Indiana court rules state’s private school voucher law does not violate state constitution

Meredith v. Daniels, No. 49D07-1107 -PL-025402 (Ind. Super. Ct. Jan. 13, 2012)

Abstract: A Marion Superior Court has granted the State of Indiana summary judgment in a suit challenging the validity of the state’s private school voucher law, known as the Choice Scholarship Program (CSP), under the state constitution. The court concluded that the CSP, which allows “disadvantaged Indiana primary and secondary school students to receive scholarships to attend private schools or public schools in other districts that charge transfer tuition,” did not run afoul of Article 8, Section 1; Article 1, Section 4; or Article 1, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ latest argument that the degree of religiousity — “the extent to which religion is pervasive” — of religious schools participating in CSP renders the program unconstitutional. It held that whether participating religious schools are pervasively sectarian is immaterial.

Facts/Issues: The plaintiffs, 12 Indiana citizens and taxpayers, including educators, clergy, and parents of students attending both public and private schools, challenged the CSP on three state constitutional grounds. They alleged CSP violates: (1) Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution, which imposes a duty on the state legislature to provide “… by all suitable means … for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all;” (2) Article 1, Section 4, which prohibits government from preferring one religion over another and compelling a person to worship against his/her consent; and (3) Article 1, Section 6, which prohibits direct government support for religion through the use of public funds for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.

After the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs contended that the degree of religiousity of the religious schools participating in CSP rendered the program unconstitutional. The court determined that the case would be best disposed of on summary judgment.

Ruling/Rationale: The Superior Court granted the defendants summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims that CSP violates multiple provisions of the Indiana Constitution. It rejected the plaintiffs’ most recent argument that the degree of religiosity of participating religious schools renders CSP unconstitutional, holding that whether participating religious schools are pervasively sectarian is immaterial.

The court found the degree of religiousity had no bearing on the constitutionality of the program because parents possess the choice as to whether to enroll their child in a sectarian school. It also concluded that delving into the degree of religiousity of a school was “disfavored because it requires courts to scrutinize the religious views of an institution and to make subjective judgments on the role of religion within the school.”

The court examined the text and structure of Article 8, Section 1, along with the history of educational funding in Indiana, finding that CSP does not violate the clause. The “all suitable means” clause, the court determined, authorizes utilizing educational options outside the public school system.

It similarly found that the prohibition on compelled support for any place of worship contained in Article 1, Section 4 does not prevent the state from creating a program under which general tax revenues are given to a private citizen, who may then choose to use those funds to pay tuition at a religious school.

Lastly, the court concluded that CSP does not violate Article 1, Section 6 because the voucher program is not in place “for the benefit” of religious schools. Rather, it provides benefits to scholarship recipients who have the choice of funding their child’s education at a public, private secular, or religious school.

Meredith v. Daniels, No. 49D07-1107 -PL-025402 (Ind. Super. Ct. Jan. 13, 2012)

[Editor's Note: In December 2011, Legal Clips summarized an Associated Press (AP) article in the Daily Journal reporting that Marion Superior Court Judge Michael Keele planned to rule within thirty days on whether Indiana’s new school voucher law violates church-state separation clauses in the Indiana Constitution. See the editor's note for Legal Clips coverage of the Superior Court's opinion denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

In its discussion of Article 1, Section 6, the Indiana court noted that other states (Wisconsin and Michigan) with similar "for the benefit" language in their constitutions have upheld schemes allowing tax revenues to be used for the benefit of students' education with incidental benefits to religious schools.  It distinguished Indiana's "for the benefit" language from Colorado's "no aid" clause. Indeed, a Colorado court had recently noted this distinction in its decision to enjoin a similar voucher program in that state.

In August 2011, a Colorado state court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Douglas County School District (DCSD) from implementing Colorado’s CSP.  Legal Clips summarized the court's opinion concluding that the program, which provides state-funded tuition vouchers for private schools, including sectarian schools, violates a number of provisions in the state constitution that guarantee separation of church and state and free exercise of religious beliefs.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the program violates a number of the constitution’s religious provisions by: requiring students to “attend or support [a] ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against [their] consent;” providing aid to churches and religious institutions; utilizing religious tests or qualifications for admission into public educational institutions; failing to maintain school board and school board director control of instruction in local schools; and providing appropriations to a “denominational or sectarian institution or association.”]

Tags: , , , ,