Debaters Raise Question of Voucher Constitutionality
None by Eric Ray
(KCPW News) Are private school vouchers unconstitutional? That question was raised today during a KCPW debate on vouchers. According to parental rights advocate and voucher supporter Richard Eyre, vouchers do not violate the separation of church and state because money for vouchers is given directly to the parents. The parents then decide at which school to use the money.Pat Rusk, voucher opponent and past president of the Utah Education Association, says vouchers should expect immediate constitutional challenges should voters pass the referendum. She says the bill attempts to get around the question of constitutionality by writing voucher checks to parents but delivering them to the schools where parents must then provide a restricted endorsement.
Today's voucher debate, sponsored by KCPW and Fox 13 television, is available for download here. Voters will decide whether to implement a statewide voucher system during the general election on November 6th.
Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom, Election Coverage, and Election 2007. Copyright 2008 KCPW
1. Melissa said:
The Supreme Court has already ruled on the case of vouchers, while I don't know the exact wording of the voucher bill, here in Utah, as compared to those that the court has already ruled on, I highly doubt that they are that different as to change the courts mind on the matter.
3. Curt said:
The UTAH constitution is more stringent on this issue than most other states or the federal one. That means that the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on this issue. By the way, the courts have also ruled AGAINST some voucher laws such as in Florida.
4. Jeremy said:
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that vouchers are constitutional, and while the Utah Supreme Court has not, the principles are the same. Vouchers are a payment to parents, not to churches, so they are constitutional. The opposing view, if taken to its logical extreme, would require a prohibition on state employees paying tithing, or even a prohibition on tithe-paying individuals working for the state government. Everyone should be able to see that is silly. Add to that the fact that the U.S. Constitution requires that governments not discriminate against religion, and you simply cannot even consider whether voucher funds are spent, by parents, at a religious school. Sorry, if you're going to oppose vouchers, you will have to rely on policy arguments, not the last resort of the weak, a claim that your view is the only one allowed by constitutional provisions.
5. carol said:
Actually, the Utah constitution is quite different than other states where vouchers have been found--both constitutional and unconstitutional. The state constitutional arguments are better than the federal ones, which have been MOSTLY settled by the US Supreme Court. However, Utah's proposed program is very different (and far more expansive and does not provide a disincentive against leaving public schools) than the Ohio program upheld by the US Supreme Court. LEt's not sound so certain. As I recall, HB 174 Education Voucher AMENDMENTS was definitely a program that could be implemented. Courts have the final word.
6. Daniel said:
I made the comment a few days ago (they removed it...) so I am making it again, the download link is still dead. I am really interested in hearing it. Is there anywhere else that I can get it?
2. Andrea said:
I must agree with the this proposition. The only thing I want for my kids is to have a better education. Now I'm homeschooling my 4 year old, because I don't like the education here. And I think if more money and help goes to private schools, I would definittly will send my kids there. If not, I will keep homeschooling.