Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VOUCHER RULING WILL NOT STOP LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
Tallahassee Democrat ^ | June 28, 2002 | Nancy Cook Lauer

Posted on 06/28/2002 7:10:01 AM PDT by FreeTally

Voucher ruling won't stop lawsuit in Florida

By Nancy Cook Lauer

DEMOCRAT CAPITOL BUREAU CHIEF

A ruling Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of taxpayer-funded vouchers going to religious schools won't deter a group that's filed a similar lawsuit against such vouchers in Florida.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court said using state money for tuition at religious schools in Cleveland does not violate the constitutional prohibition against government support of religion. The ruling is one of the most significant in court history because it dramatically expands the right of parents to demand money from the state to choose the education they want for their children and further blends the legal lines between government and religion.

The decision was lauded by Gov. Jeb Bush, Republican legislative leaders and religious associations as affirming Florida's 1999 "opportunity scholarship" legislation - the nation's first statewide voucher law. Many Democrats, unions and civil liberties organizations blasted it as an erosion of the separation between government and religion.

"Most importantly, this is a victory for the children who were trapped in some of the worst schools in the country, and for the frustrated parents who had no real options," Bush said. "The court's ruling affirms the constitutionality of programs that allow parents a real choice, including the option of receiving an education at a religious school."

House Speaker Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, said he is "thrilled" the Supreme Court struck down rulings by the Cleveland U.S. District Court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to find the vouchers constitutional.

"We have many wonderful teachers in Florida and America," Feeney said. "The bureaucratic monopoly that has led to mediocrity in our school system is once again finding that the concern of parents and educators alike centers upon children gaining knowledge, whether that occurs in a public school, a private school, a religious school or a home school."

But voucher opponents in Florida say provisions in the state constitution governing the separation between church and state are more explicit than those in the U.S. Constitution.

Opponents, including a handful of parents and teachers, the state teachers union and the League of Women Voters, are scheduled to make their case before Circuit Court Judge Kevin Davey on July 7. Davey, who had put the lawsuit on hold awaiting the Supreme Court opinion, couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

"Today's Supreme Court voucher ruling does not affect the Florida Constitution's clear prohibition against spending Florida tax dollars on private religious schools," said Florida Education Association President Maureen Dinnen. "The people of Florida have enacted constitutional safeguards that are much more stringent in assuring that public funds are not used, directly or indirectly, in support of religious institutions."

Opponents of the Florida voucher law lost the first part of the lawsuit in October 2000 when the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled the law did not violate the state constitution by spending public dollars on private schools.

O'Connor joined majority

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote Thursday's decision, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, considered a swing vote, joined the majority. Rehnquist said that the voucher program was one of many choices open to families in Cleveland and thus did not restrict participants to a religious education.

Joining him and O'Connor were Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. In the minority were Justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Souter, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said there was "no way" to accept the program as religiously neutral when almost every seat is in a religious school.

Currently, voucher programs operate only in Florida, Cleveland and Milwaukee, but experts said they expected state legislatures elsewhere to take up the issue.

State vouchers more restrictive

Florida's vouchers are more restrictive because a school must get two failing grades in four years before a student is eligible to get a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a private school. According to the state Department of Education, the number of vouchers for failing schools had fallen from 57 (worth $177,954) for the 1999-2000 school year to 47 ($155,494) for 2001-2002. But the number will rise this year.

Last month, nearly 9,000 students at 10 public schools around the state became eligible for the program. The deadline for parents to notify the state they intend to use a voucher is Monday. So far, the parents of at least 222 students have signed up.

The Florida lawsuit challenges the statewide program now used by just 48 students in Pensacola, nearly all attending Roman Catholic schools. A second voucher law targeting children with disabilities is used by nearly 4,000 students.

Some 3,700 children in Cleveland use the state's 7-year-old program to attend private schools - all but a handful of them religious.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: florida; vouchers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
This shall be interesting. Some quick commentary:

The ruling is one of the most significant in court history because it dramatically expands the right of parents to demand money from the state to choose the education they want for their children and further blends the legal lines between government and religion.

The ruling does no such thing. It allows other States to enact voucher programs.

1 posted on 06/28/2002 7:10:02 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I searched th Florida Constitution trying to vereify the claims I have bolded. This was the best I could come up with:

SECTION 6. State school fund.--The income derived from the state school fund shall, and the principal of the fund may, be appropriated, but only to the support and maintenance of free public schools.

I could find no explanation as to what the "State School Fund" is, but my assumption is that since "vouchers" are a state law, those filing suit claim the money comes from this "State School Fund" or that you can not distinguish between money rasied by the counties for education or money given by the State.

This shall be interesting. If anyone else can find the reference in the Florida Constitution to what the plantifs claim, please post it.

2 posted on 06/28/2002 7:14:56 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally; summer; davidosborne
Bump
3 posted on 06/28/2002 7:15:32 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting, FreeTally.
4 posted on 06/28/2002 7:15:59 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
In addition, there is a far more relevant in the FL Constitution, requiring that education provided by the state be what is called an "equal" education. And, it follows logically, that when a student is in a failing school for example, the state is violating its own obligations as expressly stated in the aforementione clause. Consequently, I think FL will prevail here in FL on this issue, due to the specific description mentioned above. The teachers union president seems unaware of this part of the state constitution.
5 posted on 06/28/2002 7:18:43 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
In addition, there is a far more relevant clause in the FL Constitution, requiring that education provided by the state be what is called an "equal" education. And, it follows logically, that when a student is in a failing school for example, the state is violating its own obligations as expressly stated in the aforementione clause. Consequently, I think FL will prevail here in FL on this issue, due to the specific description mentioned above. The teachers union president seems unaware of this part of the state constitution.
6 posted on 06/28/2002 7:18:51 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
BTW, I read the article before you posted to me! :)
7 posted on 06/28/2002 7:19:41 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; AAABEST
Gentlemen, this article gives one a good idea of just how many obstacles exist here in FL for Gov Bush and all the voucher programs he enacted on a statewide basis. Not that you should admire him for trying or anything... :)
8 posted on 06/28/2002 7:21:18 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; AAABEST
Please note I emphasize my smile above, because I do understand now the points you two were making to me. It's simply that in addition to now understanding your points, I do have to acknowledge how far ahead Gov Bush is from everyone else. That leadership on his part is something I thinkk deserves to be recognized, IMO.
9 posted on 06/28/2002 7:22:45 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: summer
thinkk = think
10 posted on 06/28/2002 7:23:02 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SpookBrat; not-alone; livius; Kryptonite; jalisco555; seekthetruth; Joe Boucher; Amore; ...
FYI.
11 posted on 06/28/2002 7:25:04 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Another fair, unbiased piece of reporting from Nancy Cook Lauer, who gained fame by not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.
12 posted on 06/28/2002 7:28:53 AM PDT by EllaMinnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer
Aren't there several "teachers of the year" that support Florida's voucher program? It is articles like this that make me cringe about the Florida Kangaroo Court.
13 posted on 06/28/2002 7:31:05 AM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
"but only to the support and maintenance of free public schools". Free public schools. What a farce. What a joke. It sure as hell is not free to me. I pay thousands of dollars a year in property taxes to support "free public schools".
14 posted on 06/28/2002 7:34:28 AM PDT by sharkdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Of course, the FEA shill doesn't seem to understand that the money does not originate from the state. When I pay my taxes, it's MY MONEY they're taking, and if I can use it to pay for public schools or to pay for a private school, it is my right, because I earned that money. She seems to believe that once the state takes my money, it belongs to the state and we, the contributors, have no say. That is why the whole NEA, FEA, and all of the government dependencies they support need to be extirpiated. They exist merely to argue that we have no say in how we spend or how others spend our money.
15 posted on 06/28/2002 7:36:24 AM PDT by =Intervention=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer
I think the US Supreme court ruling trumps whatever the State Constitution says, and the shrill idiots from the Florida Education Association and the Kangaroo court in Tallahassee can't do anything about it.

If they could, Gore would be President.

16 posted on 06/28/2002 7:41:37 AM PDT by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
When will people realize that lawsuits like this are a tremdous waste of taxpayer dollars. Lawsuits against the state deplete money that could be used for other things. If they were really concerned about the children, they would drop the lawsuit and save the state millions that could go for education.

But then again, it's not really about the children - it's about teacher job security.
17 posted on 06/28/2002 7:43:48 AM PDT by vanna516
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer
And, it follows logically, that when a student is in a failing school

That's what was happening nationwide during the 70's, so they lowered the national standards. Problem corrected without spending hundreds of billions, just hundreds of millions. Dumbing down has and will continue to be successful as long as we have the NEA in charge.

A comparison of the education being taught in 1970 with 2001 is the saddest review I ever read. I wish I had retained the link.

18 posted on 06/28/2002 7:51:17 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Expect more local fights than ever before, nationally. The NEA and related organizations won't give up until the last air is choked out of them. They are quite effective at the local level -- the stage off-year battles where they can get out the teacher and PTA vote quite effectively.
19 posted on 06/28/2002 7:54:30 AM PDT by WriteOn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
I think the US Supreme court ruling trumps whatever the State Constitution says, and the shrill idiots from the Florida Education Association and the Kangaroo court in Tallahassee can't do anything about it.

I'm not sure, which is partially why I posted this. I searched the Florida Constiution, but could not quite find the explicit language that said what the plantiffs claim.

However, if the State Constitution did say something like, "Revenue collected for the purpose of education can not be spent on private schools", I think that would stop vouchers dead in their tracts, unless an amendment is proposed to change the language. The SCOTUS ruling was on Federal issues, and, IMHO, does not disallow verbage in State Constitutions explicitly stating how tax money is to be spent on education.

20 posted on 06/28/2002 7:55:56 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson