Florida Judge Strikes Down Voucher Law

Associated Press ^ | Monday, August 05, 2002 | DAVID ROYSE

[Dog Gone]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- A judge struck down Florida's statewide school voucher law Monday, saying it violates the state constitution.

The 1999 Florida law allows students at public schools that earn a failing grade two years out of four to get a voucher to attend private schools, including religious schools.

In his ruling Monday, Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey said that Florida's constitution is ``clear and unambiguous'' in preventing public money from going to churches or other ``sectarian institutions.''

``While this court recognizes and empathizes with the ... purpose of this legislation -- to enhance the educational opportunity of children caught in the snare of substandard schools -- such a purpose does not grant this court authority to abandon the clear mandate of the people as enunciated in the constitution,'' Davey wrote.

He ordered an immediate injunction barring any students from using vouchers to attend private school this year.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Ohio voucher law, ruling that state money could be spent on religious schools if parents can freely choose what private school they want their children to attend.

The Florida lawsuit was filed a day the voucher law was signed. Plaintiffs include the state's teachers union, the Florida PTA, the Florida League of Women Voters and several families and educators across the state.

A year later, Circuit Judge Ralph Smith Jr. ruled that the law violated the state constitution by allowing tax dollars to be spent on private schools. But in October 2000, the 1st District Court of Appeal overruled Smith, finding the law was constitutional.

The Florida Supreme Court refused in April 2001 to consider the appeals court decision, sending the lawsuit back to the trial court for action on the remaining counts.

The voucher opponents dismissed their count based on the federal constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June upholding Ohio's law.

But a count based on a similar provision of the Florida Constitution remained -- and voucher critics argued that the state provision was far more exacting and specific than its federal counterpart.

That was the issue before Davey, who held a hearing on the case on July 9.

[capt. norm]

It's like the G.I. Bill. The money goes to individuals to spend on education at a school of their choice.

The fact that it may end up in a religion-sponsored school is beside the poiny.

The government has laws against buying illegal drugs and yet welfare recipients cash their government checks and buy them by the ton.

If it isn't already, the voucher law should be written in much the same way as the G.I. Bill and that would end the controversy.

[Chemnitz]

The judge's reasoning is totally bogus. Implicit is the new unwritten rule that the government can never have anything to do with something religious. Forget the paid chaplains in the House and Senate (ever since the country began). Forget the relationship between religious charities and the state. I imagine that Lutheran Social Services is active in Florida. LSS gathers money from churches, hires ministers as leaders, and delivers various services to communities across America. LSS is a part of the largest Lutheran church body, ELCA.

Long ago I was told that LSS got 10% of its money from Lutherans and 90% from the government. It's interesting because the fund raising makes people think that they are doing so much with their donations. The donations are key to the matching dollar ratios from the government, so they are accidentally right, but it is mostly tax money.

The question is whether an organization delivers something of value to society. Obviously many people think LSS does that. I imagine that Catholic charities are similar. (I think the government subverts religious charities, but that's another issue.)

There is no reason to prevent vouchers. I would rather see the entire public education system (K-12) eliminated and all tax revenue returned to the citizens. It would close down the biggest market for illegal drugs, pornographic sex education, gay activism, and collectivist ideas. Then those who actually cared to educate their children would have the money and freedom to do so.

[litany_of_lies]

Now that the SCOFLA has declared vouchers unconstitutional, I fully expect them to strike down the "Bright Futures" program, which allows state college scholarship money to be used at the private institutions listed at this link, many of which are clearly religious:

http://www.firn.edu/doe/brfutures/pri4yr.htm

Why should college money be any different than K-12?

[prophetic]

a judge who'se really on the side of the Democrat controlled NEA teacher's union.

So lets just prevent the parents from having a REAL choice for eduKation their kidz after all the Demoratz really want to the school system to keep churning out a bunch of morons to supply the McDonalds & Burger Kings of US of A.

Like it or not but charter/private schools are here to stay
and to which I say "Bye Bye NEA!!" :-)

[Tailback]

Yeah but in Oregon we can easily change that with a ballot measure.

[sunshine state]

You got me thinking about something. If the state can give aid to daycares operating out of churches, on behalf of teen mothers, why can't the state give out vouchers, on behalf of parents, to be used at religious schools?

I know at the daycare my son was going to, some entity was subsidizing 80% of the cost for one of the teen moms. I believe it was the State of Florida. I'm going to have to check into this.

[mlo]

No. The USSC ruled that they were allowed in Federal law. A state may pass its own law prohibiting them.

Not so. USSC has struck down numerous provision in various State constitutions over the years, having been especially active at this during the civil rights tensions in the 1960s.

The point was not that the USSC can't strike down provisions in state constitutions. Of course they can. But there has to be a federal issue, a conflict with the federal constitution. This case was heard in state court and apparently only state issues were raised. There is no reason to think there is a federal issue that they could prevail on (the USSC allowed vouchers, they didn't require them) and a federal suit would have to be brought in any case.

[mlo]

Even though the state constitution has more specific language than the federal Constitution, the federal one is, as it plainly states in its text, "the supreme Law." Therefore, an attempt by a state to take away something that is accepted as constitutional under the US Constitution, must fail.

That's just not right. The federal constitution is the supreme law, but that only matters if there is a conflict. For example, since the federal constitution protects a right to free speech a state law that infringed that right would be struck down. But there is no such conflict here. The USSC has recently ruled that vouchers are not prohibited, but it didn't rule that they were required or that there was a right to a voucher. A state is free to pass a voucher program or not.

By your reasoning, nothing that is not specifically prohibited by the federal constitution could possibly be legislated on by the states. The states would have NO power at all. Since the federal constitution does not specifically prohibit murder a state would not be able to make it illegal. Obviously that's not true. You need to check your logic again, you've made a mistake here.

[exDemMom]

Once again, the teachers' unions and schools reaffirm their absolute right to keep your kids stupid. It's the only way to ensure a new generation of Dem voters...

[FreeTally]

Now that the SCOFLA has declared vouchers unconstitutional,

The SCOFLA did not rule on vouchers. This was a Circuit court. The SCOFLA remanded this case back to the trial court AFTER agreeing that vouchers did not violate the State Constitution on other grounds. The trial court had ruled that vouchers were unconstitutional on other grounds, but didn't address this second issue in a way to suffice the SCOFLA. I suspect it will be heading back.

[FreeTally]

The point was not that the USSC can't strike down provisions in state constitutions. Of course they can. But there has to be a federal issue, a conflict with the federal constitution. This case was heard in state court and apparently only state issues were raised. There is no reason to think there is a federal issue that they could prevail on (the USSC allowed vouchers, they didn't require them) and a federal suit would have to be brought in any case.

The federal constitution is the supreme law, but that only matters if there is a conflict. For example, since the federal constitution protects a right to free speech a state law that infringed that right would be struck down. But there is no such conflict here. The USSC has recently ruled that vouchers are not prohibited, but it didn't rule that they were required or that there was a right to a voucher. A state is free to pass a voucher program or not.

Thank you for trying to explain this to people who do not want to listen.

I suspect there will be an amendment on the ballot in 2004 that would change the wording of Section 3 so that it would not apply to vouchers. As I posted before, I find it very interesting that the wording about "funds from the public treasury" going to sectarian institutions is found in Section Three, but not in the lengthy "education" section of the constitution. It would seem to me that the argument could be made that the provisions of Section 3 were not intended to apply to education since no such similar wording was included in the Education section of the State Constitution.

[Moby Grape]

The first draft of the ammendment stated that "Congress shall pass no law respecting a DENOMINATION..."...The author of this ammendment LATER wrote that should the BIBLE ever be removed from PUBLIC schools as the PRIMARY source of moral instruction, that the national treasury would be consumed with building of prisons....If one takes the time to read what the Founding Fathers said about these subjects, and not just the article and ammendments themselves, one can find what they REALLY meant....not what the ACLU says that they meant.

[FreeTally]

Thanks. I am well aware of the opinion of many of the founding fathers concerning religion and the Bible in schools. I was lucky enough to have parents who made sacrafices to send me to a private, religious school where we were exposed to the actual writings of the founding fathers, and not just some book writers opinion on such things.

I would love to see the (involuntary)public school system end. I'm just not sure how this will be accomplished. The Florida voucher program is a step, but it is still socialism because those who use vouchers are taking other people's money. Its a hand-out. I personally would like to see private industries simply offer to pay private school tuition for kids in failing schools. That would really put the NEA and public schools in a bad position when "industry" admists that what the public school system is churning out is counter-productive to the needs of the business world.

[Moby Grape]

If there is ONE lesson that needs to be learned, and it seems it will not, it is the importantance of WHO is elected for the sake of judicial appointments. What liberals could NEVER get through popular vote, or through Congress, they get thru judicial means. If there is ONE message the GOP should be sending out 24 hours a day, it is to inform the populace that these screwy decisions by judges are the result of DEMOCRAT appointments.

[Cannon6]

Is this one of the judges who voted against Jeb in the 2000 recount?

[Moby Grape]

You are SO RIGHT about the problem with public schools...Recently attended a birthday party, and a friend of ours started the "vote for those who will fund our schools" mindless claptrap...I could not contain myself. I unloaded on her with the FACTS about education and funding....but MOST people are so easily mislead by the feel-good idea of more money means better education.

[EBUCK]

I see one problem here is that the parents are paying taxes into the public school system and they are being penalized by today's ruling.

Some parents are paying into the system and getting screwed but a lot of parents are paying less taxes than it costs to send their kids to school. According to one poster it would take a property value of 300K, and subsequent property tax of 3K, to cover tuition. Should Florida just allow those that pay enough taxes to cover the voucher get the voucher? And if you did, how many rich kids would actually qualify by failing 2 years in a row?

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

Good call. Although I'm not too sure we could get it done here.

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

The USSC has recently ruled thatOHIO vouchers are not prohibited,...

And that's it. They didn't say that all vouchers are Constitutional. They just rules that the Ohio voucher system does not violate the OH, nor the US, Constitutions. I'd like to see if they think the FL voucher passes muster.

Ohio's Constitution...

§ 1.07 Rights of conscience; education; the necessity of religion and knowledge (1851)

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

Compare that to the FL constitution....

(art. 1) SECTION 3. Religious freedom.--

There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

...and I think you will see why Ohio has a much more voucher friendly Constitution. Ohio's Const. can actually be interpreted to encourage religious schools.

EBUCK

[floriduh voter]

I am no liberal, far from it, but cutting the voucher program hurts the poor kids who wanted out of bad schools where merit pay has not been practiced; rather seniority. Just like federal workers. It's now how you've done as a teacher but how long have you occupied a desk and shown up at the job.

This is a dem tactic and when these children aren't enrolled anywhere because of this ruling, they will blame Jeb Bush in the Reno v. McBride debate and subsequent debates. Two attorneys are running against Jeb. What are the chances that one or both of them knew this judge? I'd say pretty good.

I believe the Reno vs. McBride debate will actually be a Bush bashing festival. Since neither one of them can afford commercials, this will be one big commercial against Jeb. Watch them blame Jeb for these children "not being able to enroll" and it's their plan. I'm sure Jeb already figured this out yesterday. FV