IBJNews

Supporters defend Indiana voucher law in court briefs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Striking down Indiana's school voucher program because some schools are affiliated with churches would amount to unnecessary government interference into religion, the law's supporters argue in court documents.

Opponents led by the Indiana State Teachers Association want the Indiana Supreme Court to overturn the voucher law, which has been upheld by a lower court. Indiana's voucher program is the largest in the nation, with nearly 4,000 students participating. Opponents claim the program violates a state constitutional ban on government support of churches because it compels taxpayers to pay for schools that teach religion.

The Indiana attorney general's office and other groups defending the law argue in court briefs filed last week that nobody is being compelled because parents are free to send their children to any school they want — public, private or parochial.

"These programs were not created for the benefit of religious schools or institutions, but for the benefit of students, and only through their choices do taxpayer funds arrive at religious schools," state lawyers argue in their 50-page brief.

Opponents are essentially claiming that parochial schools — which account for the majority of private schools in the program — shouldn't receive scholarship money because they are "pervasively sectarian," supporters say. Supporters say judging the law's constitutionality based on the religiosity of some schools requires the court to determine how religious various schools are, which in itself is unconstitutional.

"It calls for an inquiry into — and a subjective judgment about — each school's religiosity that is fraught with peril under the First Amendment," attorneys for the Virginia-based Institute for Justice said in their brief filed on behalf of two parents. Groups including the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice also filed friend of the court briefs.

John West, the Washington attorney handling the court challenge, said he would reserve any comment on supporters' arguments for his own brief, which is due April 30.

A private attorney who has taught and lectured on the Indiana Constitution said supporters' argument was novel.

"They're using an argument that's usually used against state support of religion," said Jon Laramore of the Indianapolis law firm of Faegre Baker Daniels. "But here they're posing the argument that if government has to decide which schools have too much religion to get vouchers, that in itself will violate the rule against too much state entwining in religious organizations."

Marion County Judge Michael Keele found in his January order upholding the law that whether or not some schools were religious was irrelevant, because parents had the choice of which school their child should attend.

The attorney general's office is asking the state Supreme Court to uphold Keele's ruling.

The larger argument — that the scholarships aren't state support of religion because parents make the choice of where to spend the money — is similar to arguments that have been used in federal court cases that have upheld vouchers, Laramore said. But that didn't necessarily mean Indiana would follow suit, he said.

"The Indiana Constitution is much more specific in its language prohibiting state financial assistance to religious institutions, so it is not clear that Indiana courts would reach the same conclusion that federal courts have reached," Laramore said Thursday.

An attorney for the Institute of Justice, which is defending the law, said barring parochial schools from receiving scholarships would also deprive parents and students of their religious rights.

"Taking away an option because of its religiosity in a program like this is impermissible discrimination both against the provider of the option and its recipient," Bert Gall said in an email to The Associated Press.

Opponents also claim that the program unconstitutionally takes funds from public schools and sends the money to private schools. The state and other supporters say striking the law down on that basis would endanger other public scholarship programs that send students to private or religious colleges.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • No thanks!
    WHO determines which religious schools may be eligible to receive voucher money? The state of Indiana. Bad juju there, folks! The state is sending tax money to these institutions through a "middle-man"... the parent.

    Keep in mind, these religious institutions pay NO TAXES.... yet they are now receiving tax money.

    Let's also be reminded of the very antiquated views some of these religious institutions teach as science. I'm brought back to the fact that some Christian schools are taking their students (now with state tax money) on field trips to the Creation Museum... where they teach that dinosaurs walked with Adam and Eve, were on the Ark, and were tame. Vouchers now pay for this....

  • Pretzel logic??
    In what universe is it "unnecessary government interference into religion" to AVOID using tax dollars to support a religious institution?? If we don't want government interference in a church-run school, then don't take tax dollars for that school!!

    We hear so much from ultra-conservatives about being fiscally responsible, yet now they say we should give tax dollars to an organization that we can then not influence. This makes no sense!

    You can't have it both ways... if you don't want the government's hand steering your schools, you can't claim a right to tax dollars. That's the separation of church and state.
  • ISTA Union
    Indiana State teachers Association (Union) was formed December 25, 1854. They promoted free education that was not favored by Hoosiers who believed that those benefiting should also be those that paid. Their ISTA battle lasted and was divided into three phases. The first consisted of outlining the professional association standards and benefits. The second was to replace volunteers with professionals, during the Great Depression (GD). R.H. Wyatt, a progressive, ISTA President, was elected and utilized education for social change. He lobbied congress for more and increased funding, creating the powerful lobby group, ISTA. The third and last phase consisted of creating a union for collective bargaining that has/had the potential to exploit. At current the public schools that lacked accomplishment of NCLB receive 42% of Indiana Property Tax, and federal and state funds in the billions. Their greed for tax-payer funds exceeds them.
  • Why not
    Why not let the state get involved with the church, Jackson and Sharpton get involved with state issues and extort outcomes they desire. so whats good for them is good for the state.

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 IBJ 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT