ILNews

Indiana justices consider constitutional challenge to Choice Scholarship Program

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s test case for school vouchers could have implications for other states, legal observers said after the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that challenges the constitutionality of school vouchers.

While the state court deciphers whether vouchers that provide tax dollars to predominantly religious schools stand up to constitutional scrutiny, it won’t be doing so in a vacuum. Three dozen states have in their constitutions language similar to that of Indiana – so-called Blaine Amendments – that restrict the use of public money for religious purposes, often to a greater degree than the federal Establishment Clause.

The Choice Scholarship Program was signed into law by Gov. Mitch Daniels on July 1, 2011; on that same day a lawsuit was filed in a bid to block it on constitutional grounds. A Marion Superior Court upheld the program in Teresa Meredith, et al. v. Mitch Daniels, et al., 49S00-1203-PL-172, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted direct transfer.
 

choice04-15col.jpg Plaintiffs attorney John West. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Vouchers have become wildly popular. According to the Indiana Department of Education, in excess of 9,300 students requested and received vouchers for the 2012-13 school year – more than twice the number of 3,919 in the first year vouchers were available.

“Indiana has become something of a leader with choice-based experiments,” said Notre Dame Law School professor Rick Garnett, an expert in the area of education reform. “If the court were to pull the plug on this experiment, not only would a lot of kids be in a tricky spot, Indiana’s leadership position would kind of be undermined.”

But Sheila Suess Kennedy, professor of law and public policy at the IUPUI School of Public and Environmental Affairs, said whether schoolchildren or parents are inconvenienced misses the point.

“If you allow people to thumb their nose at a constitutional premise on the theory that when it comes to court you won’t be able to unscramble the egg, that’s an unfortunate precedent to set,” said Kennedy, who is listed as a plaintiff in the case but said she’s not actively participated.

Justice Robert Rucker and Chief Justice Brent Dickson focused on Indiana’s version of the Blaine Amendment in Article 1, Section 6: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.” They keyed on interpretation of “for the benefit of,” and whether the program on its face violated that section.


choice09-15col.jpg Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher defended the voucher program. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“Either it means something, or it doesn’t,” Kennedy said. “If the parent is the one being benefited and the schools are merely an incidental beneficiary of public dollars, those provisions are being rendered meaningless.”

‘Bright line distinction’

During oral arguments, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher defended the voucher program and urged justices to uphold it, arguing that it did not constitute an unconstitutional government support of religion.

Fisher pushed for the justices to make a “bright line distinction” because the program does not provide direct support to religious institutions. “The parents are still making the choice,” he said.

Plaintiffs attorney John West argued that the program violated the General and Uniform System of Common Schools Clause of Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution, as well as the prohibitions on taxpayer support of religion in Article 1, Sections 4 and 6 because students can use the vouchers paid for with tax dollars to attend religious schools.

West acknowledged that the lawsuit was a facial challenge, but he urged the court to look deeper, saying that 97 percent of the recipients of public money through the scholarships are religious institutions.

“You cannot stop at the fact that religion is not mentioned in the statute,” West said. He noted that in some schools that receive voucher money, religion “permeates everything they do.”

He responded to justices who questioned the distinction between state-funded scholarships that recipients use to attend private religious colleges and the Choice Scholarship Program by saying that most colleges don’t “inculcate” students with religion.

“Here, the state is directly paying for the teaching of religion,” he said.

But Fisher countered the program also is “a matter of religious accommodation” for parents who might not otherwise have the means to pay for the education they prefer for their child.

“As long as the choice of a boundary school is still there,” Fisher argued, “it’s not direct aid.”

Attorney Robert W. Gall argued for intervenors, including parents Heather Coffy and Monica Poindexter, who use the vouchers to pay for part of their children’s tuition at private schools.

Gall said the program was constitutional and its “only purpose is to provide a greater constellation of educational choice.”

Under the Choice Scholarship Program, students whose families meet financial guidelines may apply for and receive vouchers for public or private schools in other districts that charge transfer tuition.

Currently, the number of scholarships that can be awarded is capped, but next year there will be no limit on the number that may be awarded. Once fully implemented, nearly 60 percent of all Indiana schoolchildren will be legally entitled to receive a scholarship upon application.

Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele in January granted summary judgment for defendants Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett and defendant-intervenors Coffy and Poindexter.

Twelve Indiana residents including educators, clergy and parents of children in public and private schools filed the lawsuit. Their suit says Indiana’s school choice statute is different from similar programs in other states because it “does not prohibit schools from requiring CSP students to participate in all aspects of the school’s religious program, including religious training and instruction, worship, and prayer.

“Indeed, the CSP statute specifically prohibits the Department (of Education) and other state agencies from regulating the ‘religious instructions or activities’ of participating private schools,” the suit says.

Among the plaintiffs in the suit was Glenda Ritz, who defeated Bennett in the November election for the office of Indiana superintendent of public instruction. Ritz, who will take office in January, has said she will remove herself from the suit.

After oral arguments, Bennett was outspoken in his support of the program for opening educational choice to students of all backgrounds and income.
 

garnett Garnet

“I never once gave any consideration to who this benefited other than the children,” he said. “This is about helping children.”

Looking ahead, and back

Garnett said he believes the voucher program will be upheld.

“I think the majority view and the right view is to say, look, those provisions should be viewed as ruling out the sort of direct support of taxpayers’ money to fund distinctly religious activities,” the Notre Dame law professor explained.

“There’s a secular public good,” he said. “What the state is funding is the education of the child, and that doesn’t run afoul of those amendments.” He likened voucher dollars paying for education at a parochial school to Medicaid reimbursement to Catholic hospitals.


kennedy Kennedy

Kennedy said key voucher tests to date – such as the 5-4 affirmation by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 that Cleveland’s school choice program was constitutional – still are constitutionally concerning.

“That required them to sort of turn a blind eye to the fact that almost every school participating was a parochial school,” Kennedy said, and that tax dollars, directly or not, were benefiting religion.

“I’m one of those old-fashioned people who thinks because everybody’s breaking the law, and the law is ill-considered, maybe you get rid of the law,” she said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT