ILNews

Voucher program stands, Indiana Supreme Court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s school voucher program, considered the nation’s widest-reaching, is constitutional, the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday.

“We hold that the Indiana school voucher program, the Choice Scholarship Program, is within the Legislature’s power under Article 8, Section 1, and that the enacted program does not violate either Section 4 or Section 6 of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the court.

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. The ruling on direct appeal in Teresa Meredith, et al. v. Mike Pence, et al., 49S00-1203-PL-172, affirms a Marion Superior Court grant of summary judgment to defendants.

Gov. Mike Pence hailed the ruling. “I welcome the Indiana Supreme Court's decision to uphold Indiana's school choice program. I have long believed that parents should be able to choose where their children go to school, regardless of their income. Now that the Indiana Supreme Court has unanimously upheld this important program, we must continue to find ways to expand educational opportunities for all Indiana families.”

The Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the voucher program violates liberties in the state Constitution regarding education and religion. The court emphasized that Indiana’s Constitution does not intend to prohibit religious institutions from receiving indirect government services, “such as fire and police protection, municipal water and sewage service, sidewalks and streets,” but only prohibits funding directly benefiting such institutions.

Justices rejected plaintiff arguments that voucher programs provide direct funding to religious activities in many schools that accept vouchers. “We disagree because the principal actors and direct beneficiaries under the voucher program are neither the State nor program-eligible schools, but lower-income Indiana families with school-age children,” Dickson wrote.

Indiana follows Wisconsin’s Supreme Court in upholding some of the most ambitious and far-reaching voucher programs in the nation. Florida’s Supreme Court threw out a similar voucher proposal. Dickson noted that state’s Supreme Court ruled vouchers violated the Florida Constitution by “devoting the state’s resources to the education of children within [Florida] through means other than a system of free public schools.” The “free public schools” language is expressed in Florida’s Constitution, while Indiana requires the Legislature to “provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools.”

Justices didn’t accept plaintiff arguments that the program could ultimately result in 60 percent of schoolchildren attending private schools, and that would violate the provision for a uniform system of common schools.

“Even if we were to apply the plaintiffs’ 60% hypothesis and assume that the families of all such program-eligible students utilize the program, so long as a ‘uniform’ public school system, ‘equally open to all’ and ‘without charge,’ is maintained, the General Assembly has fulfilled the duty imposed by the Education Clause,” Dickson wrote.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement, “The Indiana Supreme Court found that the Legislature, in creating a voluntary program to broaden educational alternatives for Hoosier children, followed the Indiana Constitution by leaving the decision whether and where to use a scholarship to qualifying students and their families.

“My office defended the statute that the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature passed; and now that the question is decided, families can make informed decisions about using vouchers,” Zoeller said.

The court in December heard oral arguments under the original case title that named then-Gov. Mitch Daniels as defendant. When the case was filed, Glenda Ritz was among the plaintiffs, but as a result of her election as superintendent of public instruction in November, she became a defendant by statute, as did Pence.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said the ruling “is clearly a victory for the 9,400 low-income students whose families have selected a school of choice through Indiana’s education scholarship program.  It is also a victory for every Hoosier that supports school choice as a means of making every traditional public, private, and charter school compete to give the very best education to their students.

“We will continue the fight to make Indiana’s public, private, and charter schools the very best in the nation,” Bosma said.

The voucher case was high-stakes for both supporters and opponents.

“Indiana has become something of a leader with choice-based experiments,” Notre Dame Law School professor Rick Garnett, an expert in the area of education reform, told IL in December. “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 in December that 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.

Meanwhile, Senate Democratic Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said in a statement that the ruling “only heightens the need for the Indiana General Assembly to scrutinize the fiscal impact of expanding vouchers and study what oversight measures are necessary to protect taxpayer investment.

“I would join the growing chorus of others in the belief that the impact the voucher program has on every Hoosier child’s ability to obtain a high-quality education deserves a thorough study. … To not give this issue careful consideration would be reckless.”

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that the ruling supports high quality educational opportunities for state children, whether in public or private schools.

“The state’s school choice voucher program puts us on course to achieve that,” the chamber said.

In a pair of 5-4 opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 upheld an Arizona tax-credit voucher system and in 2002 affirmed an Ohio system granting vouchers to certain Cleveland students.



 

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. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

  2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

  3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

  4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

  5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

ADVERTISEMENT