Colorado supreme court strikes school vouchers

[ZenLefty]

Colo. supreme court strikes school vouchers
By Jon Sarche, Associated Press Writer
June 28, 2004

Colorado's public school voucher program is unconstitutional because it strips school boards of their authority over local education, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a 4-3 decision, the court upheld a December ruling by Denver District Judge Joseph Meyer that stopped the program before it could go into effect.

The Supreme Court's majority decision said the Constitution gives locally elected school boards control over any instruction paid for with locally raised funds in schools in their districts.

"Irrespective of the fact that that the goals of the program and the policy considerations underlying it are laudable, we see no way to reconcile the structure of the program with the requirements of the Colorado Constitution," the ruling said. "To hold otherwise would render the local-control provisions of (the Constitution) meaningless."

more...

[NashVegas]

1. Maybe There IS a God

um .. whatever.

it strips school boards of their authority over local education, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday.

This has been my main argument about vouchers all along. And I live in a region where the board's not even elected! How much of a joke is that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The balcklash has begun,

in earnest.

And the courts are finally waking up and smelling the coffee.

Now be prepared for the noise machine to start lamblasting
ahem, activist judges

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Well, the Republican noise machine is sputtering..

and sputtering VERY badly.

This is the end of the Republicans as we know it.

Hawkeye-X

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I beleive you are right

Whigs come to mind, to be honest (1800 and the defeat of
President Adamns, and the aftermath)

[fdr_hst_fan]

4. Vouchers are an excuse for

Rich Repukes to take money from poor people to create snob schools to train elitists to, in turn, be the managers and bosses of the very people who paid their way thru snob school! If memory serves, this crap first bubbled to the surface under Ray-gun!

[ZenLefty]

5. How many times have courts ruled repub measures unconsitutional?

I understand that this particular instance goes against the Colorado constitution and not the U.S. Constitution, but it seems like a common theme: republicans get some vapid backasswards thing passed, and a supreme court somewhere rules it unconstitutional.

It's about time they realized it's the republicans who are unconstitutional.

[donco6]

12. Two big strikes here in CO

The other one was the upholding of the congressional redistricting.

All this and the drought is over. Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

[denverbill]

7. Do these morons ever even read Colorado's constitution.

What the hell is so hard to understand about this:

Section 7. Aid to private schools, churches, sectarian purpose, forbidden. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.

http://i2i.org/Publications/ColoradoConstitution/cnart9.htm#Section%203

[Judi Lynn]

8. Wondrously clear! They COULD'a saved some time by reading it earlier. n/t

[ZenLefty]

9. That really does bring out the "well duh" in this story.

n/t

[denverbill]

10. What's truly mind-boggling is that they keep doing it every year.

I swear it was just last year that their previous attempt to implement vouchers was declared unconstitutional. But does that stop them? Hell no.

They tried to revise the Constitution before that and voters slammed it down decisively. But did the fact that voters soundly rejected it stop them? Hell no.

You wanna send your kid to a religious school? Fine have at it. Just don't expect me to pay for it. I already pay taxes to support public schools and I do that happily. If you can't afford to send your kid to a private school, then tough shit, because that's the whole damned point of having public schools - everyone has a right to an education.

And they keep claiming it's all about helping poor children, but in fact, that's a total ruse. The move to private schools began with desegregation, when wealthy and middle class whites pulled their kids out of public schools so they wouldn't have to intermingle racially. But it really hacked them off to have to pay twice (taxes for public schools, tuition for private). So now they are trying to get vouchers in the door, starting with a tiny program for poor kids, so they can ultimately get a free ride themselves.

[xxqqqzme]

14. they keep putting it

on the ballot in CA also and it gets slapped down -Last time it was over 60% voting against. But every couple of years, there it is again, change the language a little but there just the same. There should B a time limit. If a proposition is defeated, it shouldn't B allowed again 4 a number of years. It really pisses me off.

[jokerman93]

11. The Dominionists won't like this one

These vouchers are also intended to do double duty as a way to finace and finally validate the establihsment of unregulated private "school houses" where another generation of narrowly educated theocrats can be cultivated.

[donco6]

13. "And for my next trick . . . " Spence will reintro new version

Next term.

She's building in language to specify that only *state* dollars will be forwarded to the private schools. Most schools in the state are funded by a combo of state and local (property tax) dollars. The old version just said that the schools would foward the state average per pupil operating money to the private school. The new bill says that the district will foward the same amount, but that *presto* it's only the state money that's being forwarded.

It's like your own checkbook. Say you work two jobs (and in this economy, who doesn't?). When you make your house payment, you just write a check - you don't really stop and think "which job is paying for this payment?" It's naturally a mixture of funds from your two jobs. What Spence is saying is that the voucher payment will be considered to be paid only from state funds. Nothing else whatsoever will change.

Hopefully the courts will see through this.