Arizona voucher programs ruled unconstitutional
In a major victory for public education, the Arizona Court of Appeals has declared the state’s two voucher programs unconstitutional.
The 3-0 ruling found the programs violate the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment, which prohibits the use of public funds for religious and other private schools.
One affected program provides vouchers to enable children with disabilities to attend private schools. The other provides vouchers to children in foster care. Each program is funded at $2.5 million a year.
“Vouchers are not sound education policy,” said Panfilo H. Contreras, executive director of the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA). “They divert funds from an already strapped system and channel them to private organizations that, unlike public schools, are not required to be accountable for how the money is spent or the level of achievement that results.”
ASBA was part of a coalition that filed a suit against the state last year, charging the voucher programs, enacted by the state legislature in 2006, were unconstitutional.
NSBA Executive Director Anne L. Bryant lauded the ruling, calling it a “stark reminder that for all the known policy flaws with vouchers -- the diversion of dollars from public schools, the inherent lack of public accountability, and the unimpressive record on student achievement -- they also run afoul of basic constitutional principles.”
Judge Garye Vasquez rejected the arguments of Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and other voucher supporters that vouchers benefit students and their parents, not private schools. If that were the case, he said, the constitutional provision would be meaningless, “since practically every expenditure for school purposes aids the child.”
Vasquez also rejected the argument that the constitutional provision is “tainted” by religious bigotry. Blaine amendments were enacted in dozens of states decades ago to prohibit aid to Catholic schools.
The appeals court accepted the position taken by NSBA in a friend-of-the-court brief, noting that constitutional provisions shouldn’t be discarded “merely because we suspect they may have been tainted by questionable motives.”
Reproduced with permission from School Board News. Copyright © 2008, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789.