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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT