Law & Courts

Two Voucher Programs Struck Down in Arizona

By Erik W. Robelen — March 26, 2009 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The Arizona Supreme Court yesterday struck down two specialized voucher programs, ruling that they violate the state constitution’s prohibition on providing state aid to private religious and secular schools.

As a result, the estimated 450 students in the two programs—one for students with disabilities and another for those living in foster care—will lose their state-funded scholarships at the end of the current academic year.

Though supporters of the two voucher plans, enacted in 2006, argued that students and their parents were the true beneficiaries of the programs, the five-member Arizona Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling in Cain v. Horne said the programs still violated constitutional restrictions.

“These programs transfer state funds directly from the state treasury to private schools,” Justice Michael D. Ryan wrote. “That the checks or warrants first pass through the hands of parents is immaterial.”

The state court of appeals overturned a trial judge last year and ruled in May that the programs were unconstitutional. A state Supreme Court justice then gave permission for the programs to continue during the current school year, pending the outcome of an appeal to the Arizona high court.

Several Challengers

The legal challenge was mounted by several groups, including the Arizona Education Association—an affiliate of the National Education Association—the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, and the Arizona School Boards Association.

“We thought the language of the Arizona Constitution was clear, and we thought that if the court applied that language, this would be the result,” said Donald M. Peters, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “They did and we’re gratified.”

Panfilo H. Contreras, the executive director of the Arizona School Boards Association said in a statement, “It was clear from the start that the purpose of these limited voucher programs was to test the legal waters in order to have a more expansive voucher program that would siphon state funds from our public schools to support private, often religious education.”

But Timothy D. Keller, the executive director of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, and the lead attorney for the defendants, disagreed with the result.

“I think the court got this one wrong on both the law and the facts,” he said.

And he vowed that help was on the way for the families who will lose their vouchers.

“This is not the end of the line for school choice in Arizona,” he said.

Possible Next Steps

Mr. Keller said one option would be for the voucher students to receive scholarship aid under one of the state’s two existing tax-credit-funded scholarship programs. One program is paid for through donations by individuals, and another by donations from businesses.

Another option, Mr. Keller said, would be to pursue a statewide ballot initiative to amend the state constitution.

Mr. Contreras argued that such an effort would be doomed to fail.

“The only place left to take this issue in Arizona is to the ballot box, and Arizona voters, like all those who have faced the question in other states, will not support having their tax dollars taken from public schools to support private education,” he said.

Mr. Keller said he did not view the Arizona ruling as having significant national implications for voucher battles in other states.

“The Arizona provision upon which the court based its ruling is not commonly found in other state constitutions,” he said. And Mr. Keller said he was not aware of any other state with an existing voucher program that has such language.

Mr. Peters, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said he believes the situation may have some limited bearing in other states where vouchers face a legal challenge, though he said the wording of individual state clauses on aid to nonpublic schools tend to differ.

“It certainly wouldn’t have overwhelming impact anywhere else,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.
A version of this article appeared in the April 01, 2009 edition of Education Week as Two Voucher Programs Struck Down in Arizona

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Artificial Intelligence Webinar
Managing AI in Schools: Practical Strategies for Districts
How should districts govern AI in schools? Learn practical strategies for policies, safety, transparency, as well as responsible adoption.
Content provided by Lightspeed Systems
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
Unlocking Success for Struggling Adolescent Readers
The Science of Reading transformed K-3 literacy. Now it's time to extend that focus to students in grades 6 through 12.
Content provided by STARI
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court’s Gender Identity Ruling Leaves Schools Seeking Clarity
Advocates say they would welcome more from the Supreme Court on gender-notification policies.
7 min read
The Supreme Court is photographed, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026, in Washington.
The Supreme Court is photographed, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026, in Washington. The high court recently ruled that California policies that sometimes limit or discourage schools from disclosing information to parents about children’s gender transitions and expressions at school likely violate parents’ constitutional rights
Rahmat Gul/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Backs Parents in School Gender Disclosure Fight
The Supreme Court restored an injunction blocking California policies on student gender transitions
8 min read
Teacher’s aide Amelia Mester, wrapped in a Pride flag, urges Escondido Union High School District not to have employees notify parents if they believe a student may be transgender in November 2025. A policy on the issue in the city’s elementary school district is the subject of a federal class-action lawsuit in which a judge just sided against the district.
Teacher’s aide Amelia Mester, wrapped in a Pride flag, urges Escondido Union High School District not to have employees notify parents if they believe a student may be transgender at a meeting in November 2025. Two parents and two teachers from the district sued in 2023, challenging California state guidance concerning student gender transitions and parental notification. The U.S. Supreme Court has now reinstated a lower-court decision overturning those state policies.
Charlie Neuman for The San Diego Union-Tribune/TNS
Law & Courts Appeals Court Allows Louisiana Ten Commandments Displays to Proceed
The court said it was premature to rule on the constitutionality of La. Ten Commandments displays.
3 min read
Students work under Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights posters on display in a classroom at Lehman High School in Kyle, Texas, Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025.
Students work under Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights posters on display in a classroom at Lehman High School in Kyle, Texas, Oct. 16, 2025. A federal appeals court has lifted a lower-court injunction blocking a Louisiana law that requires Ten Commandments displays, clearing the way for the law to take effect.
Eric Gay/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Strikes Trump Tariffs in Case Brought by Educational Toy Companies
Two educational toy companies were among the leading challengers to the president's tariff policies
3 min read
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Members of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. On Feb. 20, 2026, the court ruled 6-3 to strike down President Donald Trump's broad tariff policies, ruling that they were not authorized by the federal statute that he cited for them.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP