Utah voucher law found unconstitutional. Idaho's law is also vulnerable.
A district judge in Utah issued a marvelous decision on April 18, finding Utah's school voucher law to be unconstitutional. The 60-page decision was based on a variety of constitutional flaws that the Utah law shares with Idaho's recently-enacted education tax credit law. The Utah law was enacted in 2023 with $42.5 million in state funds. State funding increased by $40 million in each of the next two years.
The Utah judge said the Utah Constitution gives 'a direct command to the legislature to perform a single duty: establish and maintain the state's education systems.'' The judge continued, 'This clear expression of one duty — coupled with the absence of any general duty to provide for the education or intellectual improvement of Utahns — impliedly restricts the legislature from creating a publicly funded school or education program outside of the public school system.' In other words, Utah's Legislature is restricted from using public funds to support any form of private education.
Of interest is the fact that every member of the Idaho Legislature was sent a 'Legislative Alert' on the first day of the 2025 legislative session, warning that any scheme to use taxpayer money for private education would be violative of the Idaho Constitution in a number of respects. The alert was provided by The Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution, a group that participated in the successful lawsuit to overturn the restrictive initiative law enacted in 2021.
The alert identified the same constitutional flaw focused upon by the Utah judge — that Idaho's Constitution prohibits the funding of private and parochial education. That has been the law of Idaho ever since statehood in 1890.
The alert spelled out several other constitutional infirmities that any voucher scheme would entail, including a deliberate transgression of Idaho's strong prohibition against state support for religious education, discrimination against rural kids and Idaho religions that don't operate parochial schools, lack of accountability for taxpayer money expended on private schooling, and diminution of state money necessary to support Idaho's public school system, which has been chronically underfunded for decades.
The Utah judge's decision mentioned a number of other infirmities in the Utah law — private schools often exclude students with special needs, or condition admission upon adherence to certain religious beliefs, or fail to provide 'free' schooling as constitutionally required for taxpayer-supported education. These flaws are also inherent in House Bill 93, the subsidy bill approved by the Legislature this year.
The Idaho Legislature was clearly warned of the serious constitutional problems with House Bill 93, which will subsidize private and parochial education to the tune of $50 million in just the first year. Yet, because of massive funding from out-of-state groups that are seeking to weaken public schools across the nation, a majority of our legislators cast aside the Constitution and passed the subsidy bill. The governor lacked the courage to veto the legislation, despite overwhelming public outcry against it.
Now, as with the similar travesty in Utah, concerned Idahoans will have to resort to the courts in order to protect the wishes of Idaho's constitutional drafters. Please stay tuned.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Texas dispute highlights nation's long history of partisan gerrymandering. Is it legal?
Who is responsible for gerrymandering? In many states, like Texas, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional districts, subject to the approval or veto of the governor. District maps must be redrawn every 10 years, after each census, to balance the population in districts. But in some states, nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often. In an effort to limit gerrymandering, some states have entrusted redistricting to special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels of politicians. Democratic officials in some states with commissions are now talking of trying to sidestep them to counter Republican redistricting in Texas. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up How does a gerrymander work? Advertisement If a political party controls both the legislature and governor's office — or has such a large legislative majority that it can override vetoes — it can effectively draw districts to its advantage. One common method of gerrymandering is for a majority party to draw maps that pack voters who support the opposing party into a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts. Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party's voters by spreading them among multiple districts. Why is it called gerrymandering? The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing state Senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. Some thought an oddly shaped district looked like a salamander. A newspaper illustration dubbed it 'The Gerry-mander' — a term that later came to describe any district drawn for political advantage. Gerry lost re-election as governor in 1812 but won election that same year as vice president with President James Madison. Advertisement Is political gerrymandering illegal? Not under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: 'The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.' The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. But some state courts, including North Carolina's highest court, have ruled that they also have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims. Are there any limits on redistricting? Yes. Though it's difficult to challenge legislative districts on political grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges on racial grounds. In a 2023 case from Alabama, the high court said the congressional districts drawn by the state's Republican-led Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. The court let a similar claim proceed in Louisiana. Both states subsequently redrew their districts. What does data show about gerrymandering? Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering. Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, used the 2010 census data to create a strong gerrymander. An Associated Press analysis of that decade's redistricting found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years. Advertisement But Democrats responded to match Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The adoption of redistricting commissions also limited gerrymandering in some states. An AP analysis of the 2022 elections — the first under new maps — found that Republicans won just one more U.S. House seat than would have been expected based on the average share of the vote they received nationwide. That was one of the most politically balanced outcomes in years.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Texas governor says Dems can't do ‘anything about' GOP plans
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said Monday that Democrats cannot do 'anything about' Republican redistricting plans amid tension between the two parties over the plans. 'What is your response to Kathy Hochul, who says that 'We are at war over Texas and the redistricting push that's going on in Texas,'' Fox News's Sean Hannity asked Abbott on his show. 'That's a bunch of crazy bluster. Democrats are freaking out because they are realizing Texas has the authority to redistrict, and we're going to do so in a way that's going to lead to these additional seats that will vote Republican, and they will be serving in Congress in the next session,' Abbott replied. 'And so Democrats are freaking out about it, engaging in rhetoric, but I don't think they have the capability of actually living up to it and doing anything about it. Texas will continue to fight for what is right, and that's exactly what we are doing,' he added. Texas Democrats on Sunday left their state to deny Republicans a legislative quorum as part of an effort to halt Republicans from redrawing Texas congressional maps. The action deprives the Texas state Legislature of the numbers required to operate, halting progress on the maps. Members of the Texas state House pledged to keep going with their fight against Republicans' efforts to redraw the congressional district map after Abbott ordered their arrests for leaving the state to deny the chamber quorum. On Sunday, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said that his party is 'absolutely' well-positioned to fight back against Republican redistricting efforts.
Fox News
6 hours ago
- Fox News
'All-out war': Fleeing Texas Dems side with Newsom as redistricting standoff continues: 'fire with fire'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he is ready to fight "fire with fire" as state Republican lawmakers try to enact redistricting in Texas, opposing the move though promising to pursue similar measures if needed. At a press conference on Monday, Newsom said he supports independent redistricting, as well as a national framework, and a proposal being advanced in the legislature reinforces what he supports. "The proposal that we're advancing with the legislature has a trigger only if they move forward, to dismantling the protocols that are well-established," the governor said. "Would the state of California move forward in kind? Fighting? Yes, fire with fire." When asked about a meeting between California Democrats on Sunday night, during which time they drafted or were almost done with the draft of redistricting maps, and whether he had seen those maps, Newsom said he had not. But he said there has been an ongoing series of conversations into the evening last night, which continued on Monday morning and will continue until Democrats land on a process. "That process has to have the concurrence, the support of two-thirds of the legislature," he said. "The maps, we believe, should be transparent. They should be provided in a transparent way to the public, and as a consequence, those maps are being processed and will be brought to light." At the end of the day, though, Newsom said the people of California will have the ultimate say. "We will offer them the opportunity to make judgments for themselves, again, only if Texas moves forward," Newsom said. "I'll reinforce that we believe it should be a national model, independent national redistricting, and it would revert back to its original form, but it's done in response to the existential realities that we're now facing. Things have changed, facts have changed, so we must change." "They've triggered this response and we're not going to roll over and we're going to fight fire with fire, but we're going to do so not just punching with the weight of the fourth largest economy, the most populous state in our union, the size of 21 state populations combined," he continued. "We also will punch above our weight in terms of the impact of what we're doing, and I think that should be absorbed by those in the Texas delegation. Whatever they are doing will be neutered here in the state of California, and they will pay that price." California GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin told Fox News Digital that Newsom's actions could threaten the constitutional rights of Californians while also setting a dangerous precedent. "While Governor Newsom frames this redistricting as a defensive move, it undermines California's nationally respected, voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission, and if successful, sets a dangerous precedent that voters' choices can be overruled whenever politicians find it politically convenient," Rankin said. "Our primary concern is safeguarding Californians' constitutional rights against partisan manipulation disguised as defending democracy; true democracy means empowering voters, not politicians, to decide representation." Dozens of Texas Democrats fled their state and went to Chicago and New York on Sunday night in an effort to block a redistricting vote on Monday. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has since threatened to arrest and expel the lawmakers if they do not return by Monday afternoon. Shortly after Abbott released his statement, the Texas House Democratic Caucus issued a simple response, writing: "Come and take it." The statement also described Republicans' proposed districts, which would potentially secure five new GOP U.S. House seats in next year's midterm elections, as a "racist mid-decade redistricting scheme." Abbott criticized the Democrats' dramatic departure, saying that "real Texans don't run from a fight." On Monday evening, Illinois lawmakers hosted Texas Democrats for a press conference, during which time none of the lawmakers took a single question from the press. Still, Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., welcomed her colleagues and said they could stay as long as they wanted because they believed in what they were doing. "What you're doing and what…they're trying to do in Texas affects you guys, but it affects the whole country," she said. "When you want to remove five Democrats…that hurts us in the House." She explained that when there are not enough Democrats, things like the Big Beautiful Bill, or as she referred to it as "the Big Ugly Bill," and other Republican initiatives get through. "They are trying to destroy our democracy, destroy fairness in our country," Kelly said. "And unfortunately, they're starting with Texas. But we want you to know, we stand by your side." Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., accused Abbott of not stepping up for the people affected by devastating floods in the Hill Country region of Texas. Specifically, he accused Abbott of not having a special session to help families rebuild, but instead of doing "the bidding" of President Donald Trump to "banish Democrats" from the federal delegation. Krishnamoorthi then directed his comments to Abbott, saying, "don't mess with Texas," because the people standing with him represent Texas. "You can silence them. You can smear them. You can saddle them with debts and fins. But you cannot intimidate them," Krishnamoorthi said. "You can gerrymander the hell out of that map. Guess what? Two can play that game. That's right. Other states will do exactly the same thing and neutralize what you're trying to do in Texas." Other lawmakers standing side-by-side in Illinois chose to accuse Trump's policies of being race-driven. Texas State Rep. Ana-Maria Rodriguez Ramos said Trump's policies hurt working families. "That is nothing short of racism," she said. "He is coming after all of us who don't look like him and his Republican colleagues in the Texas House." Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, followed Rodriguez Ramos with more accusations of racism, saying Republicans are doing what Trump has insisted be done. "I want you to know that we didn't introduce the race card when this message was sent by and through the Justice Department to the State of Texas, to our attorney general," he said. "They mentioned the race card because they talked about racial gerrymandering. They brought it up, and when they brought it up, they did it, knowing that this was a buzz word. It was a trigger." "They know that that's a buzz word that people would respond to in Texas, but we are going to respond to that buzz word by telling them that your racism is not going to change democracy in the state of Texas," Green continued. "In the United States of America, racism is going to be met with our taking a stand for democracy. You take a stand for racism, we will stand for democracy, and we will win." Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, said she was pleased that states like California and New York were standing up for Texas Democrats because, once it happens in Texas, it will spread to other states. She called the issue a "national war," and "an all-out war" in which everything is on the table. "We come from a state of great pride, and I never thought as a Texan, as an elected member of the Texas House of Representatives and now as an elected member from Texas to the United States House of Representatives, that I would see the governor of the proud state of Texas bend a knee to a felon from New York," Johnson added. "I never thought I'd see the day, but here we are." Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, was also standing with fellow Democrats in Illinois and accused Abbott of talking "a lot of noise." She also accused Republicans of being "weak." "The difference is they expect Democrats to kind of be the nice guys that we are," Crockett said. "They expect us to take the punch and say thank you. Well, I am here to tell you not only are we going to punch back, but we about to beat you down." Still, Abbott told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday that Texas is doing what it is allowed to do by law. He also accused state Democrats of doing something "un-Texas" by turning their back on Texans and not dealing with the flooding issues still echoing across the state. Abbott said four of the five seats that could change because of redistricting will be primarily Hispanic. "These are seats where Democrats are having to come to grips with reality," he said, explaining that Democrats are losing votes to Hispanics and Black voters in Texas. He also said Democrats are "freaking out" because they are realizing Texas has the authority to redistrict. "Texas will continue to fight for what is right," Abbott said.
