The Arizona Supreme Court yesterday struck down two specialized voucher programs, ruling that they violate the state constitution鈥檚 prohibition on providing state aid to private religious and secular schools.
As a result, the estimated 450 students in the two programs鈥攐ne for students with disabilities and another for those living in foster care鈥攚ill lose their state-funded scholarships at the end of the current academic year.
Though supporters of the two voucher plans, enacted in 2006, argued that students and their parents were the true beneficiaries of the programs, the five-member Arizona Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling in said the programs still violated constitutional restrictions.
鈥淭hese programs transfer state funds directly from the state treasury to private schools,鈥� Justice Michael D. Ryan wrote. 鈥淭hat the checks or warrants first pass through the hands of parents is immaterial.鈥�
The state court of appeals overturned a trial judge last year and ruled in May that the programs were unconstitutional. A state Supreme Court justice then gave permission for the programs to continue during the current school year, pending the outcome of an appeal to the Arizona high court.
Several Challengers
The legal challenge was mounted by several groups, including the Arizona Education Association鈥攁n affiliate of the National Education Association鈥攖he American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, and the Arizona School Boards Association.
鈥淲e thought the language of the Arizona Constitution was clear, and we thought that if the court applied that language, this would be the result,鈥� said Donald M. Peters, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs. 鈥淭hey did and we鈥檙e gratified.鈥�
Panfilo H. Contreras, the executive director of the Arizona School Boards Association said in a statement, 鈥淚t was clear from the start that the purpose of these limited voucher programs was to test the legal waters in order to have a more expansive voucher program that would siphon state funds from our public schools to support private, often religious education.鈥�
But Timothy D. Keller, the executive director of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, and the lead attorney for the defendants, disagreed with the result.
鈥淚 think the court got this one wrong on both the law and the facts,鈥� he said.
And he vowed that help was on the way for the families who will lose their vouchers.
鈥淭his is not the end of the line for school choice in Arizona,鈥� he said.
Possible Next Steps
Mr. Keller said one option would be for the voucher students to receive scholarship aid under one of the state鈥檚 two existing tax-credit-funded scholarship programs. One program is paid for through donations by individuals, and another by donations from businesses.
Another option, Mr. Keller said, would be to pursue a statewide ballot initiative to amend the state constitution.
Mr. Contreras argued that such an effort would be doomed to fail.
鈥淭he only place left to take this issue in Arizona is to the ballot box, and Arizona voters, like all those who have faced the question in other states, will not support having their tax dollars taken from public schools to support private education,鈥� he said.
Mr. Keller said he did not view the Arizona ruling as having significant national implications for voucher battles in other states.
鈥淭he Arizona provision upon which the court based its ruling is not commonly found in other state constitutions,鈥� he said. And Mr. Keller said he was not aware of any other state with an existing voucher program that has such language.
Mr. Peters, the plaintiffs鈥� lawyer, said he believes the situation may have some limited bearing in other states where vouchers face a legal challenge, though he said the wording of individual state clauses on aid to nonpublic schools tend to differ.
鈥淚t certainly wouldn鈥檛 have overwhelming impact anywhere else,鈥� he said.
