (copy
availablefromtheInstituteforJustice)
TheGeorgiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthata
countyboardofeducationmaynotexpendpublic
schoolfundstotransportchildrentoschoolsother
thanthoseoperatedbythepublicschoolsystem.
Blaine Amendment
TheStateshallprovidefortheestablishment,supportandcontrolofastatewide
systemofpublicschoolsfreefromsectariancontrolnorshallpublicfundsbe
appropriated for the support or beneft of any sectarian or nonsectarian private
educationalinstitution,exceptthatproceedsofspecialpurposerevenuebonds
authorizedorissuedundersection12ofArticleVIImaybeappropriatedto
fnance or assist: 1. Not-for-proft corporations that provide early childhood
education and care facilities serving the general public; and 2. Not-for-proft
privatenonsectarianandsectarianelementaryschools,secondaryschools,
collegesanduniversities.HAwAii Const.Art.X,1.
HAWAII
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Spears v. Honda,449P.2d130(Haw.
1969)
TheHawaiiSupremeCourtheld
thatastatuteauthorizingthe
transportationofprivateschool
studentsatpublicexpenseviolated
thestatesBlaineAmendment.
Opinion Attorney General Hawaii No.
03-01(2003)(copyavailablefromthe
InstituteforJustice)
HawaiisAttorneyGeneral
concludedthatapublicly-
fundedHawaiischoolvoucher
programwouldviolateHawaiis
BlaineAmendment,giventhe
HawaiiSupremeCourtsbroad
interpretationofthatprovision.
AtaxcreditprogramisthebestschoolchoiceoptionforHawaiigiventhe
historyandrestrictiveinterpretationofthestatesBlaineAmendment.
Model Legislation: Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax Credit
Program
26
CharterSchools: Yes
HawaiiRevisedStatutesSection302A-1143
HawaiiRevisedStatutesSections302A-
1181to302A-1188
worship,religioussectordenomination,orpaytithesagainsthisconsent.
idAHo Const.Art.I,4.
Blaine Amendment
Neitherthelegislaturenoranycounty,city,town,township,schooldistrict,orother
publiccorporation,shallevermakeanyappropriation,orpayfromanypublicfund
ormoneyswhatever,anythinginaidofanychurchorsectarianorreligioussociety,
orforanysectarianorreligiouspurpose,ortohelpsupportorsustainanyschool,
academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientifc institution,
controlledbyanychurch,sectarianorreligiousdenominationwhatsoever;norshall
anygrantordonationofland,moneyorotherpersonalpropertyeverbemade
bythestate,oranysuchpubliccorporation,toanychurchorforanysectarianor
religious purpose; provided, however, that a health facilities authority, as specifcally
authorized and empowered by law, may fnance or refnance any private, not for
proft, health facilities owned or operated by any church or sectarian religious
society,throughloans,leases,orothertransactions.idAHo Const.Art.IX,5.
Education Articles
Thestabilityofarepublicanformofgovernmentdependingmainlyupon
theintelligenceofthepeople,itshallbethedutyofthelegislatureofIdaho,to
establishandmaintainageneral,uniformandthoroughsystemofpublic,free
commonschools.idAHo Const.Art.IX,1.
No religious test or qualifcation shall ever be required of any person as a
conditionofadmissionintoanypubliceducationalinstitutionofthestate,
eitherasteacherorstudent;andnoteacherorstudentofanysuchinstitution
shalleverberequiredtoattendorparticipateinanyreligiousservicewhatever.
Nosectarianorreligioustenetsordoctrinesshalleverbetaughtinthepublic
schools, nor shall any distinction or classifcation of pupils be made on account
ofraceorcolor.Nobooks,papers,tractsordocumentsofapolitical,sectarianor
denominationalcharactershallbeusedorintroducedinanyschoolsestablished
undertheprovisionsofthisarticle,norshallanyteacheroranydistrictreceive
anyofthepublicschoolmoneysinwhichtheschoolshavenotbeentaughtin
accordancewiththeprovisionsofthisarticle.idAHo Const.Art.IX,6.
I0AHD
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Doolittle v. Meridian Joint School District,
919P.2d334(Idaho1996)
TheIdahoSupremeCourtheldthat
althoughIdahosBlaineAmendment
prohibitspayingforaspecialeducation
studentsplacementinareligious
schoolwithpublicfunds,thefederal
specialeducationgrantprogram(IDEA)
preemptsthestatelawandrequires
parentstobereimbursedwhenafree
andappropriateeducationisnotoffered
inpublicschoolsasrequiredbytheIDEA.
27
CharterSchools: Yes
IDAPA08.02.03
Intradistrict/mandatoryandinterdistrict/
voluntary
IC33-1401to33-1408
IC33-5201to33-5212,IDAPA08.02.4
I0AHD
TaxcreditprogramsareaviableschoolchoiceoptionforIdaho.Becauseof
therestrictiveinterpretationofIdahosBlaineAmendment,thetaxcredit
shouldbeavailabletoparentsregardlessofwhethertheyhavealreadypaid
fundstoaprivateorparochialschool.Inthatway,itwillbeclearthatthe
creditisarefundofmoneyforgovernmentservicesnotusedandthatitis
a beneft to the parent, not the school, as outlined by the Attorney Generals
1997opinion.
TheIdahoSupremeCourtisunlikelytoupholdavoucherprogramthat
includesreligiousschoolsgiventhatthecourtstruckdownastatute
allowingtransportationofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpenseasa
violationofthestatesBlaineAmendment.
Credit Program
28
Epeldi v. Engelking,488P.2d860(Idaho1971)
TheIdahoSupremeCourtheldthat
thestatecouldnotsubsidizethe
transportationofprivateschoolstudents
withoutviolatingIdahosBlaine
Amendment.
1997 Ida. AG LEXIS 2(1997Opinion
AttorneyGeneralIdaho13)
IdahosAttorneyGeneralconcluded
thatabilltoprovidetaxcreditsto
parentswhodonotusepublicschools
wouldlikelybeconstitutionalunder
IdahosBlaineAmendmentbecause
[t]hecreditisnotdependentupon
paymentofmoneytoasectarianschool,
and any benefts to parochial schools are
tenuousatbest.
HedistinguishedanearlierAttorney
Generalsopinionbynotingthatunder
thetaxcreditproposalthereisno
requirementthatthetaxpayerpayany
money to a private or church affliated
schoolbeforebeingabletoclaimthe
credit. The beneft fows to the taxpayer/
parent,nottotheschool.Thecredit
provides a beneft to parents for the stated
purposeofrelievingtheburdenonthe
statespublicschoolsystem.
1989 Ida. AG LEXIS 6, 10 (1989Opinion
AttorneyGeneral42)
IdahosAttorneyGeneralopinedthat
theIdahoCollegeWorkStudyProgram,
whichusespublicfundstopayfor
studentson-campusjobsatpublicor
privateuniversities,violatesIdahos
BlaineAmendmentbecauseitwouldaid
postsecondaryinstitutionscontrolled
bychurches,sectarianorreligious
denominations.
1995 Idaho Attorney General Annotated
Report 74 (copyavailablefromtheInstitute
forJustice)
AnAttorneyGeneralsGuideline
concludedthatataxcreditfortuition
paidtonon-publicschoolswouldbe
agrantordonationofmoneyin
violationofIdahosBlaineAmendment.
worshipagainsthisconsent.illinois Const.Art.I,3.
Blaine Amendment
NeithertheGeneralAssemblynoranycounty,city,town,township,school
district,orotherpubliccorporation,shallevermakeanyappropriationorpay
fromanypublicfundwhatever,anythinginaidofanychurchorsectarian
purpose,ortohelpsupportorsustainanyschool,academy,seminary,college,
university, or other literary or scientifc institution, controlled by any church
orsectariandenominationwhatever;norshallanygrantordonationofland,
money,orotherpersonalpropertyeverbemadebytheState,oranysuch
publiccorporation,toanychurch,orforanysectarianpurpose.illinois Const.
Art.X,3.
ILLINDIS
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Board of Education v. Bakalis,299N.E.2d
737(Ill.1973)
TheIllinoisSupremeCourtheldthat
astatuterequiringpublicschool
busestotransportprivateschool
studentsdidnotviolateIllinoisBlaine
Amendmentbecauseitwasprimarily
ahealth-and-safetymeasureforthe
beneft of all students and any aid to
religiousschoolschosenbyfamilieswas
incidental.
People ex rel. Klinger v. Howlett,305N.E.2d
129(Ill.1973)
thestatecannotprovidetuitiongrants
toprivateelementaryschoolswith
norestrictionsontheuseofpublic
fundsbecauseitcouldleadtopublic
subsidizationofreligiousservices.Such
subsidizationwouldviolateIllinois
BlaineAmendmentandthefederal
EstablishmentClause,whichthecourt
heldimposeidenticalrestrictionsonthe
establishment of offcial religions. In
addition,thecourtheldthatthestate
couldnottreatprivateschoolstudents
2
CharterSchools: Yes
105IllinoisCompiledStatutes5/10-21.3a
105IllinoisCompiledStatutes5/27a-1to
5/27a-13
TaxCreditsforEducationalExpenses
35IllinoisCompiledStatutes5/201m
ILLINDIS
BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforIllinois.
Inthemostrecentcases,theInstituteforJusticesuccessfullydefended
IllinoistaxcreditprogramfromchallengesunderboththeEstablishment
ClauseandIllinoisreligionclauses.Twostateappellatecourtsupheld
theprograminToneyandGriffth,andtheIllinoisSupremeCourtletthose
decisionsstandwithoutreviewingthem.
TheIllinoisConstitutioncontainsbothaCompelledSupportClause
andaBlaineAmendment,buttheIllinoisSupremeCourthasonly
founddirect,unrestrictedpaymentsofpublicfundstoreligiousschools
unconstitutional.Itapprovedthetransportationofprivateschoolstudents
atpublicexpenseandtheuseofpublicfundstopayforchildcareservices
atreligiousinstitutions.InBoard of Education v. BakalisandTrost v. Ketteler
Manual Training School,theIllinoisSupremeCourtpermittedsomepublic
supportforchildrenattendingreligiousschools,whichsuggeststhecourt
understandsthatsuchaidsupportschildren,notschools.
30
andpublicschoolstudentsdifferently
withrespecttotextbooksandnursing
services.
Cecrle v. Illinois Educational Facilities
Authority,288N.E.2d399(Ill.1972)
thestatecouldmaketax-exempt
bondsavailabletoprivate,religious
institutionswithoutviolatingthefederal
EstablishmentClauseortheIllinois
Constitution.
Trost v. Ketteler Manual Training School,118
N.E.743(Ill.1918)
thestatecanusepublicfundstopayfor
childcareservicesatreligiousinstitutions
becausethechildrenarenotrequiredto
attendreligiousservicesandtheschools
receivenoreimbursementforexpenses
associatedwithreligiousinstruction.
Nichols v. School Directors,93Ill.61(1879)
allowingpublicschoolbuildingstobe
usedforreligiousceremonieswhenthe
schoolsarenotinsessiondoesnotcompel
apersontosupportareligioninviolation
ofIllinoisCompelledSupportClause.
Toney v. Bower,744N.E.2d351(Ill.App.4
th
Dist.2001),appeal denied,195Ill.2d573(Ill.
2001);andGriffth v. Bower,747N.E.2d423
(Ill.App.5thDist.2001),appeal denied,258
Ill.Dec.94,755N.E.2d477(Ill.2001).
TwoIllinoiscourtsofappealsheld
thatIllinoistaxcreditforeducational
expensesisconstitutionalbecause
ithasaclearlysecularlegislative
purposeofensuringawell-educated
citizenryandrelievingpublicexpense,
hastheprimaryeffectofeffectuating
thosepurposes,andinvolvesnomore
governmententanglementwithreligion
thanmanyotherstatetaxlaws.The
programisconstitutionalunderboth
IllinoisBlaineAmendmentandthe
federalEstablishmentClause.Illinois
courtsinterpretthestateBlaine
Amendmentconsistentlywithfederal
EstablishmentClausecaselaw.
[A]ndnopersonshallbecompelledtoattend,erect,orsupport,anyplaceof
worship,ortomaintainanyministry,againsthisconsent.indiAnA Const.Art.
1,4.
Blaine Amendment
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the beneft of any religious or
theologicalinstitution.indiAnA Const.Art.1,6.
Education Article
[I]tshallbethedutyoftheGeneralAssemblytoencourage,byallsuitable
means, moral, intellectual, scientifc, and agricultural improvement; and
toprovide,bylaw,forageneralanduniformsystemofCommonSchools,
whereintuitionshallbewithoutcharge,andequallyopentoall.indiAnA
Const.Art.8,1.
IN0IANA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Embry v. OBannon,798N.E.2d157,166-
167(Ind.2003)
TheIndianaSupremeCourtupheld
dual-enrollmentprogramsthatallow
privateschoolstudentstoalsoenroll
inpublicschoolsandtoreceive
publiclyprovidedservicesintheir
privateschools.Thecourtsaidthe
programsdonotviolateeitherIndianas
BlaineAmendmentoritsCompelled
SupportClausebecausetheydonot
confer substantial benefts upon any
religiousortheologicalinstitution,nor
directlyfundactivitiesofareligious
nature.Thecourtwentontonote
that incidental benefts to religious
sectsorsocietiesdonotinvalidate
anotherwiseconstitutionalstatutory
programplainlyintendedand
formulatedtoserveapublicpurpose
inthiscase,education.
State ex rel. Johnson v. Boyd,28N.E.2d256
(Ind.1940)
TheIndianaSupremeCourtheld
thatneitherIndianasCompelled
SupportClausenorIndianasBlaine
Amendmentwereviolatedwhena
Catholicchurchcloseditsparishschool
anddonatedtheoldschoolbuildings
31
CharterSchools: Yes
IndianaCodeAnnotatedSections20-3.1-4-1
to20-3.1-4-2
IndianaCodeAnnotatedSections20-8.1-
6.1-2to20-3.1-6.1-3
IndianaCodeAnnotatedSection20-24-1to
20-24-11
IN0IANA
BothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforIndiana.
ThereasoningoftheIndianaSupremeCourts2003decisionupholding
dual-enrollmentprogramsprovidesstrongsupportforschoolchoice.
Specifcally, the opinion suggests that a state program plainly intended to
serveapublicpurposelikeeducatingitscitizenschildrenwouldbeupheld
regardless of whether it indirectly benefted a religious organization.
32
tothestate,whichsubsequentlyused
thebuildingasapublicschooland
employedpriestsasteachersRejecting
thecontentionthatthechurchor
religion were benefted by the school
boardsretentionofthepriests,thecourt
notedthatIndianasreligionclausesare
concernedwithdonationstoreligious
schoolsthatfurthertheirreligious
missions, not incidental benefts that
may fow to a religious institution as a
resultofprivatechoicesinthiscasethe
boardsdecisionthatthepriestswere
qualifed to teach the material provided
bythepublicschoolcurriculum.
1967 Ind. AG LEXIS 68(1967Opinion
AttorneyGeneralInd.9);see also1980
Ind. AG LEXIS 12(1980OpinionAttorney
GeneralInd.96)(schoolboardcannot
denyfreetransportationtoparochial
studentslivingalongestablishedbus
routesbutattendingschoolsoutsidethe
schooldistrict)
TheIndianaAttorneyGeneralwrote
thatprovidingfreebustransportation
forparochialschoolstudentsonthe
samebasisaspublicschoolstudents
doesnotviolateIndianasBlaine
Amendment because any beneft to
parochialschoolsisincidentaltothe
protectionandeducationofchildren.
[N]orshallanypersonbecompelledtoattendanyplaceofworship,pay
tithes,taxes,orotherratesforbuildingorrepairingplacesofworship,orthe
maintenanceofanyminister,orministry.iowA Const.Art.I3.
IDWA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Luthens v. Bair,788F.Supp.1032(S.D.Iowa1992)
AfederaldistrictcourtinIowaheldthatastate
taxdeductionforschoolexpenses,including
privateschooltuition,doesnotviolatethe
EstablishmentClausebecauseitisavailable
toparentsregardlessofwhethertheirchild
attendsapublic,privateorreligiousschool,
neitheradvancesnorinhibitsreligion,and
doesnotentanglethestatewithreligion.
Additionally, the court held that the benefts
stemmingfromthedeductiongotothe
parentsofthechildren,nottheschoolsthey
choose.
Rudd v. Ray,248N.W.2d125(Iowa1976)
TheIowaSupremeCourtheldthatalaw
providingforchaplainsandreligious
facilitiesatstatepenitentiariesdoesnot
violateIowasCompelledSupportClause
ortheFreeExerciseClauseofthefederal
Constitutionbecauseprisonersretainthe
abilitytoreasonablyexercisetheirfaith.
Knowlton v. Baumhover,166N.W.202(Iowa1918)
TheIowaSupremeCourtheldthatalthough
itwascalledapublicschool,educational
instructiongiveninachurchbuildingby
aCatholicpriestconstitutesasectarian
schoolandIowasCompelledSupport
Clauseprohibitsthelocalschoolboardfrom
supportingsuchaschoolwithpublicfunds.
33
CharterSchools: Yes
IowaCodeSection282.18
IowaCodeSection256F
TaxCreditsforEducationalExpenses
IowaCodeSection422.9,12
EducationalOpportunitiesAct(Individual
TaxCreditScholarships)
IowaCodeSection422.11M
Iowa.IowasConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupportClause,which
theIowaSupremeCourthasinterpretedasprohibitingdirectpayment
ofpublicfundstoreligiousschools.Ingeneral,however,thecourthas
notedthattheCompelledSupportClauseseekstoachievethesameend
asthefederalEstablishmentClauseandshouldbeinterpretedinline
withfederalEstablishmentClauseprecedent.Therefore,areligiously
neutralvoucherprogramoftrueprivatechoicethatgivesmoney
directlytoparentsislikelytobeupheldinaccordancewiththeU.S.
SupremeCourtsdecisioninZelman v. Simmons-Harris.
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
[N]orshallanypersonbecompelledtoattendorsupportanyformofworship
.kAnsAs Const.B.OFR.7.
Blaine Amendment
Noreligioussectorsectsshallcontrolanypartofthepubliceducationalfunds.
kAnsAs Const.Art.6,6(c).
Education Article
Localpublicschoolsunderthegeneralsupervisionofthestateboardof
educationshallbemaintained,developedandoperatedbylocallyelected
boards.Whenauthorizedbylaw,suchboardsmaymakeandcarryout
agreementsforcooperativeoperationandadministrationofeducational
programsunderthegeneralsupervisionofthestateboardofeducation,but
suchagreementsshallbesubjecttolimitation,changeorterminationbythe
legislature.kAnsAs Const.Art.6,5.
KANSAS
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Americans United for Separation of Church & State
v. Bubb,379F.Supp.872(D.Kan.1974)
Afederaldistrictcourtheldthatastate
statuteprovidingtuitiontostudents
attending qualifed private universities,
where all the qualifed schools in the state
werechurch-related,hadthevalidsecular
purposeofpromotinghighereducation,did
notprimarilyadvancereligionbecausethe
collegeswerenotovertlysectarian,anddid
notoverlyentanglethestatewithreligion.
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Atchison,28P.1000
(Kan.1892)
TheKansasSupremeCourtheldthatthe
CityofAtchisonhadnopowertoimpose
apropertytaxonitscitizenstoaidprivate,
sectarianschoolsortopromoteprivate
interestsandenterprises.
34
CharterSchools: Yes
KansasStatutesAnnotatedSection72-8233
KansasStatutesAnnotatedSections72-
1903to72-1911
Kansas.TheKansasConstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupport
ClauseandaBlaineAmendmentbutneitherhasreceivedmuch
judicialattention.Relativetootherstatesvariations,thescopeofthe
KansasBlaineAmendmentisverylimited;itonlypreventsreligious
sectsfromcontrollingpubliceducationalfunds.Asvoucherscanbe
fundedfromanynumberofrevenuesourcesandneithervouchersnor
tax beneft programs give public money directly to religious schools,
thereisnopossibilityforreligiouscontrolofthepubliceducationfund
asaresultofschoolchoiceprograms.Additionally,Kansascaselaw
demonstratesastrongtendencyforadheringtofederalprecedenton
EstablishmentClauseissues.InZelman v. Simmons-Harris,theU.S.
SupremeCourtupheldschoolchoiceprogramsunderthefederal
Constitution.
Credit Program
[N]orshallanypersonbecompelledtoattendanyplaceofworship,to
contributetotheerectionormaintenanceofanysuchplace,ortothesalaryor
supportofanyministerofreligion.kentuCky Const.5.
Blaine Amendment
Noportionofanyfundortaxnowexisting,orthatmayhereafterberaisedor
leviedforeducationalpurposes,shallbeappropriatedto,orusedby,orinaidof,
anychurch,sectarianordenominationalschool.kentuCky Const.189.
Education Articles
Nosumshallberaisedorcollectedforeducationotherthanincommonschools
untilthequestionoftaxationissubmittedtothelegalvoters,andthemajority
ofthevotescastatsaidelectionshallbeinfavorofsuchtaxation:Provided,
Thetaxnowimposedforeducationalpurposes,andfortheendowmentand
maintenanceoftheAgriculturalandMechanicalCollege,shallremainuntil
changedbylaw.kentuCky Const.184.
Allfundsaccruingtotheschoolfundshallbeusedforthemaintenanceof
thepublicschoolsoftheCommonwealth,andfornootherpurpose,andthe
GeneralAssemblyshallbygenerallawprescribethemannerofthedistribution
ofthepublicschoolfundamongtheschooldistrictsanditsuseforpublicschool
purposes.kentuCky Const.186.
Other Relevant Provisions
Taxesshallbeleviedandcollectedforpublicpurposesonlyandshallbe
uniformuponallpropertyofthesameclasssubjecttotaxationwithinthe
territoriallimitsoftheauthoritylevyingthetax.kentuCky Const.171.
EveryactenactedbytheGeneralAssembly,andeveryordinanceandresolution
passedbyanycounty,city,townormunicipalboardorlocallegislativebody,
levyingatax,shallspecifydistinctlythepurposeforwhichsaidtaxislevied,
andnotaxleviedandcollectedforonepurposeshalleverbedevotedtoanother
purpose.kentuCky Const.180.
KENTUCKY
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Neal v. Fiscal Court, Jefferson County,986S.W.2d
907(Ky.1999)
TheKentuckySupremeCourtheldthat
the Jefferson County fscal courts plan to
allocatefundsforthetransportationofprivate
elementaryschoolstudentsdidnotviolate
KentuckysBlaineAmendment.Distinguishing
theearlierBrady decision,thecourtnotedthat
fundswerepaidtothetransportationsystem
administeredbytheboardofeducation,not
directly to individual schools, and benefts
fowed toward the safety and welfare of
elementaryageschoolchildrenandnotintothe
accountsofnon-publicschools.
35
CharterSchools: No
703KentuckyAdministrativeRegulations
5:120
KENTUCKY
36
Fiscal Court of Jefferson County v. Brady,885
S.W.2d681(Ky.1994)
TheKentuckySupremeCourtheldthatthe
Jefferson County fscal courts direct payment
ofcountytaxrevenuestoprivateschoolsfor
schooltransportationsubsidiesviolatedthe
KentuckyBlaineAmendment.
Fannin v. Williams,655S.W.2d480(Ky.1983)
TheKentuckySupremeCourtheldthata
Kentuckystatutethatprovidedstate-supplied
textbookstochildreninprivateschools
violatedtheKentuckyBlaineAmendment.
Butler v. United Cerebral Palsy of Northern
Kentucky, Inc.,352S.W.2d203(Ky.1961)
TheKentuckyCourtofAppeals,whichwas
thenthestateshighestcourt,heldthata
statuteauthorizingpublicaidtoprivate
schoolsforexceptionalchildrendidnot
violate,amongotherconstitutionalprovisions,
KentuckysBlaineAmendmentbecausethe
fundswereforchildrenswelfarerather
thaneducation.
Rawlings v. Butler,290S.W.2d801(Ky.1956)
TheKentuckyCourtofAppealsheldthat
(1)acountyschoolboardsrentalofschool
buildingsfromachurch,wherethechurch
did not attempt to infuence or control the
schools,didnotviolatetheKentuckyBlaine
Amendment; and (2) county fscal courts
maycontributetaxfundstosubsidizethe
transportationofprivateschoolstudents
withoutviolatingtheKentuckyConstitution,
butmaynotusetaxfundsraisedforpublic
schoolpurposesforthetransportationof
privateschoolstudents.
Hodgkin v. Board for Louisville & Jefferson County
Childrens Home,242S.W.2d1008(Ky.1951)
Thestateshighestcourtheldthatashelter
maintainedbythecityofLouisvilleand
JeffersonCountydidnotconstituteacommon
schoolandwasthereforenotentitledto
receivefundsfromtheCommonSchoolFund.
However, the court specifcally noted that
nothingintheKentuckyConstitutionprevented
thestatefromfundingsuchaninstitution
throughothersourcesofpublicmoney.
KENTUCKY
37
Sherrard v. Jefferson County Board of Education,171
S.W.2d963(Ky.1942)
TheKentuckyCourtofAppealsheldthatthe
portionofaKentuckystatuterequiringthat
studentsattendingprivateschoolbegiven
thesametransportationrightsasstudents
ofpublicschoolsviolatedKentuckysBlaine
Amendment.
Pollitt v. Lewis,108S.W.2d(Ky.1937)
TheKentuckyCourtofAppealsheldthata
statutepurportingtogiveaprivatejunior
collegeorganizationthepowertolevyproperty
taxeswithoutsubmittingthequestiontothe
electorateviolatedSection184,oneofthe
KentuckyConstitutionseducationarticles.The
juniorcollegewasnotapublicschoolwithin
themeaningofSection184,andthestatute
containednoprovisionforsubmittingthe
proposedtaxtothevoters.
Williams v. Board of Trustees of Stanton Common
School District,191S.W.507(Ky.1917)
TheKentuckyCourtofAppealsruledthat
anarrangementbetweenacountyboardof
educationandareligiouscollege,underwhich
thecollegewaspaidtuitionfeesandbuilding
maintenancefeesfortheeducationofcounty
highschoolstudentsoutofpublicschool
funds,violatedKentuckysBlaineAmendment.
Opinion of the Attorney General 83-184(Ky.AG
1983)
TheKentuckyAttorneyGeneralopinedthat
parentsofadisabledchildarenotentitledto
reimbursementfromaschooldistrictforthe
costofaprivateschooleducationuntilthey
demandandarerefusedaccommodationby
thelocalschooldistrict.
Opinion of the Attorney General 83-247(Ky.AG
1982)
TheKentuckyAttorneyGeneralconcludedthat
parochialschoolstudentscouldnotrideon
publicschoolbusesevenwhentheytoowere
beingtransportedtothelocalpublicschool:
[I]fschooldistrictmoneyinanyrespectand
inanyamountisusedtotransportnonpublic
schoolchildrentheKentuckyConstitution
wouldbeviolated.
TaxcreditprogramsareaviableschoolchoiceoptioninKentucky.
TherestrictivelanguageofKentuckysConstitutionwithrespect
toeducationfundingandthemorerestrictiveinterpretationof
Kentuckysstatereligionclausesmakeinstitutingageneralvoucher
program diffcult, if not impossible.
*Theeducationfundingprovision,Section184,appearstoforeclose
ageneralvoucheroptionbecauseitrequiresthatallfundsraisedfor
educationalpurposesbespentonpublicschools,unlessthevoters
approvetheexpenditurebyreferendum.Butler,however,may
createalimitedexceptionforprogramsdirectedtospecialeducation
students.Thefundingforsuchaprogramshouldexplicitlycome
fromasourceotherthanthecommonschoolfund,andthemoney
shouldbeallottedtoparentsratherthanschools.Mostimportantly,
theprogramspurposeshouldbecouchedinlanguageotherthan
education,suchaschildsafety(thelanguageofNeal)andchild
welfare(thelanguageofButler).
Model Legislation: Special Needs Scholarship Program, Autism
Scholarship, Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax
Credit Program
Religion Provision
Nolawshallbeenactedrespectinganestablishmentofreligionorprohibiting
thefreeexercisethereof.lA. Const.Art.I,8..
1
Education Article
TheLegislatureshallprovidefortheeducationofthepeopleofthestateand
shallestablishandmaintainapubliceducationsystem.lA. Const.Art.VIII,1.
1LouisianaamendeditsConstitutionin1973todeletetwoBlaineAmendmentsthatdatedto
1879.
LDUISIANA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education,281U.S.370(1930)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatstudentsandthestate
were the benefciaries under a program providing textbooks
toparochialschoolstudents,nottheschoolorthereligious
denomination with which the school is affliated.
Helms v. Picard,151F.3d347(5thCir.1998)
The5
th
U.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsexaminedonlyfederal
EstablishmentClauseprecedentandheldthatLouisianas
specialeducationprogramdidnotoffendtheEstablishment
Clausebecause(1)thestatutespurposeofimproving
educationalopportunityfordisabledstudentswassecular,
and(2)thestatutedidnothavetheeffectofadvancing
religionbecauseitprovidesnoincentiveforparentstoselect
religiousinstitutions.
Seegers v. Parker, 241So.2d213(La.1970)(resultoverturned
bysubsequentconstitutionalamendment)
TheLouisianaSupremeCourtheldthatspendingtaxfunds
forseculareducationalservicesfromteachersemployedby
privateschoolsviolatedthreeprovisionsoftheLouisiana
Constitution:theprohibitionagainsttheenactmentofany
lawrespectinganestablishmentofreligionandtwoBlaine
Amendmentssubsequentlyrepealedin1973.
Borden v. Louisiana State Board of Education,123So.655(La.
1929)
DespitethepresenceofBlaineAmendmentsinthestate
Constitutionatthetimeofitsdecision,theLouisiana
SupremeCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityofaprogram
inwhichpublicfundswereusedtopurchase,amongother
things,textbooksforparochialschools.Thecourtexplicitly
accepted the argument that the primary benefciaries of the
aidwerethechildrenratherthantheschoolstheyattend.
38
CharterSchools: Yes
LouisianaRevisedStatutesAnnotated
Section17:105
LouisianaRevisedStatutesAnnotated
Sections17.3971through17.4001
TheLouisianaConstitutionnowcontainsparallellanguage
tothefederalConstitutionsreligionclauses,andboth
taxcreditandvoucherprogramsareconsistentwith
LouisianascurrentConstitution.InSeegers,theLouisiana
Supreme Court specifcally noted: The great similarity
oftheestablishmentclauseofourConstitutionandthatof
theUnitedStatesConstitutionallowsustousetheUnited
StatesSupremeCourtinterpretationsofthefederalclause
asanaidforinterpretingourown.GiventhattheU.S.
SupremeCourtsrulinginZelman upheldschoolvouchers
underthefederalEstablishmentClause,itislikelythat
LouisianasSupremeCourtwouldfollowthatdecision.
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
Education Articles
Ageneraldiffusionoftheadvantagesofeducationbeingessentialtothe
preservationoftherightsandlibertiesofthepeople;topromotethisimportant
object,theLegislatureareauthorized,anditshallbetheirdutytorequire,the
severaltownstomakesuitableprovision,attheirownexpense,forthesupport
andmaintenanceofpublicschools;anditshallfurtherbetheirdutytoencourage
andsuitablyendow,fromtimetotime,asthecircumstancesofthepeoplemay
authorize,allacademies,collegesandseminariesoflearningwithintheState;
provided,thatnodonation,grantorendowmentshallatanytimebemadebythe
Legislaturetoanyliteraryinstitutionnowestablished,orwhichmayhereafterbe
established,unless,atthetimeofmakingsuchendowment,theLegislatureofthe
Stateshallhavetherighttograntanyfurtherpowerstoalter,limitorrestrainany
ofthepowersvestedinanysuchliteraryinstitution,asshallbejudgednecessary
topromotethebestintereststhereof.mAine Const.Art.VIII,Pt.1,1.
ForthepurposeofassistingtheyouthofMainetoachievetherequiredlevelsof
learningandtodeveloptheirintellectualandmentalcapacities,theLegislature,
byproperenactment,mayauthorizethecreditoftheStatetobeloanedtosecure
fundsforloanstoMainestudentsattendinginstitutionsofhighereducation,
whereversituated,andtoparentsofthesestudents.Fundsshallbeobtained
bytheissuanceofstatebonds,whenauthorizedbytheGovernor,butthe
amountofbondsissuedandoutstandingshallnotatonetimeexceedinthe
aggregate$4,000,000.Fundsloanedshallbeonsuchtermsandconditionsasthe
Legislatureshallauthorize.mAine Const.Art.VIII,Pt.1,2.
Theinhabitantsofanymunicipalityshallhavethepowertoalterandamend
theirchartersonallmatters,notprohibitedbyConstitutionorgenerallaw,which
arelocalandmunicipalincharacter.TheLegislatureshallprescribetheprocedure
bywhichthemunicipalitymaysoact.mAine Const.Art.VIII,Pt.2,1.
hAINE
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Eulitt v. Maine Department of Education,386
F.3d344(1stCir.2004)
The1
st
U.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
heldthatMaineslawexcludingparents
whochoosereligiousschoolsfromthe
statestuitioningschoolchoicesystem
wasstillconstitutionalafterZelman.
Strout v. Commissioner, Maine Department of
Education,178F.3d57(1stCir.1999)
The1
st
U.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
upheldMaineslawexcludingparents
whochoosereligiousschoolsfrom
thestatestuitioningschoolchoice
system.
3
CharterSchools: No
MaineRevisedStatutesAnnotatedTitle20-
A,Sections5203-5205
TownTuitioningProgram(excludes
religiousschools)
MaineRevisedStatutesAnnotatedTitle
20-A,Sections2915-2955,5203-5204,5804,
5806
hAINE
TaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsforMaine.The
MaineConstitutioncontainsnoprohibitionsonpublicfundingofparental
choiceprogramsandMainealreadyhasoneofthenationsoldestand
mostsuccessfulvoucherprogramsitstuitioningsystem.Fornearlya
century,parentsintuitioningtownswerefreetochoosereligiousschools
aswellaspublicorprivatenon-religiousschools.Intheearly1980s,Maine
passedalawexcludingparentswhochoosereligiousschoolsfromthe
tuitioningprograminthemistakenbeliefthatithadtodosotocomply
withthefederalEstablishmentClause.Nonetheless,theLegislaturefaces
noconstitutionalhurdletoremovingitsdiscriminatorybanontuition
paymentsfortuitioningstudentsattendingreligiousschoolsortooffering
broaderschoolchoiceoptionstomoreMainefamilies.
40
Anderson v. Town of Durham,895A.2d944
(Me.2006)
TheMaineSupremeCourtupheld
Mainesdiscriminatorytuitioninglaw
asavalidexerciseofstatepower,even
though the original justifcation for
thatlawcomplyingwiththefederal
EstablishmentClausewasrejectedby
theU.S.SupremeCourtinZelman.
Bagley v. Raymond School Department,728
A.2d127(Me.1999)
PriortoZelman,theMaineSupreme
Courtheldthatdenyingtuition
paymentstoparentsintownswithout
apublichighschoolwhosenttheir
childrentoreligiousschoolsdidnot
violatetheFreeExerciseClauseofthe
FirstAmendmentandactuallywas
requiredtoavoidviolationoftheFirst
AmendmentsEstablishmentClause.
School Committee of York v. York,626A.2d
935(Me.1993)
TheMaineSupremeCourtheldthat
theLegislaturedoesnothaveexclusive
controlovereducation;municipalities
retainsomeauthorityovereducation
policy.
Opinion of Justices,261A.2d58(Me.1970)
ThejusticesoftheMaineSupremeCourt
opinedthatwhenthestatebuyssecular
educationalservicesfromreligious
schools,itsubsidizestheschoolsin
violationoftheFirstAmendmentand
Maineseducationarticles.
[N]oroughtanypersontobecompelledtofrequent,ormaintain,orcontribute,
unlessoncontract,tomaintain,anyplaceofworship,oranyministry.
mArylAnddeCl. of riGHts Art.36.
Education Articles
TheGeneralAssembly,atitsFirstSessionaftertheadoptionofthis
Constitution,shallbyLawestablishthroughouttheStateathoroughand
effcient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or
otherwise,fortheirmaintenance.mArylAnd Const.Art.VIII,1.
TheSchoolFundoftheStateshallbekeptinviolate,andappropriatedonlyto
thepurposesofEducation.mArylAnd Const.Art.VIII,3.
hAPYLAN0
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Horace Mann League, Inc. v. Board of Public Works,220A.2d51(Md.
1966)
Inupholdingtheconstitutionalityofstategrantstocollegesfor
academicbuildings,theMarylandCourtofAppeals,Marylands
highestcourt,heldthat[t]husitisseenthatgrantstoeducational
institutionsatalevelwherethestatehasnotattemptedtoprovide
universaleducationalfacilitiesforitscitizenshavenever,in
Maryland,beenheldtobeimpermissibleunderArticle36,even
thoughtheinstitutionsmaybeunderthecontrolofareligiousorder.
Johns Hopkins University v. Williams,86A.2d892(Md.1952)
Upholdingaloanissuedbythestatetoaprivateuniversityagainst
achallengebroughtunderArticleIII,Section34,whichprohibits
thestatefromsecuringprivatedebts,theMarylandCourtof
Appealsheld[t]hereisnoprohibitionintheConstitutionagainst
makingappropriationstoprivateinstitutions,providedthe
purposeispublic,orsemi-public,andthousandsandthousandsof
dollarsareappropriatedoutoftheannualreceiptseveryyear.
Board of Education v. Wheat,199A.628(Md.1938),see also Adams v.
County Commissioners of St. Marys County,26A.2d377(Md.1942)
TheMarylandCourtofAppealsheldthatusingpublicmoneyto
providetransportationforchildrenattendingprivateorparochial
schoolsdoesnotviolateMarylandsCompelledSupportClause
becausereligiousinstitutionswouldbeaidedonlyincidentallyas
theby-productofproperlegislativeactiontosecuretheeducation
ofchildren.
St. Marys Industrial School for Boys v. Brown,45Md.310(Md.1876)
AMarylandCourtofAppealsheldthatalthoughthestatecould
notappropriatemoneytoaninstitutionnotunderstatecontrol,it
couldcontractwithprivateandreligiousinstitutionsforthecare,
trainingandeducationofstatewards.
41
CharterSchools: Yes
MarylandCodeAnnotated,Education
Sections9-101to9-110
Bothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschool
choiceoptionsforMaryland.TheMaryland
ConstitutiondoesnotcontainaBlaineAmendment
andMarylandcourtshavealongtraditionof
readingitsCompelledSupportClausenarrowly.
TheMarylandCourtofAppealshasupheldthe
constitutionalityoftransportingprivateschool
studentsatpublicexpenseandofcontractingwith
religiousinstitutionsfortheeducationofstatewards.
Inmorerecentdecisions,thecourthasnotedthat
evendirectgrantstoprivateeducationalinstitutions
areacceptablewhenthestatehasnotattemptedto
provideuniversaleducationatthatlevel.Vouchers,
whichprovidemoneydirectlytostudentsand
parents and only incidentally beneft the schools
theychoosetoattend,arethereforelikelytosurvive
constitutionalscrutiny.
(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
Blaine Amendment
Nogrant,appropriationoruseofpublicmoneyorpropertyorloanofcredit
shallbemadeorauthorizedbytheCommonwealthoranypoliticalsubdivision
thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infrmary,
hospital,institution,primaryorsecondaryschool,orcharitableorreligious
undertakingwhichisnotpubliclyownedandundertheexclusivecontrol,
order and supervision of public offcers or public agents authorized by the
Commonwealthorfederalauthorityorbothandnosuchgrant,appropriation
oruseofpublicmoneyorpropertyorloanofpubliccreditshallbemadeor
authorizedforthepurposeoffounding,maintainingoraidinganychurch,
religiousdenominationorsociety.Nothinghereincontainedshallbeconstrued
topreventtheCommonwealthfrommakinggrants-in-aidtoprivatehigher
educationalinstitutionortostudentsorparentsorguardiansofstudents
attendingsuchinstitutions.mAssACHusetts Const. Amend.Art.XVIII,2.
hASSACHUSETTS
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Wirzburger v. Galvin,412F.3d271(1
st
Cir.2005)
The1
st
U.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatthe
MassachusettsAttorneyGeneralproperlydenied
certifcation of a proposed initiative to amend the
states Blaine Amendment to allow public fnancial
supporttobedirectedtostudentsattending
private, religiously affliated schools because a
separateconstitutionalprovisionplacestheBlaine
Amendmentoff-limitstotheinitiativeprocess.The
courtfurtherheldthatthisotherprovisiondid
notimpairthefreeexerciseofreligionunderthe
FirstAmendmentbecausetheexclusionsdidnot
discriminateonthebasisofreligiousbelieforstatus.
Matthew J. v. Massachusetts Department of Education,989
F.Supp.380(D.Mass.1998)
AMassachusettsfederaldistrictcourtheldthatthe
reimbursementofspecialeducationcostsunder
theIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct
(IDEA)foramentallyillhighschoolstudentina
Christianschooloutsidethestatedidnotviolatethe
MassachusettsBlaineAmendmentbecausethestate
wascompensatingachildtowhomithadabdicated
itsresponsibilitiesunderIDEA.
Attorney General v. School Committee of Essex,439N.E.2d
770(Mass.1982)
TheMassachusettsSupremeCourtheldthatastatute
requiringtransportationofprivateschoolstudentson
publicschoolbuseswasacommunitysafetymeasure
not unlike police or fre protection. Any beneft
42
CharterSchools: Yes
MassachusettsAnnotatedLawsChapter71,
Section37D
MassachusettsAnnotatedLawsChapter76,
Sections12,12A,12B,12C
MassachusettsAnnotatedLawsChapter
71,Section89
hASSACHUSETTS
Absentconstitutionalamendment,Massachusettslacksany
goodschoolchoiceoption.TheMassachusettsConstitution
containsanextremelyrestrictiveBlaineAmendment,which
cannotbealteredviareferendum.TheMassachusetts
SupremeCourthasinterpretedthatBlaineAmendment
broadly and allowed public funds to fow to private school
studentsonlyunderthefederalIDEAandfortransportation.
Instrikingdownatextbookloanprogram,thecourtrefused
todistinguishbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschools
theyattend.Inaddition,theMassachusettshighcourthas
opinedthateducationtaxcreditswouldalsoviolatethestates
BlaineAmendment,althoughitsopinionisnotconsidered
bindingprecedent.
43
providedtotheprivateschoolswasremoteanddid
not constitute substantial aid suffcient to violate the
MassachusettsConstitution.
Commonwealth v. School Committee of Springfeld,417
N.E.2d408(Mass.1981)
TheMassachusettsSupremeCourtheldthatusing
publicfundstopayforspecialeducationservicesfrom
privateschoolswasnotforthepurposeoffounding,
maintaining,oraidingprivateinstitutionsinviolation
ofMassachusettsBlaineAmendment.Thecourtnoted
thatpayingforspecialeducationservicesinprivate
schools was required only after it was frst determined
thatapublicschoollackedtheabilityordesiretomeet
theneedsofspecialeducationstudentsandthatthis
requirement was intended to beneft children, not to
aidorpromoteprivateschools.
Bloom v. School Committee of Springfeld,379N.E.2d578
(Mass.1978)
Seeingnodifferencebetweenloaningtextbooksto
privateschoolstudentsandloaningthemtothe
school,theMassachusettsSupremeCourtheld
thatMassachusettstextbooklendinglawwas
unconstitutional.Thecourtfurtherobservedthat
textbooksareofuseonlyintheeducationalcontext
andthereforeareabasiceducationaltooltobe
distinguishedfromotherbasicgovernmentservices
like police and fre protection.
Opinion of Justices to Senate,514N.E.2d353(Mass.1987)
ThejusticesoftheMassachusettsSupremeCourt
opinedthatproposedlegislationthatwouldprovide
taxdeductionsforcertaineducationalexpenses
(tuition,textbooksandtransportation)incurredby
taxpayerswhosedependentsattendedpublicor
nonproft private primary and secondary schools
wouldviolateMassachusettsBlaineAmendment.
Opinion of Justices,259N.E.2d564(Mass.1970)
opinedthatpurchasebythecommonwealthofsecular
educationalservicesfromprivateschoolswould
violatetheArticle46,Section2,oftheMassachusetts
Constitution,aprecursortoMassachusettscurrent
BlaineAmendment.
Opinion of Justices,236N.E.2d523(Mass.1968)
opined that the state could help fnance construction
projectsatprivateuniversitieswithoutviolatingthe
MassachusettsConstitution.
Nopersonshallbecompelledtoattend,or,againsthisconsent,tocontributeto
theerectionorsupportofanyplaceofreligiousworship,ortopaytithes,taxes
orotherratesforthesupportofanyministerofthegospelorteacherofreligion
.miCHiGAn Const.Art.I,4.
Blaine Amendments
No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the beneft of
anyreligioussectorsociety,theologicalorreligiousseminary;norshallproperty
belongingtothestatebeappropriatedforanysuchpurpose.miCHiGAn Const.
Art.I,4.
Nopublicmoniesorpropertyshallbeappropriatedorpaidoranypubliccredit
utilized,bythelegislatureoranyotherpoliticalsubdivisionoragencyofthe
statedirectlyorindirectlytoaidormaintainanyprivate,denominationalor
othernonpublic,preelementary,elementary,orsecondaryschool.Nopayment,
credit, tax beneft, exemption or deductions, tuition voucher, subsidy, grant
orloanofpublicmoniesorpropertyshallbeprovided,directlyorindirectly,
tosupporttheattendanceofanystudentortheemploymentofanypersonat
anysuchnonpublicschooloratanylocationorinstitutionwhereinstruction
isofferedinwholeorinparttosuchnonpublicschoolstudents.miCHiGAn
Const.Art.VIII,2.
hICHICAN
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Council of Organizations & Others for Education
about Parochiaid v. Governor,566N.W.2d208
(Mich.1997)
TheMichiganSupremeCourtheldthatthe
statescharterschoollawdoesnotviolate
MichigansBlaineAmendmentbecausethe
academiesarepublic.Thestateexercises
controlovertheapplication-approvalprocess
and it controls the academies fnances in the
samewayitcontrolsotherpublicschools.
Moreover,nothingintheMichiganConstitution
requiresthestatetoretaincompletecontrol
overaschoolforittobepublic.
Snyder v. Charlotte Public School District, 365
N.W.2d151(Mich.1984)
TheMichiganSupremeCourtheldthatthe
incidental and indirect benefts fowing to
religiousschoolsasaresultofasharedtime
statutedidnotviolateMichiganssecond
BlaineAmendment(ArticleVIII,Section2).
Sharedtimeprogramsallowstudentsto
leavetheirtraditionalclassroomforpartof
thedayandspendtimeatvocationalschools.
44
CharterSchools: Yes
MichiganCompiledLawsSection380.1280
MichiganCompiledLawsSections380.140,
388.1705to388.1705c
MichiganCompiledLawsSections380.501
to380.507
hICHICAN
Having specifcally precluded both tax credit and voucher programs
byconstitutionalamendment,therearenoschoolchoiceoptionsfor
Michiganwithoutaconstitutionalamendment.
45
Advisory Opinion Constitutionality of 1974 PA 242,
228N.W.2d772(Mich.1975)
TheMichiganSupremeCourtadvisedthat
textbooksandsuppliesareessentialaidsthat
constituteaprimaryfeatureoftheeducational
processandaprimaryelementrequiredfor
anyschooltoexist.Thecourtconcludedthata
MichiganBlaineAmendment(ArticleVIII,Section
2)barspublicfundingforsuchprimaryand
essentialelementsofaprivateschoolsexistence.
Traverse City School District v. Attorney General,185
N.W.2d9,29-31(Mich.1971)
TheMichiganSupremeCourtheldthatoneofthe
StatesBlaineAmendments(ArticleVIII,Section
2asamended)nowprohibitstheuseofpublic
fundsdirectlyorindirectlytoaidormaintaina
nonpublicschool.
Scalise v. Boy Scouts of America,692N.W.2d858
(Mich.Ct.App.2005)
AMichiganCourtofAppealsheldthataschool
districtspolicypermittingaboysgroupthat
endorsedreligiontouseitsfacilitiesduring
non-schoolhoursdidnotviolateMichigans
frst Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section 4) or
thefederalEstablishmentClausebecausemany
religiousandseculargroupsusedthefacilities
andthedistrictdidnotendorsetheboysgroup
overanyothergroup.
Alexander v. Bartlett,165N.W.2d445(Mich.Ct.
App.1968)
AMichiganCourtofAppealsheldthatastatute
permittinglocalschooldistrictstofurnish
transportationwithoutchargeforstudentsof
state-approvedprivateschoolsdidnotviolate
Michigans frst Blaine Amendment (Article I,
Section4)becausethestatutesintendedandactual
effectwastoassistparentsincomplyingwithstate
compulsoryeducationlawswhilerecognizingtheir
righttosendtheirchildrentoreligiousschools.
Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of P.A. 1970,
No.100,180N.W.2d265(1970)
TheMichiganSupremeCourtadvisedthe
LegislaturethattheStateSchoolAidBillallowing
thepurchaseofeducationservicesfromprivate
schoolsviolatesneithertheFirstAmendmentnor
the frst of Michigans Blaine Amendments (Article
I,Section4)becauseanysupportgiventoreligious
institutionsistenuousatbest.
[N]orshallanymanbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceof
worship,ortomaintainanyreligiousorecclesiasticalministry,againsthis
consent.minnesotA Const.Art.I,16.
Blaine Amendments
[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the beneft of any
religioussocietiesorreligiousortheologicalseminaries.minnesotA Const.Art.
I,16.
Innocaseshallanypublicmoneyorpropertybeappropriatedorusedfor
thesupportofschoolswhereinthedistinctivedoctrines,creedsortenetsof
anyparticularChristianorotherreligioussectarepromulgatedortaught.
minnesotA Const.Art.XIII,2.
hINNESDTA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Mueller v. Allen,463U.S.388(1983)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthat
Minnesotastaxdeductionforeducation
expenses,includingthecostoftuition,
textbooksandtransportation,doesnotviolate
thefederalEstablishmentClausedespite
overwhelmingly benefting parents with
studentsinparochialschools.Thededuction
hasthesecularpurposeofadvancing
education,isreligiouslyneutralonitsface,
providesonlyindirectsupporttotheschools,
anddoesnotfosterexcessiveentanglement
betweenreligionandthegovernment.
Stark v. Independent School District, No. 640,123
F.3d1068(8thCir.1997)
The8
th
U.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheld
thatalthoughapublicelementaryschools
studentswereallofonereligionandthe
schooladheredtoitslandlordsrequestthat
technologynotbeusedinthebuilding,the
MinnesotaConstitutionwasnotviolated
becausenoreligiousinstructionoccurredat
theschool.Therefore,althoughpublicfunds
wereusedtosupporttheschool,nopublic
fundswereexpendedinsupportofreligious
belieforinstruction.
Minnesota Higher Education Facilities Authority v.
Hawk,232N.W.2d106(Minn.1975)
TheMinnesotaSupremeCourtheldthat
bonds issued for the purpose of fnancing
46
CharterSchools: Yes
MinnesotaStatutesSection124D.03
MinnesotaStatutesSections124D.10to
124D.11
TaxCreditsandDeductionsfor
EducationalExpenses
MinnesotaStatutesSections290.01,
290.0674
hINNESDTA
Bothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptions
forMinnesota.TheMinnesotaSupremeCourts1970decision
regardingbustransportationindicatesthatthecourtdistinguishes
betweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheychooseto
attend. Signifcantly, more recently the Minnesota Supreme Court
electednottoreviewadecisionoftheMinnesotaCourtofAppeals
thatheldthatneitherthestatesCompelledSupportClausenorits
BlaineAmendmentareviolatedbygovernmentprogramsaimedat
helpingstudents,evenifthoseprogramsincidentallyaidreligious
organizations.
Minnesota has already created school choice tax beneft programs,
andU.S.SupremeCourtupheldthetaxdeduction.
47
constructionprojectsatinstitutionsofhigher
educationdonotconstituteanexpenditureof
publicfunds,andaccordinglydonotviolatethe
MinnesotaConstitutionsCompelledSupport
ClauseorBlaineAmendments.
Minnesota Civil Liberties Union v. State,224N.W.2d
344(Minn.1974)
Applyingnow-outdatedfederalprecedent,the
MinnesotaSupremeCourtheldthatastatute
allowingataxcreditforprivateeducationcosts
violatedthefederalEstablishmentClauseon
thenow-rejectedpremisethattaxcreditsare
thefunctionalequivalentofunrestrictedcash
paymentstoparentsforsendingtheirchildrento
religiousschools.
Americans United v. Independent School District,179
N.W.2d146(Minn.1970)
TheMinnesotaSupremeCourtupheldabusing
statuteallowingprivateschoolstudentstorideon
publicschoolbusesagainstachallengebrought
underoneofMinnesotasBlaineAmendments
(ArticleXIII,Section2)becausetheprograms
primary purpose and effect was neither to beneft
norsupportreligiousschools,despiteproviding
incidentalandindirectencouragementofprivate
schoolattendance.
Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Mammenga,500
N.W.2d136(Minn.Ct.App.1993)
TheMinnesotaCourtofAppealsheldthata
statuteallowinghighschoolstudentstoenroll
inclassesatpublicorprivatecollegesatstate
expensedidnotviolateMinnesotasCompelled
SupportClauseorBlaineAmendmentsbecause
any benefts fowing to religious colleges were
indirectandincidental,studentscouldattend
eitherpublicorprivatecollegestotakenon-
religiouscourses,thestatereimbursedonly42
percentofactualcosts,andreligiouscolleges
separated funds received to ensure that benefts
wereusedfornon-religiouspurposes.
Blaine Amendment
Noreligiousorothersectorsectsshallevercontrolanypartoftheschoolor
othereducationalfundsofthisstate;norshallanyfundsbeappropriatedtoward
thesupportofanysectarianschool,ortoanyschoolthatatthetimeofreceiving
suchappropriationisnotconductedasafreeschool.mississippi Const.Art.VIII,
208.
Other Relevant Provision
Nolawgrantingadonationorgratuityinfavorofanypersonorobjectshall
beenactedexceptbytheconcurrenceoftwo-thirdsofthememberselectof
eachbranchoftheLegislature,norbyanyvoteforasectarianpurposeoruse.
mississippi Const.Art.IV,66.
hISSISSIPPI
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Chance v. Mississippi State Textbook Rating &
Purchasing Board,200So.706,713(Miss.1941)
TheMississippiSupremeCourtheldthat
loaningpublictextbookstoprivateschool
pupilsdoesnotviolateMississippisBlaine
Amendmentbecause[t]hebooksbelong
to,andarecontrolledby,thestate;theyare
merelyloanedtotheindividualpupiltherein
designated.Thecourtfurtherheldthat
anyaidtoreligiousschoolsisincidentaland
werethestatetodenyuseofthosebooks
basedonthestudentschoiceofareligious
school,itmightwellviolateotherpartsof
theMississippiConstitution.
Otken v. Lamkin,56Miss.758(Miss.1879)
TheMississippiSupremeCourtheldthata
statuteallottingpartofthecommonschool
fundtostudentsattendingprivateschools
violatedtheexpresstermsofMississippis
BlaineAmendment.
48
CharterSchools: Yes
MississippiCodeAnnotatedSection37-28-
1to37-28-21
Mississippi.ItsConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendmentbutthe
MississippiSupremeCourtheldthatthestatecouldprovidetextbooks
toprivateandreligiousschoolstudentswithoutviolatingitsterms.By
distinguishingbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolsthey
choosetoattend,theMississippiSupremeCourthasprovidedstrong
supportforavoucherprogram.
Credit Program
MississippiCodeAnnotatedSection37-
15-31
MISSOURI
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
RELEVANT CASE LAW
PublicSchoolChoice:Yes
CharterSchools:Yes
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Thatnopersoncanbecompelledtoerect,supportorattendanyplaceor
systemofworship,ortomaintainorsupportanypriest,minister,preacheror
teacherofanysect,church,creedordenominationofreligion;butifanyperson
shallvoluntarilymakeacontractforanysuchobject,heshallbeheldtothe
performanceofthesame.missouri Const.Art.I,6.
Blaine Amendments
Thatnomoneyshalleverbetakenfromthepublictreasury,directlyorindirectly,
inaidofanychurch,sectordenominationofreligion,orinaidofanypriest,
preacher,ministerorteacherthereof,assuch;andthatnopreferenceshallbegiven
tonoranydiscriminationmadeagainstanychurch,sectorcreedofreligion,or
anyformofreligiousfaithorworship.missouri Const.Art.I,7.
Neitherthegeneralassembly,noranycounty,city,town,township,school
districtorothermunicipalcorporation,shallevermakeanappropriationorpay
fromanypublicfundwhatever,anythinginaidofanyreligiouscreed,churchor
sectarianpurpose,ortohelptosupportorsustainanyprivateorpublicschool,
academy,seminary,college,university,orotherinstitutionoflearningcontrolled
byanyreligiouscreed,churchorsectariandenominationwhatever;norshallany
grantordonationofpersonalpropertyorrealestateeverbemadebythestate,
oranycounty,city,town,orothermunicipalcorporation,foranyreligiouscreed,
church,orsectarianpurposewhatever.missouri Const.Art.IX,8.
Education Article
The proceeds of all certifcates of indebtedness due the state school fund, and all
moneys,bonds,lands,andotherpropertybelongingtoordonatedtoanystate
fundforpublicschoolpurposes,andthenetproceedsofallsalesoflandsandother
propertyandeffectsthatmayaccruetothestatebyescheat,shallbepaidintothe
statetreasury,andsecurelyinvestedunderthesupervisionofthestateboardof
education,andsacredlypreservedasapublicschoolfundtheannualincomeof
whichshallbefaithfullyappropriatedforestablishingandmaintainingfreepublic
schools,andfornootherusesorpurposeswhatsoever.missouri Const.Art.IX,5.
hISSDUPI
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Widmar v. Vincent,454U.S.263(U.S.1981)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatthestates
BlaineAmendmentsandCompelledSupport
Clausescannotjustifyastateuniversitys
policy denying religiously affliated student
groupstherighttomeetinuniversity
buildings.
Barrera v. Wheeler,531F.2d402(8thCir.1976)
The8
th
U.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheld
thatchildrenattendingnonpublicschoolsin
Missouriareentitledtoreceivefederalfunds
forremedialeducationprogramscomparable
inquality,scopeandopportunitytochildren
4
CharterSchools: Yes
MissouriRevisedStatutesSection167.131
MissouriRevisedStatutesSections162.1040
to162.1059,162.1060,167.151
MissouriRevisedStatutesSections167.349
to167.420
50
inpublicschools,notwithstandingthe
MissouriBlaineAmendments.
Felter v. Cape Girardeau School District,810F.
Supp.1062(D.Mo.1993)
Afederaldistrictcourtheldthatusingpublic
fundstoprovidetransportationforadisabled
studentfromparochialtopublicschool
doesnotviolatetheEstablishmentClause
oftheU.S.ConstitutionortheMissouri
Constitution.
Luetkemeyer v. Kaufmann,364F.Supp.376(D.
Mo.1973),affd by mem. op.,419U.S.888(1974)
Athree-judgefederaldistrictcourtheld
thatthestatesrefusaltoprovideschoolbus
transportationtoreligiousschoolpupilsdid
notviolatethestudentsequalprotection
rightsbecausethedecisionwasnotirrational.
Brusca v. Missouri,332F.Supp.275(D.Mo.
1971),affd,405U.S.1050(1972)
Afederaldistrictcourtheldthataparents
righttochooseareligiousprivateschool
forhischildrendidnotmeanthatthe
state was compelled to fnance his childs
privateschooleducation,nordidhehavea
constitutionalrighttoanycreditforhistaxes
whichsupportedthepublicschoolssimply
becausehewouldnotorcouldnotmakeuse
ofthem.
Americans United v. Rogers,538S.W.2d711(Mo.
1976)
TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthat
publiclyfundedhighereducationgrantsdo
notviolatetheMissouriConstitutionbecause
thepublicpurposeofthestatute,promoting
highereducation,overridesanyincidental
beneft to a private individual or private
college.
Mallory v. Barrera,544S.W.2d556(Mo.1976)
TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatuse
ofanypartoffederalTitleIeducationfunds
bythestatetoprovideremedialeducationto
elementaryandsecondaryschoolchildren
onthepremisesofparochialschoolsviolates
theBlaineAmendmentsoftheMissouri
Constitution.
hISSDUPI
51
Paster v. Tussey,512S.W.2d97(Mo.1974)
requiringpublicschoolboardstoprovide
textbookstoteachersinprivateschools
violatestheCompelledSupportClauseof
theMissouriConstitution,whilerequiring
textbookstobeprovidedtopupilsattending
privateschoolsviolatesaBlaineAmendment
(ArticleIX,Section8).
McDonough v. Aylward,500S.W.2d721(Mo.
1973)
TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatbeing
requiredtopaytaxesdoesnotinterferewith
parentsconstitutionalrighttosendtheir
childrentoreligiouslyorientedschools.
Special District for Education & Training of
Handicapped Children v. Wheeler,408S.W.2d60
(Mo.1966),see also Harfst v. Hoegen,163S.W.2d
609,614(Mo.1942)
TheMissouriSupremeCourtheldthatthe
Statemaynotusepublicschoolfundsto
sendpublicschoolspeechteachersintothe
parochialschoolstoprovidespeechtherapy.
Berghorn v. Reorganized School District,260
S.W.2d573(Mo.1953)
schoolstaughtbyCatholicnunsarenotfree
publicschoolsandthereforemaynotreceive
publicfunds.
McVey v. Hawkins,258S.W.2d927(Mo.1953)
useofstateandschooldistrictfundsfor
transportationofparochialschoolstudents
violatedoneofMissouriseducation
provisions(ArticleIX,Section5),which
requiredthatallfundsearmarkedforpublic
schoolsbeusedtomaintainfreepublic
schoolsandfornootherpurposes.
TaxcreditprogramsareMissourisbestoptionforaschoolchoice
program.Avoucherprogramwouldrequireastateconstitutional
amendmenttooverturntherestrictiveinterpretationsgiventoits
BlaineAmendmentsbytheMissouriSupremeCourt.
Model Legislation: Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education
Tax Credit Program
hISSDUPI
Blaine Amendment
(1)Thelegislature,counties,cities,towns,schooldistricts,andpublic
corporationsshallnotmakeanydirectorindirectappropriationorpayment
fromanypublicfundormonies,oranygrantoflandsorotherpropertyfor
anysectarianpurposeortoaidanychurch,school,academy,seminary,college,
university, or other literary or scientifc institution, controlled in whole or in part
byanychurch,sect,ordenomination.(2)Thissectionshallnotapplytofunds
fromfederalsourcesprovidedtothestatefortheexpresspurposeofdistribution
tonon-publiceducation.montAnA Const.Art.X,6.
Education Articles
Thepublicschoolfundshallforeverremaininviolate,guaranteedbythestate
againstlossordiversion.montAnA Const.Art.X,3.
Thesupervisionandcontrolofschoolsineachschooldistrictshallbevestedina
boardoftrusteestobeelectedasprovidedbylaw.montAnA Const.Art.X,8.
hDNTANA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Montana State Welfare Board v. Lutheran Social
Services,480P.2d181,186(Mont.1971)
TheMontanaSupremeCourtheldthat
paymentofpublicassistancetoindigent
expectantmothersisnotanunconstitutional
appropriation,loan,donation,orgrant
inviolationoftheMontanaConstitution,
simplybecausesuchpersonsmayrequest
thecounselingandassistanceof[religious]
privateadoptionagencies.Thecourt
wentfurtherandheldthat[i]nnowaydo
we fnd that [religious] private adoption
agencies are directly or indirectly benefted
by payments to or on behalf of a qualifed
recipient,norhavetheyeverreceivedsuch
funds.
State ex rel. Chambers v. School District,472P.2d
1013(Mont.1970)
TheMontanaSupremeCourtheldthata
specialtaxtopayforteachersatalocal
Catholicschoolviolatestheexplicitterms
ofArticleIX,Section8(thepredecessorof
thecurrentBlaineAmendment,ArticleX,
Section6)becauseitusespublicmoney
toaidasectarianschoolbypayingforits
teachers.
52
CharterSchools: No
forMontana.ThestateConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendment
onwhichtheMontanaSupremeCourtpremisedits1970decision
strikingdownaspecialtaxforgeneratingfundstopayteachersin
privateschools,which,unlikeschoolchoiceprograms,constitutesa
directappropriationtoprivateschools.TheAmendmenthasreceived
littlesubsequentattention.TheMontanaSupremeCourtshowedan
inclinationinMontana State Welfare Board v. Lutheran Social Servicesto
recognizeadistinctionbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschools
theychoosetoattend.
Credit Program
MontanaCodeAnnotatedSections20-5-
320,20-5-322to20-5-324
MontanaCodeAnnotatedSections20-5-
321to20-5-324
Nopersonshallbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceofworship
againsthisconsent.nebrAskA Const.Art.I,4.
Blaine Amendment
1.NotwithstandinganyotherprovisionintheConstitution,appropriationof
publicfundsshallnotbemadetoanyschoolorinstitutionoflearningnotowned
orexclusivelycontrolledbythestateorapoliticalsubdivisionthereof;Provided,that
theLegislaturemayprovidethatthestateoranypoliticalsubdivisionthereofmay
contractwithinstitutionsnotwhollyownedorcontrolledbythestateoranypolitical
subdivision to provide for educational or other services for the beneft of children
undertheageoftwenty-oneyearswhoarehandicapped,asthattermisfromtimeto
time defned by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.
2.Allpublicschoolsshallbefreeofsectarianinstruction.
3.Thestateshallnotacceptmoneyorpropertytobeusedforsectarian
purposes;Provided,thattheLegislaturemayprovidethatthestatemay
receivemoneyfromthefederalgovernmentanddistributeitinaccordance
withthetermsofanysuchfederalgrants,butnopublicfundsofthestate,any
politicalsubdivision,oranypubliccorporationmaybeaddedthereto.
4. A religious test or qualifcation shall not be required of any teacher or
studentforadmissionorcontinuanceinanyschoolorinstitutionsupportedin
wholeorinpartbypublicfundsortaxation.nebrAskA Const.Art.VII,11.
1
1Thisprovisionwasamendedin1976.Previously,itprohibitedtheappropriationofpublic
fundsinaidofanysectarianordenominationalschoolorcollege,oranyeducationalinstitution
thatisnotexclusivelyownedandcontrolledbythestateoragovernmentalsubdivisionthereof.
NEPASKA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Father Flanagans Boys Home v. Department of Social
Services,583N.W.2d774(Neb.1998)
TheNebraskaSupremeCourtrejectedthestates
attempttoinvokeitsBlaineAmendmenttoavoid
payingprivateschoolsforeducatingspecialneeds
studentsunderacontractsignedbythestate.The
courtheldthatpaymentsundersuchacontractarenot
thetypeofappropriationsprohibitedbyNebraskas
BlaineAmendment.
Cunningham v. Lutjeharms,437N.W.2d806(Neb.1989)
TheNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatlending
textbookstoprivateschoolsdoesnotviolatetheFirst
AmendmentsEstablishmentClausebecauseitmerely
makes available to all children the benefts of a general
programtolendschoolbooksfreeofcharge.Thecourt
foundthatthetextbooksweresecularinnatureand
theprogramwouldnotrequireexcessivemonitoring.
State ex rel. Creighton University v. Smith,353N.W.2d
267,272(Neb.1984)
TheNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatthefactthat
53
CharterSchools: No
NebraskaRevisedStatutesSections79-232
to79-246
NEPASKA
Bothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoice
optionsforNebraska.ItsConstitutioncontainsaBlaine
Amendmentthatwaschangedin1972and1976,which
createdalargedivideinthestatescaselaw.Asaltered,it
prohibitsonlyappropriationstoratherthaninaidof
sectarianschools.ApplyingtheupdatedBlaineAmendment,
theNebraskaSupremeCourthasheldthatthestatecan
supplytextbookstoprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpense
andcancontractwithreligiousschoolswithoutviolatingthe
NebraskaConstitution.Schoolchoiceprogramsintendedto
helpstudentsandhavingonlyincidentaleffectsontheschools
theyattendarethereforelikelytobeconstitutional.
Eligibility), Special Needs Scholarship Program, Foster Child
Scholarship Program, Autism Scholarship, Great Schools Tax Credit
Program, Family Education Tax Credit Program
54
a private institution derives indirect benefts from a
contractwiththestatedoesnottransformpayments
forcontractedservicesintoanappropriationofpublic
fundsproscribedbyarticleVII,11,oftheNebraska
Constitution[theBlaineAmendment].Thecourt
orderedtheStateDirectorofHealthtoconsideran
application for a public research grant fled by a
religiousuniversity.TheDirectorhadpreviously
refused,citingtheBlaineAmendment.
State ex rel. Bouc v. School District,320N.W.2d472(Neb.
1982)
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that any beneft
accruingtoprivateschoolasaresultofpublicly
supportedbusingofitsstudentsisincidentaland
thereforenotaviolationofNebraskasBlaine
Amendment.
Lenstrom v. Thone,311N.W.2d884(Neb.1981)
TheNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatnothingin
theNebraskaConstitutionpreventsthestatefrom
creating a scholarship program to provide fnancial
assistancetostudentsattendingpublicandprivate
postsecondaryeducationalinstitutionsinNebraska.
Gaffney v. State Department of Education,220N.W.2d550,
557(Neb.1974)
InterpretingtheNebraskaBlaineAmendmentwhenit
stillprohibitedappropriationofpublicfundsinaid
ofanyprivateschool(languagethathassincebeen
removed),theNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthata
statuterequiringtheloanoftextbooksbypublicschools
tononpublicschoolsforstudentsingrades7to12
wasunconstitutional.Givingfreetextbookslends
strengthtotheschoolthat,inturn,lendsstrengthand
supporttothesponsoringsectarianinstitution.
State ex rel. Rogers v. Swanson,219N.W.2d726(Neb.1974)
Strikingdownastudentaidstatute,theNebraska
SupremeCourtheldthatusingpublicmoneytofund
atuitiongrantprogramviolatedthestatesBlaine
Amendment.Accordingtothecourt,noattemptwas
madetorestricttheuseoffundsand,asaresult,some
ofthefundsinvariablypaidforsectarianinstruction.
State ex rel. Freeman v. Scheve,93N.W.169,172(Neb.1903)
TheNebraskaSupremeCourtheldthatreadingfrom
theBibledoesnotconstitutesectarianinstruction.
Thus,whenpublicschoolteachersrequireBible
reading,publicfundsarenotgoingtosectarian
institutionsinviolationoftheprecursortothestates
currentBlaineAmendment.
Blaine Amendment
Nopublicfundsofanykindorcharacterwhatever,State,CountyorMunicipal,
shallbeusedforsectarianpurpose[sic].nevAdA Const.Art.11,10.
Education Article
Thelegislatureshallprovideforauniformsystemofcommonschoolsany
schooldistrictwhichshallallowinstructionofasectariancharacterthereinmay
bedeprivedofitsproportionoftheinterestofthepublicschoolfundduringsuch
neglectorinfraction.nevAdA Const.Art.11,2.
NEVA0A
RELEVANT CASE LAW
State v. Hallock, 16 Nev. 373 (Nev. 1882)
TheNevadaSupremeCourtheldthatpublicmoneygivento
aCatholicorphanageviolatestheBlaineAmendmentofthe
NevadaConstitution.
Attorney General Opinion 276(11-5-1965)(copyavailablefrom
theInstituteforJustice)
TheNevadaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat[t]he
requirementofafederalstatutethataschooldistrictwhich
receivesagrantforspecialaidtoeducationallydeprived
childrenmakesuchaidavailabletopupilsofprivateschools
doesnotviolateNevadasBlaineAmendmentiffederal
moneysarekeptseparate.
Attorney General Opinion 67(9-5-1963)(copyavailablefromthe
InstituteforJustice)
TheNevadaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat[t]heprohibition
ofexpendituresofpublicfundsforsectarianpurposes,as
containedinNevadasBlaineAmendment,wasprimarily
includedforthepurposeofpreventingsectarianreligious
instructioninpublicschools,asindicatedbyConst.,Art.11,
9,whichprohibitssectarianinstructioninanyschoolor
universityestablishedunderthestateConstitution.
Attorney General Opinion 209(9-12-1956)(copyavailablefrom
TheNevadaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat[h]ome
instructionofaprivateorparochialschoolstudentbypublic
schoolteacherswhensuchstudentisillisanunconstitutional
expenditureofpublicfundsforsectarianpurpose.However,
ifsuchstudentenrollsinthepublicschoolduringhisillness
hemaythenreceivesuchhomeinstruction.
Attorney General Opinion B-40(2-11-1941)(copyavailablefrom
TheNevadaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat[s]tatefunds
maybeusedtohospitalizecrippledchildreninasectarian
hospitalwherenoinstructionofanykindisimparted,and
suchusedoesnotviolateNevadasBlaineAmendment.
55
CharterSchools: Yes
NevadaRevisedStatutesSections386.500
to386.610
Despiteafewinauspiciousattorneygeneralsopinionsfrom
the1960sand70s,bothvoucherandtaxcreditprogramsare
schoolchoiceoptionsinNevada.Theonlycasediscussing
NevadasBlaineAmendmentisfrom1882whentheNevada
SupremeCourtdisallowedadirectappropriationofpublic
fundstoaCatholicorphanageinState v. Hallock.Nomore
recentconstitutionalinterpretationsexist,letaloneany
addressingprogramsaidingstudents.
Standingalone,theHallock decisionwouldnotbartheuse
ofeducationalvouchers,asthosefundswouldaidparents
whowouldchooseamonganarrayofeducationaloptions.
AlthoughNevadasLegislaturepassedalawrequiringthat
moneyallottedforpublicschoolsbeusedexclusivelyfor
publicschools,NevadaRevisedStatutesSection387.045,
otherpublicmoneygeneralrevenuesorlotteryproceeds,
forinstancecouldsupportavoucherprogram.
Alternatively, tax benefts aimed at offsetting the cost of
privateeducationareanotherpossibleschoolchoiceoption.
TheyfullycomplywiththeUniformandEqualTaxclauseof
NevadasConstitution(ArticleX,Section1)andtheseminal
caseinterpretingthatprovision,State v. Eastabrook,3Nev.173,
178(Nev.1867).
Butnopersonshalleverbecompelledtopaytowardsthesupportoftheschools
ofanysectordenomination.new HAmpsHire Const.Pt.FIRST,Art.6.
Blaine Amendment
Provided, nevertheless,thatnomoneyraisedbytaxationshalleverbegranted
orappliedfortheuseoftheschoolsorinstitutionsofanyreligioussector
denomination.new HAmpsHire Const.Pt.SECOND,Art.83.
Everymemberofthecommunityisthereforeboundtocontributehissharein
theexpenseofsuchprotection.new HAmpsHire Const.Pt.FIRST,Art.12.
[A]ndtoimposeandlevyproportionalandreasonableassessments,rates,and
taxes,uponalltheinhabitantsof,andresidentswithin,thesaidstate.new
HAmpsHire Const.Pt.SECOND,Art.5.
NEW HAhPSHIPE
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Trustees of Phillips Exeter Academy v. Exeter,27
A.2d569(N.H.1940)
TheNewHampshireSupremeCourtheld
thataidtoeducationalinstitutionsby
exemptingthemfromtaxationisaproper
exerciseofthelegislativepower.
Opinion of the Justices,616A.2d478(N.H.1992)
ThejusticesoftheNewHampshireSupreme
Courtopinedthataproposedvoucher
programviolatedtheNewHampshire
Constitutionbecauseitcontainedno
safeguardtopreventuseofpublicfundsfor
religiouspurposes.
Courtopinedthatappropriatingmoneyfrom
asweepstakesfunddirectlytoparochial
institutionsviolatestheEstablishment
ClauseoftheFirstAmendment.
Courtopinedthatnursingeducation
scholarshipsdonotviolatetheNew
HampshireConstitutionbecausetheywere
religiouslyneutralandintendedtofurther
theteachingofthescienceofnursing.
56
CharterSchools: Yes
AtaxcreditprogramisNewHampshiresbestoptionforschool
choice.Itiswell-establishedwithinNewHampshirecaselaw
thattaxexemptionsaimedatpromotingeducationforallNew
Hampshirecitizensbutincidentallyaffectingreligiousinstitutionsare
constitutionallyacceptable.Theyservealegitimatepublicpurpose
andcomportwithNewHampshiresuniformandreasonableand
fairsharetaxlawsasinterpretedbyNewHampshiresstatecourts.
TheNewHampshireSupremeCourthasnotruledonthe
constitutionalityofvouchersunderitsBlaineAmendment,butit
didsuggestinits1992AdvisoryOpinionthattheywouldviolatethe
BlaineAmendment.WhileAdvisoryOpinionsarenotbindinglegal
precedent,theycanbepersuasivetocourtsinsubsequentcases.One
potentialwayofavoidingtheBlaineAmendmentwouldbetousea
non-taxsourcesuchaslotteryproceedstofundtheprogram.
Credit Program
NewHampshireRevisedStatutes
Annotated194-B:1to194-B:22
NewHampshireRevisedStatutes
Annotated194-B:1-194-B:22
[N]orshallanypersonbeobligedtopaytithes,taxes,orotherratesforbuildingor
repairinganychurchorchurches,placeorplacesofworship,orforthemaintenance
ofanyministerorministry,contrarytowhathebelievestoberightorhas
deliberatelyandvoluntarilyengagedtoperform.new Jersey Const.Art.I,3.
Education Provisions
TheLegislatureshallprovideforthemaintenanceandsupportofathoroughand
effcient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State
between the ages of fve and eighteen years. new Jersey Const.Art.VIII,IV,1.
Thefundforthesupportoffreepublicschoolsshallbesecurelyinvested,and
remainaperpetualfund;andtheincomethereof,exceptsomuchasitmaybejudged
expedienttoapplytoanincreaseofthecapital,shallbeannuallyappropriatedtothe
support of free public schools, and for the equal beneft of all the people of the State;
anditshallnotbecompetent,exceptashereinafterprovided,fortheLegislatureto
borrow,appropriateorusethesaidfundoranypartthereofforanyotherpurpose,
underanypretensewhatever.new Jersey Const.Art.VIII,IV,2.
NEW JEPSEY
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Everson v. Board of Education,330U.S.1(1947)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthattheFirstAmendment
doesnotprohibitNewJerseyfromspendingpublic
fundstopaythebusfaresofparochialschoolpupilsasa
partofageneralprogramunderwhichitpaidthefares
ofstudentsattendingpublicschools.
Resnick v. East Brunswick Township Board of Education,389
A.2d944(N.J.1978)
TheNewJerseySupremeCourtheldthatstatecould
allowreligiousgroupswhofullyreimbursedschool
boardsforrelatedout-of-pocketexpensestouse
schoolfacilitiesonatemporarybasisforreligious
serviceswithoutviolatingthefederalorNewJersey
constitutions.
Clayton v. Kervick,285A.2d11(N.J.1971)
ApplyingfederalEstablishmentClauseprecedent,the
NewJerseySupremeCourtheldthatsupplyingpublic
fundsfortheconstructionofdormsatprivatecolleges
passesconstitutionalscrutinyaslongasthebuildingsare
notusedforreligiousinstructionandtheschooldoesnot
discriminateonthebasisofreligioninitsadmissions.
Everson v. Board of Education,44A.2d333,337(N.J.1945)
NewJerseyshighestcourtheldthatthetransportation
ofprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpensewas
designedtohelpparentscomplywithmandatory
attendancelaws,whichisapublicpurpose,and
thereforedoesnotviolatetheNewJerseyConstitution.
57
CharterSchools: Yes
AsmandatedbyAbbott v. Burke,theNew
JerseyCommissionerofEducationmust
providevouchersforpre-schoolprograms
forall3and4yearolds,whomayattend
publicorprivateprograms.
Bothtaxcreditprogramsandvouchersareschoolchoice
optionsforNewJersey.ItsConstitutiondoesnotcontaina
BlaineAmendment,anditsCompelledSupportClause,while
receivinglittlejudicialattention,doesnotappeartopreclude
theuseoffundsotherthanthoseallottedforthepublic
schoolstosupporteducationalvouchers.
NewJerseyStatutesSections18A:36B-1to
18A:36B-13,18A:38-3
NewJerseyStatutesSection18A:36A
Nopersonshallberequiredtoattendanyplaceofworshiporsupportany
religioussectordenomination.new mexiCo Const.Art.II,11.
Blaine Amendments
[N]opartoftheproceedsarisingfromthesaleordisposalofanylandsgranted
tothestatebycongress,oranyotherfundsappropriated,leviedorcollected
foreducationalpurposes,shallbeusedforthesupportofanysectarian,
denominationalorprivateschool,collegeoruniversity.new mexiCo Const.Art.
XII,3.
Provisionshallbemadefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofasystemof
publicschoolswhichshallbeopentoallthechildrenofthestateandfreefrom
sectariancontrol,andsaidschoolsshallalwaysbeconductedinEnglish.new
mexiCo Const.Art.XXI,4.
Noappropriationshallbemadeforcharitable,educationalorotherbenevolent
purposestoanyperson,corporation,association,institutionorcommunity,not
undertheabsolutecontrolofthestate....new mexiCo Const.Art.IV,31.
Neitherthestatenoranycounty,schooldistrictormunicipality,exceptas
otherwiseprovidedinthisconstitution,shalldirectlyorindirectlylendor
pledgeitscreditormakeanydonationtoorinaidofanyperson.new
mexiCo Const.Art.IX,14.
NEW hEXICD
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Miller v. Cooper,244D.2d(N.M.1952)
The New Mexico Supreme Court reaffrmed
thatreligiousgroupscannotusepublic
schoolfacilitiestodisseminatereligious
materialbutrefusedtoenjoinreligious
individualsfromteachinginpublicschools.
Zellers v. Huff, 236P.2d949(N.M.1951)
TheNewMexicoSupremeCourtconcluded
thatpublicschoolteachersmaynotdress
inreligiousgarbandachurchmaynot
operateaschoolsystemwithinthepublic
schoolsystem.
Attorney General Opinion No. 99-01(1999)
ThisopinionoftheNewMexicoAttorney
Generalfoundthatvoucherspresentserious
constitutionalproblems,notwithstanding
earlierattorneygeneralopinionsto
thecontrary,becausetheyconstitutea
donationtoaprivateindividualin
violationofthestateConstitutionsanti-
58
CharterSchools: Yes
NewMexicoStatutesAnnotatedSections
22-1-4,22-2A-7
NewMexicoStatutesAnnotatedSection
22-12-5
VoluntaryPre-K(withchoiceofpublicand
privateproviders)
NewMexicoStatutesAnnotatedSection
32A-23)
NewMexicoStatutesAnnotatedSections
22-8B-1to22-8B-15
BothvouchersandtaxcreditsappeartobeconsistentwiththeNew
MexicoConstitution.
ThereisverylittlecaselawinterpretingeitherNewMexicosBlaine
AmendmentorCompelledSupportClause,andnon-bindingattorney
generalopinionsconcerningtheireffectsonvouchersarecontradictory.
TheNewMexicoConstitutionalsohasananti-donationclause
(ArticleIX,Section14)thatprohibitsthegovernmentfromgiving
giftsofmoney,propertyorcredittoprivateparties.Thiscouldbean
obstacletovouchers,butNewMexicocourtshavenotyetaddressedit
inavouchercontext.
NewMexicoschoolchoiceadvocatesshouldnoteNewMexicoscurrent
pre-Kvoucherprogram,establishedin2005.ByhavingtheChildren,
YouthandFamiliesDepartmentreimburseeligibleprivateproviders
andbycreatingaseparatevoucherfundfromwhichthosepayments
aremade,thepre-KprogramavoidsNewMexicosBlaineAmendments
anditspublicschoolfundingclause.
Special Needs Scholarship Program, Foster Child Scholarship Program, Autism
Scholarship, Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education Tax Credit
Program
5
donationclause(ArticleIX,Section14).
Inthisopinion,theNewMexicoAttorney
Generalconcludedthatproposedlegislation
appropriatingstatemoneyfortuitiongrants
tostudentsattendingprivatecollegesand
universitiesappearedtobeanoutrightgift
tostudentsinviolationtheanti-donation
clause(ArticleIX,Section14)becausethe
state received no consideration or beneft in
exchange.
Inthisopinion,theNewMexicoAttorney
Generaldeclaredthatavoucherprogram
underwhichtheparentsofexceptional
childrenwhoseneedswerenotbeingmetby
thepublicschoolscouldusethefundsthe
schooldistrictwouldotherwisehavespent
onthechildrentopurchasespecialeducation
atprivate,nonsectarianinstitutions
wouldbeconsistentwiththeNewMexico
Constitution.
NEW hEXICD
Blaine Amendment
Neitherthestatenoranysubdivisionthereof,shalluseitspropertyorcreditor
anypublicmoney,orauthorizeorpermiteithertobeused,directlyorindirectly,
inaidormaintenance,otherthanforexaminationorinspection,ofanyschool
orinstitutionoflearningwhollyorinpartunderthecontrolordirectionofany
religiousdenomination,orinwhichanydenominationaltenetordoctrineis
taught,butthelegislaturemayprovideforthetransportationofchildrentoand
fromanyschoolorinstitutionoflearning.new york Const.ArtXI,3.
NEW YDPK
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Board of Education v. Allen,392U.S.236(1968)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatNewYorkstextbook
loanprogramdoesnotviolatetheFirstAmendmentby
includingchildreninreligiousschoolsbecauseitwas
intended to aid students, not to beneft parochial schools
as such. Any beneft parochial schools received was
minimalandthereforenotanestablishmentofreligion.
Grumet v. Pataki,720N.E.2d66(N.Y.1999)
TheNewYorkCourtofAppeals,NewYorkshighest
court,heldthatastatutecreatingaseparateschooldistrict
for members of a specifc religious denomination had
theprimaryeffectofadvancingreligionandtherefore
constitutedanimpermissibleaccommodationtoasingle
religiousgroupinviolationoftheFirstAmendment.
Greve v. Board of Education,351N.Y.S.2d715(N.Y.App.
Div.1974),affd,325N.E.2d168(N.Y.1975)
TheNewYorkCourtofAppealsheldthatprovidinga
deafstudentwithatranslatoratpublicexpensedoesnot
violatetheNewYorkBlaineAmendmentifthetranslator
doesnotteachthestudentreligion.
Board of Education v. Allen,228N.E.2d791(N.Y.1967),affd,
392U.S.236(1968)
TheNewYorkCourtofAppealsheldthatNewYorks
textbookloanprogramdoesnotviolatethestates
BlaineAmendmentbecausetheamendmentwasnever
intendedtoprohibitstatepoliciesthatmightultimately
entail some beneft to parochial schools. The court
explicitlyrejectedthereasoningandconclusionofthe
Juddcase,whichforbadeinclusionofreligiousschool
studentsinatransportationprogram,andtheSmithcase,
60
CharterSchools: Yes
NewYorkConsolidatedLawService
EducationalProvisionsSection3202
NewYorkConsolidatedLawService
EducationalProvisionsSections2850to
2857
NEW YDPK
DespiteaninitiallyrestrictiveinterpretationofitsBlaine
Amendment,NewYorkcourtshaveabandonedthat
approachandbothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsare
schoolchoiceoptionsforNewYork.NewYorkshighest
statecourtheldinBoard of Education v. AllenthattheBlaine
Amendmentwasneverintendedtobargovernment
programs providing incidental benefts to parochial
schools.
Program
61
whichprohibitedprovidingfreetextbookstostudentsin
religiousschools.
Judd v. Board of Education,15N.E.2d576(N.Y.1938),overruled
byBoard of Education v. Allen,228N.E.2d791(N.Y.1967)
TheNewYorkCourtofAppealsheldthatalthoughbusing
all students to their schools was primarily for the beneft of
the child, it still had the effect of giving an incidental beneft
toreligiousschoolsandthusviolatedNewYorksBlaine
Amendmentprohibitingindirectaid.
Sargent v. Board of Education,69N.E.722(N.Y.1904)
TheNewYorkCourtofAppealsheldthatusingpublicfunds
topayCatholicnunstoeducateorphansdoesnotviolatethe
NewYorkBlaineAmendmentbecausetheorphanagewas
notaschool,andotherprovisionswithintheNewYork
Constitutionexplicitlyallowforthistypeofexpenditure.
Matter of Richard K. v. Petrone,815N.Y.S.2d270(N.Y.App.
Div.2006)
The Appellate Division held that pursuant to specifc
legislationandthedeepconcernforchildsafetyandwelfare
evincedinNewYorksConstitution,localschoolboards
mustprovidenursingservicestoparochialschoolstudentsor
reimburseparentsforacquiringthoseservicesontheirown.
Cook v. Griffn,364N.Y.S.2d632(N.Y.App.Div.1975)
TheAppellateDivisionheldthataschoolboardcannot
transport private school students on public buses for feld
tripswithoutsomestatutoryauthorityandthatwhile
parentshavetherighttosendtheirchildrentoprivateor
parochialschools,thereisnocorrespondingrighttoequal
stateaidoncetheymakethatdecision.
College of New Rochelle v. Nyquist,326N.Y.S.2d765(N.Y.
App.Div.1971)
TheAppellateDivisionoftheNewYorkSupremeCourt
heldthatStateaidcouldgotoaschoolthatwasfounded
andadministeredbyareligiousorderbutwasnotdirectly
controlledbythatorderanddidnotteachanyparticular
religiousdoctrinetotheexclusionofotherreligious
denominations.
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)
Inholdingthatprovidingtextbookstoparochialschool
studentsatpublicexpenseviolatedtheU.S.andNewYork
constitutions,theAppellateDivisionheldthatfurnishing
booksandordinaryschoolsuppliestothepupilsof
religiousschoolsaidsthoseschools.
Religion Provision
AllpersonshaveanaturalandinalienablerighttoworshipAlmightyGod
accordingtothedictatesoftheirownconsciences,andnohumanauthorityshall,
inanycasewhatever,controlorinterferewiththerightsofconscience.nortH
CArolinA Const.Art.I,13
Education Articles
Thepeoplehavearighttotheprivilegeofeducation,anditisthedutyofthe
Statetoguardandmaintainthatright.nortH CArolinA Const.Art.I,15.
Religion,morality,andknowledgebeingnecessarytogoodgovernmentand
thehappinessofmankind,schools,libraries,andthemeansofeducationshall
foreverbeencouraged.nortH CArolinA Const.Art.IX,1.
TheGeneralAssemblyshallprovidebytaxationandotherwiseforageneraland
uniformsystemoffreepublicschools.nortH CArolinA Const.Art.IX,2.
Theproceedsofalllandsthathavebeenorhereaftermaybegrantedbythe
UnitedStatestothisState,andnototherwiseappropriatedbythisStateorthe
UnitedStates;allmoneys,stocks,bonds,andotherpropertybelongingtothe
Stateforpurposesofpubliceducation;thenetproceedsofallsalesoftheswamp
landsbelongingtotheState;andallothergrants,gifts,anddevisesthathave
beenorhereaftermaybemadetotheState,andnototherwiseappropriated
bytheStateorbythetermsofthegrant,gift,ordeviseshallbefaithfully
appropriatedandusedexclusivelyforestablishingandmaintainingauniform
systemoffreepublicschools.nortH CArolinA Const.Art.IX,6.(Section7
repeatsthistextwithrespecttotheCountyEducationFund)
NDPTH CAPDLINA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Smith v. Board of Governors of University of North
Carolina,429F.Supp.871(W.D.N.C.1977),
affd,434U.S.803(1977)
Afederaldistrictcourtheldthatstatetuition
assistancetostudentsatcollegesdidnot
constituteexcessiveentanglementofstate
withreligiousactivitiesbecausethecolleges
werenotpervasivelysectarianand,although
therewasareligiouspresence,inculcation
ofreligionwasnotthecollegesprimary
purpose.
Heritage Village Church & Missionary Fellowship,
Inc. v. State,263S.E.2d726,730(N.C.1980)
Instrikingdownastatuteimposingmore
burdensomelicensingrequirementson
religiousorganizationsthanothers,the
NorthCarolinaSupremeCourtexplicitly
linkedinterpretationofthereligionclauses
intheNorthCarolinaConstitutionto
62
CharterSchools: Yes
NorthCarolinaGeneralStatutesSections
115Cto238.29Ato238.29K
BothtaxcreditsandvouchersareschoolchoiceoptionsforNorth
Carolina.TheNorthCarolinaConstitutiondoesnothaveaBlaine
AmendmentoraCompelledSupportClauseandstatecaseslookto
federalEstablishmentClauseprecedent.InZelman v. Simmons-Harris,
theU.S.SupremeCourtupheldschoolchoiceprogramsunderthe
federalConstitution.
ToavoidanypotentialproblemswithArticleIX,sections6and7of
theNorthCarolinaConstitution,voucherprogramfundingshould
explicitlycomefromsourcesotherthanthestatespublicschoolfund.
Credit Program
63
interpretationsoftheFirstAmendmentto
theU.S.Constitution.
State Education Assistance Authority v. Bank of
Statesville,174S.E.2d551,559(N.C.1970)
TheNorthCarolinaSupremeCourtheld
thatastateagencycouldissuetax-exempt
bondstoacquirestudentloandebtwithout
violatingtheNorthCarolinaConstitution
becauseadvancingeducationisapublic
purpose.Thecourtwentontoholdthat
[s]ubjecttoconstitutionallimitations,
methodstofacilitateandachievethepublic
purposeofprovidingfortheeducation
ortrainingofresidentsofthisStatein
institutionsofhighereducationorpost-
secondaryschoolsarefordeterminationby
theGeneralAssembly.
NDPTH CAPDLINA
Blaine Amendment
Allcolleges,universities,andothereducationalinstitutions,forthesupportof
whichlandshavebeengrantedtothisstate,orwhicharesupportedbyapublic
tax,shallremainundertheabsoluteandexclusivecontrolofthestate.Nomoney
raisedforthesupportofthepublicschoolsofthestateshallbeappropriatedtoor
usedforthesupportofanysectarianschool.nortH dAkotA Const.ArtVIII,5.
Education Articles
Ahighdegreeofintelligence,patriotism,integrityandmoralityonthepartof
everyvoterinagovernmentbythepeoplebeingnecessaryinordertoinsurethe
continuanceofthatgovernmentandtheprosperityandhappinessofthepeople,the
legislativeassemblyshallmakeprovisionfortheestablishmentandmaintenance
ofasystemofpublicschoolswhichshallbeopentoallchildrenofthestateof
NorthDakotaandfreefromsectariancontrol.Thislegislativerequirementshall
beirrevocablewithouttheconsentoftheUnitedStatesandthepeopleofNorth
Dakota.nortH dAkotA Const.ArtVIII,1.
Thelegislativeassemblyshallprovideforauniformsystemoffreepublicschools
throughoutthestate,beginningwiththeprimaryandextendingthroughallgrades
uptoandincludingschoolsofhighereducation,exceptthatthelegislativeassembly
may authorize tuition, fees and service charges to assist in the fnancing of public
schoolsofhighereducation.nortH dAkotA Const.ArtVIII,2.
NDPTH 0AKDTA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
DErrico v. Lesmeister,570F.Supp.158,162
(D.N.D.1983)
AfederaldistrictcourtheldthatNorthDakotas
highereducationtuitionassistanceprogram
violatedtheFirstAmendmentsEstablishment
Clausebecause[t]heneteffectisthatstudents
attendingtwosectarianreligiousschoolsin
NorthDakotaoperatedforexpressreligious
purposes are receiving state fnancial assistance.
Gerhardt v. Heid,267N.W.127(N.D.1936)
TheNorthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthat
wearingreligiousgarbwhileteachinginapublic
schooldoesnotviolateNorthDakotasBlaine
Amendment because it merely identifes the
religionoftheteacherratherthanattemptingto
convertthestudents.
Todd v. Board of Education,209N.W.369,371(N.D.
1926)
TheNorthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthatthe
requirementofauniformsystemoffreepublic
schoolsdoesnotmeanthatschoolfacilities
providedinanydistrictbymeansoftaxes
imposedthereinshallbeavailabletopupilsfrom
otherdistrictswithoutcharge.
64
CharterSchools: No
forNorthDakota.AlthoughitsconstitutioncontainsaBlaine
Amendment,avoucherprogramfundedfromsourcesotherthan
thepublicschoolfundcomplieswithitsterms.Itisunclearwhether
NorthDakotaadherestofederalprecedentonEstablishmentClause
issues,andtheuniformityclausewithinitseducationprovisionshas
receivedverylittlejudicialattention.
Interdistrictvoluntarytransfer
NorthDakotaCenturyCodeSections
15.1-31-01to15.1-31-07
Nopersonshallbecompelledtoattend,erect,orsupportanyplaceofworship,
ormaintainanyformofworship,againsthisconsent.oHio Const.Art.I,7.
Education Articles
Theprincipalofallfunds,arisingfromthesale,orotherdispositionoflands,
orotherproperty,grantedorentrustedtothisStateforeducationalandreligious
purposes,shallbeusedordisposedofinsuchmannerastheGeneralAssembly
shallprescribebylaw.oHio Const. Art.VI,1.
Thegeneralassemblyshallmakesuchprovisions,bytaxation,orotherwise,
as,withtheincomearisingfromtheschooltrustfund,willsecureathorough
and effcient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or
othersect,orsects,shalleverhaveanyexclusiverightto,orcontrolof,anypart
oftheschoolfundsofthisstate.oHio Const.Art.VI,2.
DHID
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,536U.S.639(2002)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatClevelandsScholarship
andTutoringProgramdoesnotviolatetheEstablishment
Clausebecausetheprogramisneutralwithrespectto
religion, provides benefts directly to a wide spectrum of
individuals,andallowsthoseindividualstofreelychoose
betweenreligiousandnon-religiousschools.
Kosydar v. Wolman,353F.Supp.744(S.D.Ohio1972),affd
sub nom., Grit v. Wolman,413U.S.901(1973)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatstatestatutes
thatprovidedtaxcreditstoparentsofpupilsin
predominantlyreligiousschools,whoincurred
educationalexpensesinexcessofthoseborneby
parentsgenerallyinsecuringapprovedprimaryand
secondaryschoolingfortheirchildren,violatedthe
EstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment.
Simmons-Harris v. Goff,711N.E.2d203(Ohio1999)
TheSupremeCourtofOhioheldtheCleveland
65
CharterSchools: Yes
OhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSection
3302.04e1ab
OhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSection3313.97
OhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSections
3313.98-3313.981
OhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSection
3314.02
ClevelandScholarship&TutoringProgram
OhioRevisedCodeAnnotatedSections
3313.974to3313.975
AutismScholarshipProgram
OhioEducationalChoiceScholarships
optionsforOhio.TheOhioSupremeCourtupheld
Clevelandsvoucherprogramunderboththestateand
federalconstitutions,andtheOhioLegislaturehassince
enactedtwomorevoucherprograms,oneforchildrenwith
autismandanotherforchildreninfailingpublicschools.
66
ScholarshipandTutoringProgramdoesnotviolate
eitherthefederalEstablishmentClauseorthestate
ConstitutionsCompelledSupportoreducationclauses,
butstruckdowntheprogramafterconcludingitviolated
thesingle-subjectrulecontainedinthestateConstitution
becauseitwaspassedaspartofthestatebudget.The
Legislaturequicklyre-authorizedtheprogramasstand-
alonelegislation.
Protestants & Other Americans United for Separation of
Church & State v. Essex,275N.E.2d603(Ohio1971)
TheOhioSupremeCourtheldthatallottingfederal
moneyandequipmenttoprivateschoolstocompensate
themfortestingoreducatingdeafanddisabled
studentsdoesnotviolatetheOhioConstitutionbecause
theaidtotheschoolisincidentalatbest.
Findley v. Conneaut,62N.E.2d318(Ohio1945)
TheOhioSupremeCourtheldthatawillprovidingfor
theestablishmentofaprivatepolytechnicindustrial
schoolinwhichtheteachingofProtestantreligionis
tobeaprominentfeatureauthorizesthecreationofa
religiousschool,forwhichmunicipalitiesarenotallowed
toissuebondsorexpendfundsraisedbytaxation.
Board of Education v. Minor,23OhioSt.211(Ohio1872)
Inrefusingtoenforceresolutionspassedbythestate
boardofeducationthatwouldprohibitthereadingofall
religiousmaterialsinpublicschools,theOhioSupreme
CourtheldthatthestateConstitutionneitherprohibits
norrequiresreligiousinstruction,orthereadingof
religiousbooks,inthepublicschoolsofthestate.
Honohan v. Holt,244N.E.2d537(OhioCt.Com.Pl.
FranklinCounty1968)
AnOhioCourtofCommonPleasheldthatthe
indirect benefts fowing to religious schools from the
transportationoftheirpupilsatpublicexpensedonot
constitutethesupportprohibitedbytheCompelled
SupportClauseoftheOhioConstitution.
Moore v. Board of Education,212N.E.2d833(OhioCt.
Com.Pl.MercerCounty1965)
AnOhioCourtofCommonPleasheldthatreligious
segregationofstudentsinpublicschoolsisnotperse
invalid,noristhewearingofreligiousgarbbyteachers
impermissible.Thecourtdidhold,however,thatthe
particularreleasetimeprogram,whichallowed
tostudentstoleaveclassforreligiousinstructionin
adjacentclassroomsorbuildings,amountedtotheuse
ofpublicfundsforoperationofparochialschoolsand
wasthereforeunconstitutional.
DHID
Blaine Amendment
Nopublicmoneyorpropertyshalleverbeappropriated,applied,donated,or
used, directly or indirectly, for the use, beneft, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, beneft, or support of any
priest,preacher,minister,orotherreligiousteacherordignitary,orsectarian
institutionassuch.oklAHomA Const.Art.II,5.
Education Articles
Provisionsshallbemadefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofasystemof
publicschools,whichshallbeopentoallthechildrenofthestateandfreefrom
sectariancontrol;andsaidschoolsshallalwaysbeconductedinEnglish:Provided,
thatnothinghereinshallprecludetheteachingofotherlanguagesinsaidpublic
schools.oklAHomA Const.Art.I,5.
SectionthirteenineveryportionoftheState,whichhasbeengrantedtotheState,
shall be preserved for the use and beneft of the University of Oklahoma and the
UniversityPreparatorySchool,one-third;ofthenormalschoolsnowestablished,
orhereaftertobeestablished,one-third;andoftheAgriculturalandMechanical
CollegeandColoredAgriculturalandNormalUniversity,one-third.Thesaid
landsortheproceedsthereofasaboveapportionedtobedividedbetweenthe
institutionsastheLegislaturemayprescribe:Provided,Thatthesaidlandsso
reserved,ortheproceedsofthesalethereof,orofanyindemnitylandsgrantedin
lieuofsectionthirteenshallbesafelykeptorinvestedandpreservedbytheState
asatrust,whichshallneverbediminished,butmaybeaddedto,andtheincome
thereof, interest, rentals, or otherwise, only shall be used exclusively for the beneft
ofsaideducationalinstitutions.Sucheducationalinstitutionsshallremainunder
theexclusivecontroloftheStateandnopartoftheproceedsarisingfromthesale
ordisposalofanylandsgrantedforeducationalpurposes,ortheincomeorrentals
thereof,shallbeusedforthesupportofanyreligiousorsectarianschool,college,
oruniversity,andnoportionofthefundsarisingfromthesaleofsectionsthirteen
oranyindemnitylandsselectedinlieuthereof,eitherprincipalorinterest,shall
everbediverted,eithertemporarilyorpermanently,fromthepurposeforwhich
saidlandsweregrantedtotheState.oklAHomA Const.Art.XI,5.
DKLAHDhA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Burkhardt v. City of Enid,717P.2d608(Okla.1989)
TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatamunicipalitys
purchaseofalocalcommunitycollegeandsubsequent
leaseofthecollegebacktoitsoriginalownersdidnot
violateOklahomasBlaineAmendmentbecausethe
collegewasnotreligious.Thecourtnotedthat,evenif
itwere,thecitycouldstillenterintothearrangement
assuming it received suffcient consideration.
Meyer v. City of Oklahoma City,496P.2d789(Okla.1972)
TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatmaintenance
byOklahomaCityofacrossonthecitysfairgrounds,at
aslightbutcontinuingpublicexpense,didnotviolate
OklahomasBlaineAmendmentbecauseitwasnot
operated for the use or beneft of any particular religion
67
CharterSchools: Yes
OklahomaStatutesTitle70Section1210.541
andOklahomaAdministrativeCodeSection
210:10-13-18
OklahomaStatutesTitle70Sections8-101.1
to8-112
OklahomaStatutesTitle70Sections3-130to
3-162
Taxcreditprogramsarethebestschoolchoiceoptionfor
Oklahoma.ItsConstitutioncontainsaBlaineAmendment
onwhichtheOklahomaSupremeCourtpremisedits
decisiontostrikedownaprivateschooltransportationbill
aftertheU.S.SupremeCourtsdecisioninEversonupholding
atransportationprograminNewJerseyunderthe
EstablishmentClause.Thisfailuretodistinguishbetween
aidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheyattendwould
probablyforeclosevoucherlegislation.
Program
68
orsectanditsreligioussymbolismwasobscuredbythe
commercialatmosphereinwhichitwasplaced.
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)
TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthattransportingpupils
ofparochialschoolsatpublicexpenseaidedtheschoolsand
wasforbiddenbyOklahomasBlaineAmendment.
State ex rel. Town of Pryor v. Williamson,347P.2d204(Okla.
1959)
TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatthestates
BlaineAmendmentdidnotprohibitthebuildingand
maintenanceofanon-denominational,non-sectarian
chapelonstategroundsatpublicexpense.
Murrow Indian Orphans Home v. Childers,171P.2d600(Okla.
1946)
TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatthestatesBlaine
Amendmentdidnotprohibitthestatefromcontracting
withreligiousorphanagestoprovidecareforneedy
children.
Sharp v. Guthrie,152P.203,408(Okla.1915)
Inupholdingacitysabilitytosellapublicparktoa
religiousuniversityforadollar,theOklahomaSupreme
Courtreasoned:[t]hecityhavingtherighttosellthe
property,andtheconsiderationbeingadequate,itwould
makenodifferencewhetherthegranteebeasectarian
institution or not, for a sale upon a suffcient consideration
wouldnotbewithintheprohibitionofsection5,art.2ofthe
Constitution[OklahomasBlaineAmendment].
Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. St. Josephs Parochial School,127P.1087
(Okla.1912)
TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatacityfranchise
contractthatrequiredatramlinetoprovidehalffare
ridesforallschoolchildren,whethertheyarepublicor
parochialschoolstudents,doesnotviolatethestatesBlaine
Amendment.Initsreasoning,thecourtnotedthatchildren
havearighttoattendprivateschoolandthatthereduced
fareshelppromoteeducationofchildren.Inaddition,the
courtstressedthatthecitycouldnotdiscriminateonthe
basisofreligioninacontract.
Connell v. Gray,127P.417(Okla.1912)
TheOklahomaSupremeCourtheldthatthepresident
ofastatecollegecouldnotrequirestudentstopayfor
aChristianathleticassociationasaconditionoftheir
enrollmentwithoutviolatingthestatesBlaineAmendment.
DKLAHDhA
Blaine Amendment
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the beneft of any religious [sic],
ortheologicalinstitution,norshallanymoneybeappropriatedforthepaymentof
anyreligeous[sic]servicesineitherhouseoftheLegislativeAssembly.oreGon
Const.Art.I,5.
DPECDN
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Dickman v. School District,366P.2d533(Or.
1961)
TheOregonSupremeCourtheldthatsecular
textbookscouldnotbesuppliedtoparochial
schoolstudentsatpublicexpenseunder
OregonsBlaineAmendment.
Fisher v. Clackamas County School District,507
P.2d839(Or.Ct.App.1973)
ApplyingthereasoningofDickman,the
OregonCourtofAppealsheldthatOregons
BlaineAmendmentpreventedthestatefrom
payingthesalariesofteacherswhoteach
secularsubjectstoparochialschoolstudents
only.

6
CharterSchools: Yes
OregonRevisedStatutesSections338.005to
338.185
TaxcreditprogramsareOregonsbestschoolchoiceoption.Having
refusedtodistinguishbetweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschools
theychoosetoattend,theOregonSupremeCourtisunlikelytouphold
voucherlegislation.
Credit Program
OregonRevisedStatutesSections339.125,
339.133
[N]omancanofrightbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceof
worship,ortomaintainanyministryagainsthisconsent.pennsylvAniA
Const.Art.1,3.
Blaine Amendment
NomoneyraisedforthesupportofthepublicschoolsoftheCommonwealth
shallbeappropriatedtoorusedforthesupportofanysectarianschool.
pennsylvAniA Const.Art.3,15.
Noappropriationshallbemadeforcharitable,educationalorbenevolent
purposestoanypersonorcommunitynortoanydenominationalandsectarian
institution,corporationorassociation:Provided,Thatappropriationsmay
bemadeforloansforhighereducationalpurposestoresidentsofthe
Commonwealthenrolledininstitutionsofhigherlearningexceptthatno
scholarship,grantsorloansforhighereducationalpurposesshallbegivento
personsenrolledinatheologicalseminaryorschooloftheology.pennsylvAniA
Const.Art.3,29.
PENNSYLVANIA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Christen G. v. Lower Merion School District,919F.
Supp.793(E.D.Pa.1996)
Afederaldistrictcourtheldthatinaccordance
withtheIDEAastatecouldreimburseparents
forprivateschooltuitionwithoutviolating
eithertheU.S.orPennsylvaniaconstitutions
becausethepaymentsdonotadvancereligion.
Haller v. Department of Revenue,728A.2d351(Pa.
1999)
ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtheldthata
taxexemptionforthesaleanduseofreligious
publicationssoldbyreligiousgroups
violatestheFirstAmendmentsEstablishment
Clausebecauseitshowsapreferencefor
religiouscommunicationswithoutsome
overarchingsecularpurpose.Theexemptions
narrowfocusmakesitunconstitutional.
Springfeld School District v. Department of
Education,397A.2d1154(Pa.1979)
ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtheldthatfree
schoolbustransportationprovidedtoparochial
schoolchildrendoesnotviolatethefederal
or state constitutions because any beneft to a
religiousinstitutionisindirectandincidental.
70
CharterSchools: Yes
24PennsylvaniaCodeSection13-1316
24PennsylvaniaCodeSections17-1701-Ato
17-1751-A
EducationImprovementTaxCredits
24PennsylvaniaCodeSections20-2001-Bto
20-2008-B
Pre-KTaxCredits
24PennsylvaniaCodeSection24-2003-B
Pennsylvania.ThePennsylvaniaConstitutioncontainsaCompelled
SupportClauseandaBlaineAmendment.Thelatterrestrictstheuse
offundsraisedforthepublicschoolsbutcanbeavoidedentirely
byfundingvouchersfromothergovernmentrevenue.Statecaselaw
demonstratesastrongadherencetofederalEstablishmentClause
precedentandincludesadistinctionbetweenappropriationsand
paymentsforservicesrendered,whichshouldensurevoucher
legislationscompliancewiththeBlaineAmendment.
Autism Scholarship, Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education
Tax Credit Program
71
Wiest v. Mt. Lebanon School District,320A.2d362,
366-67(Pa.1974)
Inholdingthatareligiousinvocationatthe
startofapublicschoolgraduationceremony
doesnotviolatetheFirstAmendment,the
PennsylvaniaSupremeCourtalsoconcluded
thatsuchaninvocationwouldnotoffend
PennsylvaniasCompelledSupportClause
becauseitiscoextensivewiththeFirst
Amendment.
Rhoades v. School District,226A.2d53(Pa.1967)
ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtupheld
theconstitutionalityofastatuteauthorizing
transportationofprivateschoolstudentsat
publicexpenseasahealthandsafetymeasure.
Schade v. Allegheny County Institution District,
126A.2d911(Pa.1956)
ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtheld
thatpayingpublicfundstoreligious
orphanagesdidnotviolatePennsylvanias
BlaineAmendmentbecausetheywerenot
appropriations,butratherpayments
forservicesrendered.Nothinginthe
PennsylvaniaConstitutionpreventsthestate
fromcontractingwithreligiousinstitutions
andthenpayingitsdebtsuponperformance.
Collins v. Martin,139A.122(Pa.1927)
Instrikingdownawelfareappropriationin
which public money would fow to private or
religioushospitals,thePennsylvaniaSupreme
CourtheldthatthePennsylvaniaConstitution
plainlystatedthatthepeoplesmoneyshould
notbegivenforcharity,benevolenceor
educationtopersonsorcommunities,orfor
anypurposetosectariananddenominational
institutions,corporationsorassociations.
Collins v. Kephart,117A.440(Pa.1921)
UnderanearlierversionofPennsylvanias
BlaineAmendment,thePennsylvania
SupremeCourtheldthatreligioushospitals
werebarredfromreceivingstatefundsdespite
theirstatusasworthycharities.
Giacomucci v. Southeast Delco School District,742
A.2d1165(Pa.Commw.Ct.1999)
ThePennsylvaniaCommonwealthCourtheld
thatalocalschoolboardlackedthestatutory
authoritytoinstituteavoucherprogram.
PENNSYLVANIA
[N]opersonshallbecompelledtofrequentortosupportanyreligiousworship,
place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfllment of such persons voluntary
contract.rHode islAnd Const.Art.I,3.
PHD0E ISLAN0
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Rhode Island Federation of Teachers v. Norberg,630F.2d855(1st
Cir.1980)
The1stU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthataRhode
Islandstatuteallowingataxdeductionforeducational
expensesviolatedtheEstablishmentClause.The
deductionwasoverwhelminglyclaimedbyparentsof
studentsinparochialschools,whichmeantithadmore
thananincidentaleffectontheadvancementofreligion,
accordingtothecourt.Inaddition,ensuringthatonly
secularmaterialsweredeductedwouldresultinexcessive
entanglement.TheU.S.SupremeCourtlateruphelda
similarprograminMinnesotainMueller v. Allen.
Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District v. Pontarelli,460
A.2d934(R.I.1983)
TheRhodeIslandSupremeCourtheldthatacommunitywas
notrequiredtopayfortheeducationofresidentstudentswho
chose to attend religiously affliated high schools because the
communityhadalreadyprovidedforfreeeducationatcertain
publichighschoolsoutsidethecommunity.
Bowerman v. OConnor,247A.2d82(R.I.1968)
TheRhodeIslandSupremeCourtupheldatextbookloan
programchallengedunderthestatesCompelledSupport
Clause.ThecourtreasonedthatRhodeIslandsCompelled
SupportClauseisnomorerestrictivethanthefederal
EstablishmentClauseandtheU.S.SupremeCourthadupheld
asimilarprograminNewYorkinBoard of Education v. Allen.
General Finance Corp. v. Archetto,176A.2d73(R.I.1961)
ExaminingfederalEstablishmentClausejurisprudence,the
RhodeIslandSupremeCourtupheldastatutegrantingtax
exemptionforreligiousbuildingsagainstaFirstAmendment
challenge.
72
CharterSchools: Yes
RhodeIslandGeneralLawsSections16-77-1
to16-77-11
optionsforRhodeIsland.GiventhatRhodeIslandcourts
adheretofederalEstablishmentClauseprecedentwhen
interpretingthestatesCompelledSupportClause,it
islikelythattheZelmandecision,withitsdistinction
betweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolsthey
choosetoattend,willbepersuasive.
Program
RhodeIslandGeneralLawsSection16-2-19
RhodeIslandGeneralLawsSections44-62-
1to44-62-7
Blaine Amendment
NomoneyshallbepaidfrompublicfundsnorshallthecreditoftheStateor
any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct beneft of any religious or
otherprivateeducationalinstitution.soutH CArolinA Const.Ann.Art.XI,4.
1
Education Article
TheGeneralAssemblyshallprovideforthemaintenanceandsupportofa
systemoffreepublicschoolsopentoallchildrenintheStateandshallestablish,
organizeandsupportsuchotherpublicinstitutionsoflearning,asmaybe
desirable.soutH CArolinA Const.Ann.Art.XI,3.
1Priortoitsamendmentin1973,theBlaineAmendmentread:Thepropertyorcreditof
theStateofSouthCarolina,orofanycounty,city,town,township,schooldistrict,orother
subdivisionofthesaidState,oranypublicmoney,fromwhateversourcederived,shallnot,by
gift,donation,loan,contract,appropriation,orotherwise,beused,directlyorindirectly,inaid
ormaintenanceofanycollege,school,hospital,orphanhouse,orotherinstitution,societyor
organization,ofwhateverkind,whichiswhollyorinpartunderthedirectionorcontrolofany
churchorofanyreligiousorsectariandenomination,societyororganization.SouthCarolina
Const.Ann.Art.XI,sec.9.(repealed)
SDUTH CAPDLINA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Durham v. McLeod, 192S.E.2d202,204(S.C.
1972)
2
TheSouthCarolinaSupremeCourtheld
thatusingpublicmoneytoguarantee
studentloansforstudentsattendingprivate
schoolsdidnotviolateSouthCarolinas
BlaineAmendmentbecausetheprogram
isreligiouslyneutralandsupportshigher
education,notinstitutionsofhigher
education.Itwasonthatbasisthatthecourt
distinguisheditsholdinginHartness.
Hartness v. Patterson,179S.E.2d907(S.C.1971)
3
TheSouthCarolinaSupremeCourtheld
thatgivingpublictuitiongrantstostudents
attendingprivateschoolsviolatesSouth
CarolinasBlaineAmendmentbecausethere
2Decidedundersince-repealedversionoftheSouth
CarolinaBlaineAmendmentthathadprohibiteddirect
orindirectaidtoparochialschools.
3Decidedundersince-repealedversionoftheBlaine
Amendmentthathadprohibiteddirectorindirectaid
toparochialschools.
73
CharterSchools: Yes
Interdistrict/Voluntary
SouthCarolinaCodeAnnotatedSections
59-63-45,59-63-490
SouthCarolinaCodeAnnotatedSections59-
40-10to59-40-210
forSouthCarolina.TheyarecompletelyconsistentwiththeSouth
CarolinaConstitutionandrelevantSouthCarolinastatecourt
decisions.
In1973,SouthCarolinaamendeditsBlaineAmendmentbyeliminating
thebanonindirectfundingofprivateeducationalinstitutions.
AccordingtotheauthoritativeWestCommittee,
1
thechange
refected the framers intent to allow public funds to be used to assist
studentswhoindependentlychoosetoattendprivateeducational
institutions,buttoprohibitdirectgovernmentsubsidizationofthose
institutions.
Fromtheschoolchoiceperspective,thischangeisimportantfortwo
reasons.First,avoucherprogramrepresentspreciselythetypeof
fundingtheframersofthecurrentversionofitsBlaineAmendment
(ArticleXI,Section4)wishedtoallow.Second,SouthCarolina
SupremeCourtcaseslikeHartness v. Patterson thatrejectthedistinction
betweenaidtostudentsandaidtoinstitutionsarenolongervalid,as
theywerepremisedonconstitutionallanguagethatwaslaterdeleted
in order to allow student beneft programs.
Whencraftingschoolchoicelegislation,SouthCarolinalegislatorsmay
wanttopatternitontheSouthCarolinaHigherEducationExcellence
EnhancementProgram,
2
whichdoesanexcellentjobofadheringtothe
requirementsoftheSouthCarolinaConstitutionandthejurisprudence
ofSouthCarolinacourts.Theprogramincludesadetailedlegislative
fndings section that explicitly recognizes the role of private
institutionsinhelpingthestatemeettheneedsoflow-incomeand
educationallydisadvantagedstudents.Additionally,fundsforthe
programareappropriatedfromtheEducationLotteryAccount,and
thereareexpressrulesgoverningtheiruse.
Autism Scholarship, Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education
Tax Credit Program
1FinalReportoftheCommitteetoMakeaStudyoftheSouthCarolinaConstitu-
tionof1895.
2SCCA2-77-10throughSCCA2-77-50.
74
canbenodistinctionbetweengivingmoney
tostudentsfortuitionandgivingmoneyto
institutions.
2003 S.C. AG LEXIS 3(2003)
TheSouthCarolinaAttorneyGeneral
concludedthatdistributingstatelottery
fundsdirectlytohistoricallyblack
collegeswhetherornottheywere
religiousviolatesSouthCarolinasBlaine
Amendment because it is a direct beneft
[to]certainprivateeducationalinstitutions.
2003 S.C. AG LEXIS 42 (2003)
TheSouthCarolinaAttorneyGeneral
concludedthatusinglotteryfundsto
contractwithprivateschoolstoprovide
educationforlow-income,educationally
disadvantagedstudentscompliedwith
SouthCarolinasBlaineAmendment
becausetheprogramwasreligiouslyneutral,
wasexplicitlyintendedtohelpstudents,
had fndings to support that purpose,
gavemoneythroughcontractsratherthan
outrightgrants,andlimitedthemannerin
whichthemoneycouldbespent.
SDUTH CAPDLINA
[N]opersonshallbecompelledtoattendorsupportanyministryorplaceof
worshipagainsthisconsentnorshallanypreferencebegivenbylawtoany
religiousestablishmentormodeofworship.soutH dAkotA Const.Art.VI,3.
Blaine Amendments
No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the beneft of
anysectarianorreligioussocietyorinstitution.soutH dAkotA Const.Art.VI,3.
Noappropriationoflands,moneyorotherpropertyorcreditstoaidany
sectarianschoolshalleverbemadebythestate,oranycountyormunicipality
withinthestate,norshallthestateoranycountyormunicipalitywithinthestate
acceptanygrant,conveyance,giftorbequestoflands,moneyorotherproperty
tobeusedforsectarianpurposes,andnosectarianinstructionshallbeallowed
inanyschoolorinstitutionaidedorsupportedbythestate.soutH dAkotA
Const.Art.VIII,16.
Other Relevant Provision
Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofsection3,ArticleVIandsection16,Article
VIII,theLegislaturemayauthorizetheloaningofnonsectariantextbookstoall
childrenofschoolage.soutH dAkotA Const.Art.VIII,20.
1
1 This provision was added to the South Dakota Constitution in 1986, and specifcally negates
theresultsintheElbeandMcDonaldcases.
SDUTH 0AKDTA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Elbe v. Yankton Independent School District,372
N.W.2d113(S.D.1985)
TheSouthDakotaSupremeCourtheld
thatSouthDakotastextbookloanprogram
wasaviolationofSouthDakotasBlaine
Amendmentsanddeclinedtooverturna
similarearlierrulinginMcDonald.
In re N. C. B. Careers,298N.W.2d526(S.D.
1980)
TheSouthDakotaSupremeCourtheldthat
taxexemptionsforreligiousinstitutions
arenotthefunctionalequivalentof
appropriationsandthereforedonotviolate
SouthDakotasBlaineAmendments.Merely
relievingthechurchofanobligationto
supportthestateisnotthesamethingasthe
statesupportingthechurch.
McDonald v. School Board, 246N.W.2d93(S.D.
1976)
Inholdingthatatextbookloanprogramwas
unconstitutional,theSouthDakotaSupreme
75
CharterSchools: No
South Dakota Codifed Laws Sections 13-28-
30to13-28-49
South Dakota Codifed Laws Sections 13-28-
21to13-28-23
AtaxcreditprogramisthebestschoolchoiceoptionforSouthDakota
giventherestrictiveinterpretationofthestatesreligionclauses.The
SouthDakotaSupremeCourthasexplicitlyrejectedthedistinction
betweenaidingstudentsandaidingtheschoolstheychoosetoattend.
AlthoughArticleVIII,Section20waslaterenactedtoauthorize
textbookloanstoprivateschoolstudents,theSouthDakotaSupreme
Courtcasesthatpromptedtheamendmentarestillgoodlawoutside
thecontextoftextbookloanprograms.
Credit Program
76
CourtconcludedthatSouthDakotasBlaine
Amendmentswereintendedtoprohibitin
everyform,whetherasagiftorotherwise,
theappropriationofthepublicfundsforthe
beneft of or to aid any sectarian school or
institution.
South Dakota High School Interscholastic
Activities Association v. St. Marys Inter-Parochial
High School,141N.W.2d477(S.D.1966)
Inholdingthatprivateschoolscanjoin
apublichighschoolathleticassociation
and play on public school felds, the South
DakotaSupremeCourtreasonedthatthe
statesCompelledSupportClauseand
BlaineAmendmentswerenotintendedto
permitgovernmentdiscriminationagainst
itscitizensbasedonreligion.
State ex rel. Finger v. Weedman,226N.W.348
(S.D.1929)
thatthestateschoolboardmaynotcompel
studentstoreadfromtheKingJamesBible
becausedoingsoviolatesreligiousfreedom
establishedbyfederalandSouthDakota
constitutions.
Synod of Dakota v. State,50N.W.632(S.D.1891)
thatthestatewasnotobligatedtopay
foreducationalservicesprovidedbya
religiousschoolbecausedoingsowould
violateSouthDakotasBlaineAmendments.
Thecourtprovidedadetailedanalysis
of what it means to beneft or aid a
sectarianinstitutionandexplicitlyrejected
adistinctionbetweenaidingstudentsand
aidingschools.
1992 Opinion Attorney General S.D. 69,Op.No.
92-04
SouthDakotaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat
anystatuterequiringthetransportationof
privateschoolstudentsonpublicschool
buseswouldviolateSouthDakotasBlaine
Amendments because the benefts received
bytheprivateschoolswouldbemorethan
incidental.
SDUTH 0AKDTA
[T]hatnomancanofrightbecompelledtoattend,erect,orsupportanyplace
ofworship,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),affd,434
U.S.803(1977)
AfederaldistrictcourtheldthatTennessees
StudentAssistanceProgramdoesnotviolatethe
EstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment
becausemoneyispaiddirectlytothestudent
ratherthantheinstitutionandwithoutreferenceto
thepublicorprivatenatureoftheschool.
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)
AfederaldistrictcourtheldthatTennesseesTuition
GrantProgramviolatestheEstablishmentClause
oftheFirstAmendmentbecausemoneyispaid
directlytotheschoolastudentchoosestoattend
withnolimitsonthemannerinwhichthatmoney
canbeused.Whilethecasewasonappealtothe
U.S.SupremeCourt,theTennesseelegislature
amendedtheprogram,leadingtheSupremeCourt
tovacatethedecisionandremandittothelower
court.Thelegislaturethenrepealedthewhole
statuteandreplaceditwiththeTennesseeStudent
AssistanceProgram,whichwasupheldbythe
U.S.SupremeCourtin1977inAmericans United for
Separation of Church & State v. Blanton.
Carden v. Bland,288S.W.2d718(Tenn.1956)
TheTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthatreading
BiblepassagesandrecitingtheLordsPrayerdid
notamounttotheestablishmentofastatereligion.
77
CharterSchools: Yes
TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSections49-13-
101to49-13-127
forTennessee.ItsConstitutioncontainsnoBlaineAmendment
anditsCompelledSupportClausehasreceivedlittlejudicial
attention.InCarden,theTennesseeSupremeCourtnoted
thatTennesseesCompelledSupportClauseandtheFirst
Amendmentwerepracticallysynonymous.
TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection49-1-602
TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSections49-6-
3104to49-6-3105
Nomanshallbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceofworship,or
tomaintainanyministryagainsthisconsent.texAs Const.Art.I,6.
Blaine Amendments
No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the beneft of
anysect,orreligioussociety,theologicalorreligiousseminary;norshallproperty
belongingtotheStatebeappropriatedforanysuchpurposes.texAs Const.Art.I,7.
Thepermanentschoolfundandtheavailableschoolfundmaynotbe
appropriatedtoorusedforthesupportofanysectarianschool.texAs Const.Art.
VII,5(c).
Education Article
Ageneraldiffusionofknowledgebeingessentialtothepreservationofthe
libertiesandrightsofthepeople,itshallbethedutyoftheLegislatureoftheState
toestablishandmakesuitableprovisionforthesupportandmaintenanceofan
effcient system of public free schools. texAs Const.Art.VII,1.
TEXAS
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Church v. Bullock, 109S.W.115(Tex.1908)
TheTexasSupremeCourtheldthatreadingfrom
theKingJamesBibleandrecitingtheLords
PrayerdidnotturnaTexaspublicschoolintoa
sectarianinstitutionbecausebotharecriticalto
developingstudentsmoralfaculties.
1975 Tex. AG LEXIS 285, LetterAdvisoryNo.105
TheTexasAttorneyGeneralconcludedthat
distributionofstate-ownedtextbookstoprivate
schoolpupilswouldnotviolateaBlaine
Amendment(ArticleI,Section7)oftheTexas
Constitutionbecauseitwouldprovideonly
minimal benefts to the sectarian activities of
nonpublicschools.
1973 Tex. AG LEXIS 231, 15-16OpinionNoH-66
TheTexasAttorneyGeneralconcludedthat
providingpublicfundstoparochialschools
throughtuitionequalizationgrantsundera
religiouslyneutralprogramisnotinherently
unconstitutionalundertheTexasConstitution
becausealthoughTexassecondBlaine
Amendment(ArticleVII,Section5)prohibitsaid
tosects[,]notalldenominationalinstitutionsare
sectarianintheconstitutionalsense.
78
CharterSchools: Yes
TexasEducationCodeAnnotatedSections
12.001to12.156
optionsforTexas.ThefewinterpretationsofTexasBlaine
AmendmentsanditsCompelledSupportClausethatexistdo
noprohibitprovidingaidtoparentstoenablethemtoselect
publicorprivateschoolsfortheirchildren.Suchprograms
mustbefundedbysourcesotherthanthepermanentand
available school funds defned in the education article of the
TexasConstitution.
Intradistrict/mandatoryandInterdistrict/
voluntary
29.201to29.204
25.031to25.034,25.035to25.039
Blaine Amendments
[N]opublicmoneyorpropertyshallbeappropriatedfororappliedtoany
religiousworship,exerciseorinstruction,orforthesupportofanyecclesiastical
establishment.utAH Const.Art.I,4.
NeitherthestateofUtahnoritspoliticalsubdivisionsmaymakeany
appropriationforthedirectsupportofanyschooloreducationalinstitution
controlledbyanyreligiousorganization.utAH Const.Art.X,9.
Education Articles
TheLegislatureshallprovidefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofthe
stateseducationalsystem,including:(a)apubliceducationsystem,whichshall
beopentoallchildrenofthestate;and(b)ahighereducationsystem.Both
systemsshallbefreefromsectariancontrol.utAH Const.Art.X,1.
Thepubliceducationsystemshallincludeallpublicelementaryandsecondary
schoolsandsuchotherschoolsandprogramsastheLegislaturemaydesignate
.utAH Const.Art.X,2.
(1)ThereisestablishedapermanentStateSchoolFundwhichshallconsistof
revenuefromthefollowingsources:
(a)proceedsfromthesalesofalllandsgrantedbytheUnitedStatestothis
stateforthesupportofthepublicelementaryandsecondaryschools;
(b)5%ofthenetproceedsfromthesalesofUnitedStatespubliclandslying
withinthisstate;
(c)allrevenuesderivedfromnonrenewableresourcesonstatelands,other
than sovereign lands and lands granted for other specifc purposes;
(d)allrevenuesderivedfromtheuseofschooltrustlands;
(e)revenuesappropriatedbytheLegislature;and
(f)otherrevenuesandassetsreceivedbythefundunderanyother
provisionoflaworbybequestordonation.
(2)(a)TheStateSchoolFundprincipalshallbesafelyinvestedandheldbythe
stateinperpetuity.
(b)OnlytheinterestanddividendsreceivedfrominvestmentoftheState
SchoolFundmaybeexpendedforthesupportofthepubliceducation
system as defned in Article X, Section 2 of this constitution
(3)ThereisestablishedaUniformSchoolFundwhichshallconsistofrevenue
fromthefollowingsources:
(a)interestanddividendsfromtheStateSchoolFund;
(b)revenuesappropriatedbytheLegislature;and
(c)otherrevenuesreceivedbythefundunderanyotherprovisionoflawor
bydonation.
(4)TheUniformSchoolFundshallbemaintainedandusedforthesupport
of the states public education system as defned in Article X, Section 2 of this
constitutionandapportionedastheLegislatureshallprovide.utAH Const.Art.
X,5.
(5)Allrevenuefromtaxesonintangiblepropertyorfromataxonincomeshall
beusedtosupportthesystemsofpubliceducationandhighereducationas
defned in Article X, Section 2. utAH Const.Art.XIII,5.
UTAH
7
CharterSchools: Yes
UtahCodeAnnotatedSection53A-2-213
UtahCodeAnnotatedSections53A-2-207to212
UtahCodeAnnotatedSections53A-1a-501to514
CarsonSmithScholarshipsforSpecialNeeds
Students
UtahCodeAnnotatedSections53A-1a-701
to710
ParentsforChoiceinEducationAct
(universalvouchers)
UtahCodeAnnotated195353A-1a-801
through811
Bothtaxcreditsandvoucherprogramsareschoolchoiceoptionsfor
Utah.TheyarecompletelyconsistentwiththeUtahConstitutionand
relevantUtahstatecourtdecisions.
InitsmostthoroughanalysisofthemoregeneraloftheUtah
ConstitutionsBlaineAmendments(ArticleI,Section4)todate,
theUtahSupremeCourtheldinWhitehead thatifpublicmoneyor
propertyareprovidedonanondiscriminatorybasisandtheyare
equallyaccessibletoall,thegovernmentprogramatissuecomplies
withtheUtahConstitution.Avoucherprogram,inwhichstudents
usepubliclyfundedscholarshipstoattendprivate,religiousorpublic
schools of their choice, undoubtedly satisfes those requirements.
Legislatorsshouldstressthatthepurposeofthevoucherprogramisto
expandeducationalopportunitiesonanon-discriminatorybasis,and
that the public funds used for vouchers are not for the beneft of the
schoolsthatchildrendecidetoattend,butforthechildrenthemselves.
Inaddition,iffundsderivedfromtheincometaxareused,the
Legislature should be sure to state that publicly fnanced scholarship
programsareapartofthepubliceducationsystemundertheeducation
article(ArticleX,Section2).
Credit Program
80
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead, 870
P.2d916(Utah1993)
TheUtahSupremeCourtheldthatthe
SaltLakeCityCouncilspolicyofopening
meetingswiththePledgeofAllegiance
and prayer does not offend the frst Blaine
Amendment(ArticleI,Section4)oftheUtah
Constitutionbecausepublicfundswerenot
usedtodirectlyaidanyparticularreligion.
UTAH
[A]ndthatnopersonoughtto,orofrightcanbecompelledtoattendany
religiousworship,orerectorsupportanyplaceofworship,ormaintainany
minister,contrarytothedictatesofconscience.vermont Const.Ch.I,Art.3.
VEPhDNT
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Chittenden Town School District v. Vermont
Department of Education,738A.2d539(Vt.
1999),cert denied,528U.S.1066(1999)
TheVermontSupremeCourtheldthat
permittingparentsintuitioningtowns
wherethetownpaystuitiontotheparents
schoolofchoiceinsteadofmaintaining
publicschoolstochoosereligiousschools
violatedtheVermontConstitutions
CompelledSupportClausebecausethere
arenorestrictionstoensurethatstatefunds
wouldnotsupportreligiousworship.
Campbell v. Manchester Board of School Directors,
641A.2d352(Vt.1994)
NotingchangesinFirstAmendment
jurisprudence,theVermontSupremeCourt
heldtherequiringalocalschooldistrictto
reimburseaparentwhosenthischildtoa
parochialschooldidnotviolatetheFirst
Amendment.ThedecisionoverrulesSwart
v. South Burlington Town School District,167
A.2d514(Vt.1961),whichheldtheopposite.
Vermont Educational Buildings Financing Agency
v. Mann,247A.2d68(Vt.1968)
TheVermontSupremeCourtheldthata
statuteallowingastateagencytoissue
tax-exempt revenue bonds to fnance
constructionofbuildingsonbehalfofprivate
collegesanduniversitiesneitheradvanced
norinhibitedreligionandthereforedidnot
violatetheFirstAmendment.
81
CharterSchools: No
TownTuitioningSystem(excludesreligious
schools)
VermontStatutesAnnotatedTitle16,
Sections166,821-836
TaxcreditsareVermontsbestschoolchoiceoption.ItsConstitution
containsaCompelledSupportClausethattheVermontSupreme
Courthasreadtoexcludeparentswhochoosereligiousschoolsfrom
participatinginthecurrentvoucherprogram.
Credit Program
VermontStatutesAnnotatedTitle16,
Section1093
Nomanshallbecompelledtofrequentorsupportanyreligiousworship,place,
orministrywhatsoever.virGiniA Const.Art.I,16.
Blaine Amendment
TheGeneralAssemblyshallnotmakeanyappropriationofpublicfunds,personal
property,orrealestatetoanychurchorsectariansociety,oranyassociationor
institutionofanykindwhateverwhichisentirelyorpartly,directlyorindirectly,
controlledbyanychurchorsectariansociety.virGiniA Const.Art.IV,16.
Education Articles
TheGeneralAssemblyshallprovideforthecompulsoryelementaryand
secondaryeducationofeveryeligiblechildofappropriateage,sucheligibility
andagetobedeterminedbylaw.Itshallensurethattextbooksareprovidedatno
cost to each child attending public school whose parent or guardian is fnancially
unabletofurnishthem.virGiniA Const.Art.VIII,3.
Thesupervisionofschoolsineachschooldivisionshallbevestedinaschoolboard,
tobecomposedofmembersselectedinthemanner,fortheterm,possessingthe
qualifcations, and to the number provided by law. virGiniA Const.Art.VIII,7.
Noappropriationofpublicfundsshallbemadetoanyschoolorinstitution
oflearningnotownedorexclusivelycontrolledbytheStateorsomepolitical
subdivision thereof; provided, frst, that the General Assembly may, and the
governingbodiesoftheseveralcounties,citiesandtownsmay,subjecttosuch
limitationsasmaybeimposedbytheGeneralAssembly,appropriatefundsfor
educationalpurposeswhichmaybeexpendedinfurtheranceofelementary,
secondary,collegiateorgraduateeducationofVirginiastudentsinpublicand
nonsectarianprivateschoolsandinstitutionsoflearning,inadditiontothoseowned
orexclusivelycontrolledbytheStateoranysuchcounty,cityortown;second,
thattheGeneralAssemblymayappropriatefundstoanagency,ortoaschoolor
institutionoflearningownedorcontrolledbyanagency,createdandestablished
bytwoormoreStatesunderajointagreementtowhichthisStateisapartyfor
thepurposeofprovidingeducationalfacilitiesforthecitizensoftheseveralStates
joininginsuchagreement;third,thatcounties,cities,townsanddistrictsmaymake
appropriationstononsectarianschoolsofmanual,industrialortechnicaltrainingand
alsotoanyschoolorinstitutionoflearningownedorexclusivelycontrolledbysuch
county,city,townorschooldistrict.virGiniA Const.Art.VIII,10.
TheGeneralAssemblymayprovideforloansto,andgrantstooronbehalf
of, students attending nonproft institutions of higher education in the
Commonwealthwhoseprimarypurposeistoprovidecollegiateorgraduate
educationandnottoprovidereligioustrainingortheologicaleducation.
virGiniA Const.Art.VIII,11.
VIPCINIA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Phan v. Virginia,806F.2d516(4thCir.1986)
The4
th
U.SCircuitCourtofAppealsheldthat
nothingintheVirginiaConstitutionprevents
thestatefromreimbursingadisabled
82
CharterSchools: No
VirginiaCodeAnnotatedSections22.1-212.5
to22.1-212.16
TaxcreditprogramsareVirginiasbestschoolchoiceoption.
*VirginiasConstitutioncontainsanexpressprovisionallowingpublicly
fundedvouchersatprivate,non-religiousschools.However,the
InstituteforJusticeregardsexcludingthechoiceofreligiousschoolsas
questionableconstitutionallyundertheFirstAmendmentandEqual
ProtectionClauses.
Credit Program
83
studentattendinganout-of-statereligious
collegeforincidentallivingexpenses.
Virginia College Building Authority v. Lynn,538
S.E.2d682(Va.2000)
TheVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthat
issuingbondsonbehalfofreligious
institutionsdidnotviolateVirginias
CompelledSupportClausebecauseitdid
notresultingovernmentalindoctrination,
itdeterminedeligibilityforaidneutrally,
andanyfundsreceivedstemmedfrom
theprivatechoicesofinvestors,notthe
government.
Miller v. Ayres,191S.E.2d261(Va.1972)
TheVirginiaSupremeCourtquestioned
thecontinuedvalidityofAlmondgiventhe
1956and1971rewritesoftheStatesBlaine
Amendment,whichthecourtencouraged
inAlmond.Nevertheless,thecourtheld
thatloansgiventostudentswithoutany
requirementforrepaymentorpublicservice
amountedtogiftsandgiftsarenotwithin
thetermsallowedbyoneofVirginias
educationprovisions(ArticleVIII,Section
11).
Almond v. Day,89S.E.2d851(Va.1955)
TheVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatusing
publicfundstopaytheprivateschool
educationcostsforveteranschildren
violatedtheVirginiaConstitution.By
enablingtheattendanceofstudentswho
wouldlikelynotbethereotherwise,the
programprovidedimpermissiblesupportto
thereligiousschoolstheychoose.
1995 Va. AG LEXIS 61(Va.AG1995)
TheVirginiaAttorneyGeneralopined
thatnothingintheVirginiaConstitution
prohibitsbusingofprivateschoolstudents,
includingthoseattendingreligiousschools.
1994 Va. AG LEXIS 1(Va.AG1994)
TheVirginiaAttorneyGeneralopinedthat
theVirginiaConstitutionwouldpermit
avoucherprogramthatincludedprivate
schools,butnotreligiousschools.
VIPCINIA
Blaine Amendments
Nopublicmoneyorpropertyshallbeappropriatedfororappliedtoany
religiousworship,exerciseorinstruction,orthesupportofanyreligious
establishment.wAsHinGton Const.Art.I,11.
Allschoolsmaintainedorsupportedwhollyorinpartbythepublicfundsshall
be forever free from sectarian control or infuence. wAsHinGton Const.Art.IX,
4.
Education Article
Thelegislatureshallprovideforageneralanduniformsystemofpublic
schools.wAsHinGton Const.Art.IX,2.
WASHINCTDN
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Locke v. Davey,540U.S.712(2004)
TheU.S.SupremeCourtupheldWashington
statesexclusionofatheologymajorfroma
state-fundedcollegescholarshipprogram.The
CourtheldthatWashingtoncouldjustifythis
exclusionasawaytoavoidanunconstitutional
establishmentofreligionunderthestate
Constitution.Importantly,theCourtcarvedout
onlyanarrowexceptionpublicfundingfor
thereligioustrainingofclergytothegeneral
rulerequiringequaltreatmentofreligiousand
non-religiousoptions.Indeed,thescholarship
programallowedstudentstoselectreligious
schools,aswellaspublicandnon-religious
privateschools,muchlikeK-12schoolchoice
programs.Itonlyexcludedstudentsactually
trainingtobeministers.
Garnett v. Renton School District No. 403,987F.2d
641,646(9thCir.1993)
The9
th
U.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthat
thefederalEqualAccessActprovidesreligious
studentgroupsanequalrighttouseschool
groundsonthesamebasisasotherclubs.
WashingtonarguedthatitsstateConstitution
woulddenysuchequalaccess,butthecourtheld
thatstatelawmustyieldtofederallaw.
State ex rel. Gallwey v. Grimm,48P.3d274(Wash.
2002)
TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthatastate
educationalgrantprogramforplacebound
studentsthose who the state identifed as not
84
CharterSchools: No
WashingtonRevisedCodeSection28A.225.270
WashingtonRevisedCodeSections
28A.225.220to28A.225.240,28A.225.280to
28A.225.310
85
likelytocompleteafour-yeardegreewithout
public fnancial assistancethat included
religiousschoolsdoesnotviolateWashingtons
frst Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section 11)
becausetheprogramwasnotintendedtoaid
religiousschools.Theprogramstipulatesthat
participatingstudentsmaynotselectschools
thatrequirereligiousinstructionorworship.
Additionally,thecourtheldthatWashingtons
otherBlaineAmendment(ArticleIX,Section4)
didnotapplytoinstitutionsofhighereducation.
Malyon v. Pierce County,935P.2d1272(Wash.1997)
TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthata
sheriffsdepartmentschaplaincyprogramdoes
not violate Washingtons frst Blaine Amendment
(ArticleI,Section11)becausethechaplainsare
notpaidfortheirtime.
Witters v. Commission for Blind,717P.2d1119
(Wash.1989)
TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthat
Washingtons frst Blaine Amendment (Article
I,Section11)preventedthestatefromusing
publicfundstopayforahandicappedstudents
seminarystudies.
Higher Education Facilities Authority v. Gardner,699
P.2d1240(Wash.1985)
InaccordancewithitsholdinginSpellman,
theWashingtonSupremeCourtheldthat
grantingtax-exemptrevenuebondproceedsto
religiouscollegesdidnottransferpublicfunds
orpropertytoasectarianinstitution.Forthat
reason, Washingtons frst Blaine Amendment
(ArticleI,Section11)didnotapply.
Health Care Facilities Authority v. Spellman,633P.2d
866(Wash.1981)
Inupholdingastatutethatprovidedtax-exempt
bond proceeds for nonproft hospitals, the
WashingtonSupremeCourtheldthatalthough
thebondswereenabledbyapublicbody,the
moneywasnotacquiredeitherfororfromthe
generalpublicandthereforedidnotviolate
Washingtons frst Blaine Amendment (Article I,
Section11).
Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v. Board of Regents,
436P.2d189(Wash.1967)
whenpublicschoolstudentsreadtheBibleasa
WASHINCTDN
AtaxcreditprogramisWashingtonsbestschoolchoiceoption.The
WashingtonConstitutioncontainsBlaineAmendmentlanguage
intwoprovisions.BothhavebeeninterpretedbytheWashington
SupremeCourtasbeingmorerestrictivethantheirfederal
EstablishmentClausecounterpart.
Model Legislation: Great Schools Tax Credit Program, Family Education
Tax Credit Program
86
pieceofliteratureamongotherworksinaclass
requiredforgraduation,itdoesnotviolateeither
ofWashingtonsBlaineAmendments.Theclass
imposesnoreligiousorsectarianmessageonits
students.
Perry v. School District No. 81,344P.2d1036(Wash.
1954)
allowingreligiousgroupstodistribute
attendancecardsandmakeannouncements
aboutthereleased-timeprogramonpublic
schoolgroundsisauseofschoolfacilities
supportedbypublicfundsforthepromotion
ofareligiousprogramandthereforeviolates
Section11).
Mitchell v. Consol. School District,135P.2d79
(Wash.1943);see also Visser v. Nooksack Valley Sch.
Dist.,207P.2d198(Wash.1949)(same)
TheWashingtonSupremeCourtstruckdown
atransportationprogramforprivateschool
students.Thecourtsaidtheprogramviolated
WashingtonsBlaineAmendmentsbecausethe
publicwouldincursomeadditionalexpense
ifprivateschoolstudentsweretransportedon
publicschoolbuses.
Saucier v. Employment Security Department,954P.2d
285(Wash.Ct.App.1998)
TheWashingtonCourtofAppealsheldthat
althoughtheSalvationArmyshouldbetreated
asachurchanditsreceiptofappropriatedgrants
anditsexemptionfrompayingunemployment
insurancetaxesconferappropriatedfundsand
benefts, such an appropriation does not violate
Section11)becausethestatespurposeindoing
soistofundaseculardrugtreatmentprogram.
WASHINCTDN
[A]ndthelegislatureshallnotprescribeanyreligioustestwhatever,or
conferanypeculiarprivilegesoradvantagesonanysectordenomination,
orpassanylawrequiringorauthorizinganyreligioussociety,orthepeople
ofanydistrictwithinthisState,tolevyonthemselves,orothers,anytaxfor
theerectionorrepairofanyhouseforpublicworship,orforthesupportof
anychurchorministry,butitshallbeleftfreeforeverypersontoselecthis
religiousinstructor,andtomakeforhissupport,suchprivatecontractashe
shallplease.west virGiniA Const.Art.III,15.
WEST VIPCINIA
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Cooper v. Board of Education,478S.E.2d341(W.Va.1996)
TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatthe14
th
Amendments
EqualProtectionClausewasnotviolatedwhenthestatestopped
transportingprivateschoolstudentsatpublicexpense.Thestatemay
treatpublicandprivateschoolstudentsdifferentlywhenallotting
state education funds if it has a valid fnancial reason for doing so.
Janasiewicz v. Board of Education,299S.E.2d34(W.Va.1982)
AcknowledgingchangesinfederalEqualProtectionjurisprudence,
theWestVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatfailingtoprovide
transportationtoprivateschoolstudentswasnotaviolationofthe
14
th
Amendment. However, the court reaffrmed its earlier conclusion
thatschoolboardswererequiredbystatutetoprovideeither
transportationoranequivalentstipendtoprivateschoolstudentsand
thatdoingsodidnotconstituteaviolationoftheFirstAmendment
andWestVirginiasCompelledSupportClause.
State ex rel. Hughes v. Board of Education,174S.E.2d711(W.Va.
1970),cert. denied,403U.S.944(1971)
TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthatacountyschoolboards
refusaltotransportCatholicschoolstudentsonitsbusesviolated
theprovisionsofaWestVirginiastatuterequiringittotransportall
childrenofschoolage.Itthenwentfurtherandheldthattheschool
boardspolicydeprivesCatholicchildrenandtheirparentsoftheir
rightofreligiousfreedominviolationoftheprovisionsoftheFirst
Amendmentandevenmoreclearlyinviolationofthecomprehensive
provisionsoftheCompelledSupportClause.
Gissy v. Board of Education,143S.E.111(W.Va.1928)
TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourtrequiredapublicschoolboardto
reimburseparentswhocompliedwithWestVirginiasmandatory
educationstatutebysendingtheirchildrentoaprivate,parochial
schoolbecausenopublichighschoolexistedintheirdistrict.The
schoolboardhadarguedthatitwasonlyrequiredtoreimbursefor
publicschooltuition.
87
CharterSchools: No
Bothtaxcreditandvoucherprogramsareschool
choiceoptionsforWestVirginia.TheWestVirginia
SupremeCourthasgenerallyinterpretedits
CompelledSupportClauseinaparallelfashionto
theFirstAmendment,andthereisnoindication
initscaselawthatitwouldnotapplyZelmanto
upholdastatevoucherprogram.
(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
WestVirginiaCodeSection18-2E-5k
WestVirginiaCodeSection18-5-16
WestVirginiaCodeSection18-5-16a
[N]orshallanypersonbecompelledtoattend,erectorsupportanyplaceofworship,
ortomaintainanyministry,withoutconsent.wisConsin Const.Art.I,18.
Blaine Amendment
[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the beneft of religious
societies,orreligiousortheologicalseminaries.wisConsin Const.Art.I,18.
Education Articles
[AsamendedApril1972]Thelegislatureshallprovidebylawforthe
establishmentofdistrictschools,whichshallbeasnearlyuniformaspracticable;
andsuchschoolsshallbefreeandwithoutchargefortuitiontoallchildren
betweentheagesof4and20years;andnosectarianinstructionshallbeallowed
therein.wisConsin Const.Art.X,3.
Provisionshallbemadebylawfortheestablishmentofastateuniversityandno
sectarianinstructionshallbeallowedinsuchuniversity.wisConsin Const.Art.X,6.
WISCDNSIN
RELEVANT CASE LAW
Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. McCallum,
324F.3d880(7thCir.2003)
The7
th
U.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsheldthat
thestatescontractwithaChristianhalfway
housedidnotviolatetheEstablishmentClause
becauseprisonerswereabletochoosethat
particularprogramfromarangeofother,secular
optionsandprisonerswerenotpressuredto
beChristianorconverttoChristianitybefore
participating.Thecourtcomparedthehalfway
houseprogramtotheeducationvouchers
atissueinZelmanandconcludedthatneither
providedunconstitutionalsupporttoreligion.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Bugher,55
F.Supp.2d962(W.D.Wis.1999)
Afederaldistrictcourtheldthatthestates
subsidizationofinternetwiringatareligious
schooldoesnotviolatetheEstablishmentClause
becauseallschoolsareeligibleforsubsidies,
withoutregardtowhethertheyarereligiously
affliated, because the telecommunications
conduitsprovidedareneutralastoinformation
passing through them, benefts fowing to
religiousschoolsaresmallrelativetototal
program,andreligiousschoolsarenotbeing
relievedofburdentheypreviouslybore,asthey
wouldnotbeparticipatinginthisparticular
Internetlinkagebutfortheavailabilityof
subsidy.
88
CharterSchools: Yes
WisconsinStatutesSection121.85
WisconsinStatutesSections118.51,118.52,
121.58
MilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgram
8
Vincent v. Voight,614N.W.2d388(Wis.2000)
In a suit challenging the states school fnance
system,theWisconsinSupremeCourtheld
thatitseducationprovisionrequiringuniform
publicschools(ArticleX,Section3)related
tothecharacterofinstructionofferedinthe
publicschools,andnotthesize,boundariesor
compositionoftheschooldistricts.Theclause
doesnotrequireabsoluteuniformityineither
educationalofferingsorper-pupilexpenditures
amongschooldistricts.
Jackson v. Benson,578N.W.2d602(Wis.1998),cert.
denied,525U.S.997(1998)
TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthatthe
MilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgramdoesnot
violateeitherthestatesCompelledSupport
ClauseoritsBlaineAmendmentbecause
studentsarenotcompelledtoattendreligious
schools and any benefts to such schools
are incidental. The court also affrmed the
conclusionsofDavis,anearlieruniformity
challengetotheschoolchoiceprogram.
Davis v. Grover,480N.W.2d460(Wis.1992)
TheWisconsinSupremeCourtupheldthe
MilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgramfroma
legalchallengeunderWisconsinsuniformity
provision(ArticleX,Section3).Thecourtalso
rejectedopponentsclaimthattheprogram
violatedArticle4,Section18oftheWisconsin
Constitution,aprohibitiononprivateorlocal
bills.
State ex rel. Wisconsin Health Facilities Authority v.
Lindner,280N.W.2d773(Wis.1979)
WisconsinHealthFacilitiesAuthority,which
wascreatedtoimprovehealthcareservices
byprovidingtax-exemptbondstoCatholic
hospitals,amongothers,doesnotviolate
WisconsinsCompelledSupportClauseor
Blaine Amendment because the aid fows
predominantlytothesecularaspectsofhealth
careandthereforedoesnothavetheprimary
effectofadvancingreligion.
State ex rel. Holt v. Thompson,225N.W.2d678(Wis.
1975)
TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthata
releasedtimestatute,whichallowsstudents
WISCDNSIN
0
toleaveschoolforpartofthedaytoreceive
religiousinstruction,doesnotviolatethe
EstablishmentorEqualProtectionclausesof
theU.S.Constitutionorthefreedomofworship
ordistrictschoolsectionsoftheWisconsin
Constitution.Studentsonlyleaveandprayif
theywanttoandnopublicfundsareusedto
accommodatethosewhodo.
State ex rel. Warren v. Nusbaum,219N.W.2d577
(Wis.1974)
statemaycontractwithprivateinstitutions
toprovideeducationalservicesfordisabled
childrenwithoutviolatingtheFirstAmendment
orWisconsinsCompelledSupportClause
orBlaineAmendmentbecausetheprimary
effectofthecontractwasnottheadvancement
ofreligion,buttheprovisionofeducational
servicestohandicappedkids.
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Nusbaum,115N.W.2d761
(Wis.1962)
Seeingnodifferencebetweenaidingstudents
andaidingtheinstitutionthosestudentschoose
toattend,theWisconsinSupremeCourtheld
thattransportingprivateschoolstudentson
publicschoolbusesviolatedWisconsinsBlaine
Amendment.Althoughthecourtconcededthat
thestatemayindirectlyaidreligiousgroupsby
providing fre and police protection, it struck
thisstatutebecause,thecourtsaid,ithadthe
practicaleffectofsinglingoutaparticular
religious group for special benefts.
State ex rel. Conway v. District Board of Joint School
District,156N.W.477(Wis.1916)
TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthat
Wisconsinpublicschoolsmayholdtheir
graduationceremoniesinlocalchurcheswithout
violatingthestateConstitutionsreligionclauses
oritseducationprovisions.Taxpayerswerenot
compelledtopayforuseofthechurchorthe
servicesofthepriestwhogavethenonsectarian
introductoryprayer.Additionally,noreligious
instructionoccurredduringtheceremonyand
nodenominationwasfavoredoverothers.
forWisconsin.ItsconstitutioncontainsaCompelledSupport
ClauseandaBlaineAmendment,buttheWisconsinSupremeCourt
interpretsbothinaccordancewithfederalEstablishmentClause
jurisprudence.EvenbeforeZelman,theWisconsinSupremeCourt
upheldthegroundbreakingMilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgram
fromalegalchallengeundertheFirstAmendmentandWisconsins
CompelledSupportClauseandBlaineAmendment.TheWisconsin
Supreme Court also rejected the frst-ever uniformity challenge
toaschoolchoiceprogram,holdingthatwhiletheLegislature
isrequiredtoprovidepublicschoolingtoall,itcanalsooffer
additionaleducationalopportunitiesoutsidethetraditionalpublic
schoolsystem.
WISCDNSIN
Blaine Amendments
Nomoneyofthestateshalleverbegivenorappropriatedtoanysectarianor
religioussocietyorinstitution.wyominG Const.Art.1,19.
Noappropriationshallbemadeforcharitable,industrial,educationalor
benevolentpurposestoanyperson,corporationorcommunitynotunderthe
absolutecontrolofthestate,nortoanydenominationalorsectarianinstitutionor
association.wyominG Const.Art.3,36.
Education Article
[N]orshallanyportionofanypublicschoolfundeverbeusedtosupportor
assistanyprivateschool,oranyschool,academy,seminary,collegeorother
institutionoflearningcontrolledbyanychurchorsectarianorganizationor
religiousdenominationwhatsoever.wyominG Const.Art.7,8.
WYDhINC
RELEVANT CASE LAW
State ex rel. McPherren v. Carter,215P.477
(Wyo.1923)
TheWyomingSupremeCourtheldthata
supplementalawardofpublicfundstothe
widowofasheriffkilledinthelineofduty
doesnotviolateArticle3,Section36asan
unconstitutionalgifttoaprivateperson.It
isthefunctionalequivalentofapayment
forservicerenderedratherthananoutright
gift.
1982 Wyo. AG LEXIS 21(Wyo.AG1982)
TheWyomingAttorneyGeneralconcluded
thatholdingpublicschoolbaccalaureate
servicesinsideachurchwherereligious
activitiesincludingprayerandsingingof
hymnsmayoccurwouldviolateneither
theFirstAmendmentnortheWyoming
Constitution.
1
CharterSchools: Yes
WyomingStatutesSections21-3-301to21-3-
314
AtaxcreditprogrammaybeWyomingsbestchoiceforschoolchoice.
ItsConstitutioncontainstwoBlaineAmendments,neitherofwhich
hasreceivedmuchjudicialattention,butArticle3,Section36,appears
toexplicitlyforbidappropriatingmoneytoindividualsforeducational
purposes.
Credit Program
WyomingStatutesSection21-4-502
model legislation
TheAmericanLegislativeExchangeCouncilsEducationTaskForce
hasdraftedseveralpiecesofmodellegislationdesignedtoprovidea
framework for crafting state-specifc programs. For a copy of any of the
modellegislationlistedbelowcontactALECsheadquartersinWashington,
D.C.Thislistrepresentsallschoolchoiceprogramsmentionedthroughout
thispublication.
Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act (Universal Eligibility)
Thisbillcreatesascholarshipprogramforallstudentstoattendthepublic
ornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheirchoice.
Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act (Means-Tested Eligibility)
Thisbillcreatesascholarshipprogramforstudentsoflow-andmiddle-
incomefamiliestoattendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondary
schooloftheirchoice.
Special Needs Scholarship Program Act
Thisbillcreatesascholarshipprogramforstudentswithspecialneedsto
attendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheir
choice.
Foster Child Scholarship Program Act
Thisbillcreatesascholarshipprogramforstudentsinfostercaretoattend
thepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheirchoice.
Autism Scholarship Act
Thisbillprovidesstudentswithautismtheoptiontoattendthepublicor
non-publicschooloftheirchoice.
Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act
Thisbillauthorizesataxcreditforindividualorcorporatecontributions
toorganizationsthatprovideeducationalscholarshipstoeligiblestudents
toattendthepublicornon-publicelementaryorsecondaryschooloftheir
choice.
Family Education Tax Credit Program Act
Thisbillauthorizesataxcreditforindividualfamilieseducational
expensesincludingtuition,feesandotherrelatedexpenses.
3
Charter Schools Act
Thisbillallowsgroupsofcitizenstoseekchartersfromthestatetocreate
andoperateinnovative,outcome-basedschoolsexemptfrommanyofthe
statelawsandregulationsgoverningpublicschools.
Open Enrollment Act
Thisbillcreatesaprocessbywhichstudentswouldbeabletoattendthe
publicschooloftheirchoicethroughoutthestate.
4
glossary
Attorney General Opinion:Formalorinformalresponsesofthestate
attorneygeneraltolegalquestions.Suchopinionsarenotbindingonthe
courtsbutcanbepersuasive.
Blaine Amendment: Anystateconstitutionalprovisionthat,likethe
failedamendmenttothefederalConstitutionofthesamename,prohibits
providingpublicfundstosectarianschools.Theseamendmentswere
designedtoretainamonopolyonstateeducationfundsforthethen-
genericallyProtestantpublicschools,whiledenyingequalfundingto
Catholic(i.e.,sectarian)schools.
Charter Schools:Deregulatedpublicschoolsusuallyoperatedbyaboard
ofdirectorsindependentofanyschooldistrict.
Compelled Support Clause:Anystateconstitutionalprovisionthat
providesthatnooneshallbecompelledtosupportachurchorministry
withouthisconsent.
Education Provisions:Theprovisionsinallstateconstitutionsestablishing
apubliceducationsystem.
Equal Protection Clause:AclausefoundintheU.S.Constitutionand
manystateconstitutionsassuringpeopletheequalprotectionofthe
laws,usuallyunderstoodtoprohibitdiscriminationonthebasisofrace,
color,nationaloriginandreligion.
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses:Thereligionclausesofthe
FirstAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution:Congressshallmakenolaw
respectinganestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercise
thereof.TheU.S.SupremeCourtmadetheseclausesbindingonstateand
localgovernmentsinthe1940s.
FAPE:FreeandAppropriatePublicEducation,thebasicentitlementthe
IDEAcreatesforchildrenrequiringspecialeducation.
IDEA:ThefederalIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct,which
providesspecialeducationfundstostatesinreturnfortheirmeeting
federalstandardsforservicesandprocedures.
Parallel Interpretation:Interpretingsimilarlanguageinthefederaland
stateconstitutioninasimilarwaytoarriveatasimilarresult.
Precedent: Alegalconceptreferringtoacasethathasresolvedaparticular
legalquestionthatlowercourtsareboundtofollowandthatthedeciding
courtwillusuallyfollow,absentastrongreasonforconcludingitiswrong
orhasbecomeunworkable.
5
Public School Choice:Policiesallowingstudentstoenrollinschoolsthey
wouldnotbeassignedtobasedupontheirresidence.Intradistrictchoice
allowsstudentstotransfertootherschoolswithinthesamedistrict,while
interdistrictchoicepermitstransferstoschoolsinotherdistricts.Such
programscanbevoluntary,inwhichthereceivingschoolordistrictmayor
maynotagreetoacceptanytransferstudents,ormandatory,inwhichthe
receivingschoolordistrictcannotdenyadmittancetotransferstudents.
Released Time Programs: Publicschoolprogramsthatallowstudentstobe
releasedduringschoolhourstoreceivereligiousinstructionatoff-campus
privatefacilities.
School Choice: Broadlyspeaking,anysortofeducationalprogram
allowingparentstochoosewhichschoolfortheirattend.Narrowly
speaking,aneducationalprogramthatenablesparentstochooseaprivate
schoolfortheirchildren.
Supreme Court Advisory Opinions:Answerstolegalquestionsposedto
thecourtbygovernorsorstatelegislatures.Theydonotconstitutebinding
precedentbecausetheyarenotrenderedinanadversarialsettinglikea
lawsuit,but,asthepersonalopinionsofthesittingjusticesofthestate
supremecourt,theycanbepersuasive.
Tax Credit:Taxreliefthatpermitsparentstomoreeasilyfundaprivate
educationfortheirchildreneitherdirectlyorbyencouragingother
taxpayerstocontributetocharitableorganizationsprovidingscholarships.
Voucher:Intheschoolchoicecontext,aprogramthatprovidestuition
fundingtoafamilythatallowsthemtochooseaprivateschoolfortheir
childrenapubliclyfundedscholarshipforK-12students.
6
additional
Alliance for School Choice
www.allianceforschoolchoice.org
TheAllianceforSchoolChoiceworkstobuildsupportforandimplement
publiclyfundedschoolchoiceprogramsthatprovidelow-incomefamilies
witheducationalopportunity.Indoingso,theAlliancenotonlyprotects
thoseprogramsthatarealreadyservingfamiliesinneed,butalsoexpands
andenhancesthemand,mostimportantlyinitiatesnew,largerand
evenmoreeffectivemodels.
Cato Institutes Center for Educational Freedom
www.cato.org/education
CatosCenterforEducationalFreedomwasfoundedontheprinciplethat
parentsarebestsuitedtomakeimportantdecisionsregardingthecareand
educationoftheirchildren.TheCentersscholarsseektoshifttheterms
ofpublicdebateinfavorofthefundamentalrightofparentsandtowarda
futurewhenstate-runschoolsgivewaytoadynamic,independentsystem
ofschoolscompetingtomeettheneedsofAmericanchildren.
Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation
www.friedmanfoundation.org
TheMiltonandRoseD.FriedmanFoundation,dubbedthenations
leadingvoucheradvocatesbyThe Wall Street Journal, is a non-proft
organizationestablishedin1996.Theoriginsofthefoundationliein
the Friedmans long-standing concern about the serious defciencies in
Americaselementaryandsecondarypublicschools.Thebestwayto
improvethequalityofeducation,theybelieve,istoenableallparentswith
thefreedomtochoosetheschoolsthattheirchildrenattend.TheFriedman
Foundation builds upon this vision, clarifes its meaning to the public and
amplifes the national call for true education reform through school choice.
7
resources
Heartland Institute & School Reform News
www.heartland.org
The Heartland Institute is a national nonproft research and education
organizationwhosemissionistodiscoverandpromotefree-market
solutionstosocialandeconomicproblems.SchoolReformNewsisthe
HeartlandInstitutesnationalmonthlyoutreachpublicationforschool
reformers.
Heritage Foundation
www.heritagefoundation.org/schoolchoice
Foundedin1973,theHeritageFoundationisaresearchandeducational
instituteathinktankwhosemissionistoformulateandpromote
conservativepublicpoliciesbasedontheprinciplesoffreeenterprise,
limitedgovernment,individualfreedom,traditionalAmericanvalues,and
a strong national defense. The Foundations State Profles Web site for
schoolchoiceprovidessnapshotsofschoolchoiceoptionsandanoverview
ofthepublicandprivateeducationsystemineachofthe50states,aswell
asresearchandcommentaryonschoolchoiceandothereducationreforms.
Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research
www.manhattan-institute.org
TheManhattanInstitutesCenterforCivicInnovationconductseducation
researchthatfocusesonimprovingtwomainreformsofpubliceducation:
schoolchoiceandaccountability.
8
about the author
RichardD.Komerhasservedasasenior
litigationattorneyattheInstituteforJustice
since1993.Anexpertonstateandfederal
constitutionallawonschoolchoice,heserved
ascounselinIJssuccessfuldefenseofschool
choiceprogramsinMilwaukee,Arizona,Illinois
andClevelandincludingthelandmarkU.S.
SupremeCourtvictoryforschoolchoicein
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.Hehasalsoauthored
numerousSupremeCourtamicusbriefson
constitutionalissuessurroundingschoolchoice.
PriortohisworkattheInstitute,Komerworkedasacivilrightslawyer
forthefederalgovernment,workingattheDepartmentsofEducationand
Justice,aswellasattheEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommissionas
aspecialassistanttotheChairman,ClarenceThomas.Hismostrecent
governmentemploymentwasasDeputyAssistantSecretaryforCivil
RightsattheDepartmentofEducation.
HereceivedhislawdegreefromtheUniversityofVirginiain1978andhis
B.A.fromHarvardCollegein1974.
100
acknowledgments
TheauthorwouldliketoacknowledgetheassistanceofMarkONeill,
graduateofGeorgeMasonUniversitySchoolofLaw,whoconductedmuch
oftheresearchforthisreport;IJDirectorofCommunicationsLisaKnepper,
forguidingthereportthrougheditingandproduction;andSenior
AttorneyClarkNeilyforeditorialinput.ProductionandDesignDirector
DonWilsondidanoutstandingjobdesigningthematerialinanaccessible
format,andIJsteamofparalegalsandclerksprovidedessentialhelpin
checkingtheaccuracyofalllegalcitations.
TheInstituteforJusticeandtheAmericanLegislativeExchangeCouncil
alsowishtogratefullyacknowledgeTheMiltonandRoseD.Friedman
Foundation,especiallyExecutiveDirectorandCOORobertEnlow,fortheir
inspirationandsupport.
The Institute for Justice is a non-proft, public interest law frm that litigates
tosecureschoolchoice,economicliberty,privatepropertyrights,freedom
ofspeechandothervitalindividuallibertiesandtorestoreconstitutional
limitsonthepowerofgovernment.Foundedin1991,IJisthenationsonly
libertarian public interest law frm, pursuing cutting-edge litigation in the
courtsoflawandinthecourtofpublicopiniononbehalfofindividuals
whosemostbasicrightsaredeniedbygovernment.
IJhelpedsecurethelandmarkU.S.SupremeCourtvictoryforschoolchoice
inClevelandinZelman v. Simmons-Harris,andhassuccessfullydefended
schoolchoiceprogramsnationwide,includinginMilwaukee,Arizonaand
Illinois.
101
TheAmericanLegislativeExchangeCouncil(ALEC)isthenationslargest
non-partisan,individualmembershiporganizationofstatelegislators,with
over 2,400 legislator members from all ffty states, and 87 former members
servingintheU.S.Congress.ALECworkstoadvancetheJeffersonian
principlesoffreemarkets,limitedgovernment,federalism,andindividual
libertythroughanon-partisan,public-privatepartnershipbetween
Americasstatelegislatorsandconcernedmembersoftheprivatesector,
thefederalgovernment,andthegeneralpublic.
ALECsupportseffortstoofferparentsmorechoicesineducationbothasa
matterofprincipleandasapromisingsolutiontotheincreasingchallenges
facingAmericasK-12educationsystem.Asapartofthiscommitment,
ALECcontinuestolookforwaystobetterinformandengageitsstate
legislativemembersandthegeneralpublicregardingthelegislative
opportunitiesthatmayexistintheirstates.
102

School Choice and State Constitutions

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

School Choice and State Constitutions

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

School Choice and State Constitutions

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

VDUCHEPS TAX CPE0ITS

Anda mungkin juga menyukai