ILNews

State urges justices to draw ‘bright line’ on school choice vouchers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher on Wednesday urged the Indiana Supreme Court to uphold the state’s school choice voucher program, arguing that it did not constitute an unconstitutional government support of religion.

Fisher urged the justices to make a “bright line distinction” on Indiana’s Choice Scholarship Program because it does not provide direct support to religious institutions. “The parents are still making the choice,” he said.

More than 120 people packed the chambers of the Indiana Supreme Court for oral arguments in Teresa Meredith, et al. v. Mitch Daniels, et al., 49S00-1203-PL-172.

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.

Justice Robert Rucker and Chief Justice Brent Dickson focused questions for West on 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.

West noted that at 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 said 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 limits 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 Dr. Tony Bennett, Coffy and Poindexter.

Twelve Indiana residents including educators, clergy and parents of children in public and private schools filed the lawsuit in July 2011 challenging the Choice Scholarship Program enacted last year.

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 this month defeated Tony Bennett to win the office of Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction. She said in published reports on Tuesday that she would remove herself from the suit after Wednesday’s hearing and before taking office in January.

After Wednesday’s arguments, Bennett was outspoken in his support of the program.

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

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT