Beyond Church And State: School Vouchers And The Blaine Amendment
Latest update: April 19th, 2012
print
tell a friend
Like clockwork, the question of school vouchers makes a prominent appearance whenever the media focus on a statewide election in New York, particularly one in a heavily Orthodox district. The latest chime was sounded during the battle between Lew Fidler and David Storobin to fill an open state senate seat; both promised constituents that they would make the fight for vouchers and tax education credits their priority. (Nearly a month after the election, a winner has still not been declared in the election.)
Jewish groups have been pushing this issue forward for years, hoping that vouchers will help ease the strain of tuition for Jewish families, who often have multiple children attending yeshiva day schools. They have been joined by Catholic groups and non-parochial organizations that favor “parental choice” – the buzzword for increased educational options for children.
But do vouchers have a legal leg to stand on in New York, or are all these campaign promises and advocacy efforts just a lot of talk?
The Blaine Amendment, which prohibits the use of state funds to aid religious schools, appears to be the main constitutional barrier. Drafted in the 1870s by an anti-Catholic U.S. senator, the amendment was intended to punish Catholics who wanted to pull out of the common schools, which at that time were predominantly Protestant-led, according to Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has worked with the Orthodox Union on the issue of vouchers.
The Blaine Amendment failed to get the requisite amount of votes to become a federal amendment, but was eventually adopted by nearly all 50 states, including New York, and fiercely restricts the amount and type of aid that states can provide to private schools.
But Maury Litwack, director of political affairs for the Orthodox Union, said the Blaine Amendment is not the real issue preventing school vouchers in New York.
Litwack and many other experts contend that it is less of a legal question than a political one, with the strong presence of the powerful teachers’ and public employee unions crowding out the possibility of advancing issues against their agenda.
“It’s a boogie-man issue in general – bring up vouchers and you get into state vs. church discussions when it should be much broader than that,” said Litwack. “The biggest problem is that [the Blaine Amendment] is used as a reason by legislature, more of a symbol by states to say ‘we can’t help you.’ It’s more of a public blockade than an actual constitutional problem.”
Richard Komer of the Institute for Justice: "That's why you don't have [vouchers
Komer noted that New York is the home base for the American Federation for Teachers, one of the two major teachers’ unions in America. Public employee unions are very powerful as well in the state and have a lot of sway in the Democratic Party, he said.
“That’s why you don’t have [vouchers]” he said, “It’s not that anyone has argued against it,” but legislators are aware of the political challenges.
Komer said that Governor Andrew Cuomo made some quiet inquiries as to the constitutionality of vouchers in New York during his campaign, to which IJ responded that vouchers are constitutional in New York State.
Those that point to the political challenges in New York say that state courts have been quite liberal in interpreting the Blaine Amendment, especially in contrast to other states.
For example, non-public school students in New York receive aid in the form of school transportation, textbooks, and more recently get $330 in state aid under the Empire tax credit, Litwack pointed out. (Public school students receive this stipend as well.)
In contrast, states like Florida and Washington don’t provide funding for transportation. In Florida, where the Blaine Amendment has been interpreted very strictly by the courts, it’s been put on the ballot for repeal, he said.
“As long as a school voucher program includes making a genuine independent choice by the parents – in which they are making the decisions where the money is getting directed – it should be constitutional,” said Rassbach at the Becket Fund.
Komer echoed that sentiment. “It’s clear who the direct beneficiaries are – it’s the families who pay for this. Any benefits to the school are incidental,” and therefore constitutional, he said.
There are some, though, that do see the Blaine Amendment as a significant legal barrier.
Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund for Religious Libery: "As long as a school voucher program includes making a genuine independent choice by the parents... it should be constitutional."
tell a friendAbout the Author:
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
No Responses to “Beyond Church And State: School Vouchers And The Blaine Amendment”
Loading ...
The article should have quoted the exact language of New York's Blaine Amendment:
N.Y. Const. art. XI, � 3: "Neither the state nor any subdivision thereof shall use its property or credit or any public money, or authorize or permit either to be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance, other than for examination or inspection, of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part under the control or direction of any religious denomination or in which any denominational tenet or doctrine is taught, but the legislature may provide for the transportation of children to and from any school or institution of learning."
The only way you can get vouchers to be permitted under this draconian language is to assume that the words don't mean what they mean, and that the authors did not mean what they wrote.
An attempt was made to repeal the Blaine Amendment as part of a general Constitutional revision in 1967. The Convention that wrote the revision was controlled by Democrats loyal to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, Gov. Rockefeller gave it only lukewarm support, and the rest of the Republican Party including Lt. Gov. Wilson openly opposed it. In the referendum that fall it gathered only 28% of the vote, losing every county. And that has been typical for voucher referenda in the US; they have lost every single time they have been put to a vote, usuallly by landslide margins — same sex marriage referenda actually have a better record.
The author of the article could have also mentioned that most Catholic schools in New York — who would be the big beneficiaries of vouchers — are unionized. If Jewish schools would allow the same union in, that would help to build a coalition of supporters.
But a lot of things would have to happen to get from here to there. First, property taxes would have to be dramatically lowered. They are already at near-confiscatory levels in the NY suburbs, and to have to fund inefficient private schools as well would be politically impossible. That can only be done by massive school district consolidation. The entire state of Maryland gets along perfectly well with 24 school districts; why does Westchester County need 48 and Nassau County 56?
Second, we would have to explain to people that contrary to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were openly hostile to religion, it is quite possible for a free country to support religious institutions. There are religious schools in Canada, France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom — and probably some other countries I don't know about — that get direct public support; the quid pro quo is that they have to teach the government mandated secular curriculum in its entirety. Partly as a result, the religious schools there are of higher quality than in the US. That such a militantly secular country as France can figure out a way to pay for the entire cost of the secular studies program at Jewish schools speaks volumes. In none of the countries I listed is there any restriction whatsoever on religious freedom and in fact it can be easily argued that religious groups play a much more minor role in public life.
Finally, the coalition would have to be very broad. Poor minority parents whose children are stuck in lousy public schools would be natural allies; why does so much of the Orthodox political spectrum align with right wing causes that are anathema to them? I've already mentioned the unions as a possible ally. Another set of potential allies are the education reformers who ought to be concerned about the lousy secular education in many religious schools (and yes, that includes Jewish schools, too).
I will admit that my own thinking on this has turned around 180 degrees. I used to be a Jefferson/Madison partisan; their interpretation of the First Amendment really is about the same as that held by the ACLU — and remember that Madison was its author! But having visited the countries I mentioned above, seeing middle class families reduced to near poverty by yeshiva tuition, and seeing yeshiva faculty miss paycheck after paycheck because the yeshiva is out of cash caused me to change my opinion. And if this stubborn writer can change, anyone can.
I can't believe that a day later I'm still the only person to have commented on this.
Charlie Hall I was surprised too.