Vouchers


 * __SECTION VIII: VOUCHERS __**

**__LINKS TO SPECIFIC TOPICS__: ** ** 2. BLAINE AMENDEMENT** ||
 * ** 1. PUBLICLY-FUNDED VIOLATE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE**


 * 1. ** **__VOUCHERS: PUBLICLY-FUNDED VIOLATE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE?__**


 * United States **** Supreme Court: **
 * According to the United States Supreme Court “Government aid program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause, if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice” (New York State School Boards Association [NYSSBA], 2010, p. 770, School Law § 36:38). Furthermore “Under such a program, government aid reaches the religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients” (NYSSBA, 2010, p. 770, School Law § 36:38). In addition the “incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits” (NYSSBA, 2010, p. 770, School Law § 36:38).
 * //Zelman v. Simmons-Harris //, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
 * Federal Appellate Court (outside New York): **
 * “Invalidated state voucher programs based on state constitutional grounds” (NYSSBA, 2010, p. 770, School Law § 36:38).
 * //Bush v. Holmes //, 919 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006)


 * 2. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> **__VOUCHERS: BLAINE AMENDEMENT__**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">New York ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> State ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Constitution Article 11, Section 3 (Blaine Amendment): **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">“Provides that neither the state nor any state subdivision, which includes school districts, may authorize the use of its property, credit or public funds, directly or indirectly, to assist any school under the control of any religious denomination or which teaches any denominational tenet or doctrine” (NYSSBA, 2010, p. 757, School Law § 36:4). The purpose of this article is “to prevent state aid to religion, but the article has been interpreted as not prohibiting every state action that may provide some benefit to religious schools” (NYSSBA, 2010, p. 757, School Law § 36:4). This article “specifically exempts the //transportation// of students to and from nonpublic schools, and the districts examination or inspection of such schools” (NYSSBA, 2010, p. 757, School Law § 36:4).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">//BOE. v. Allen//, 392 U.S. 236 (1968)


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">United State Supreme Court: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">No ruling yet “directly on the validity of state constitutional provisions that are stricter than the Establishment Clause” (NYSSBA, 2010, p. 758, School Law § 36:4).
 * //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Locke v. Davey //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">, 540 U.S. 712 (2004)
 * //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Witters v. Washington Dept of Servs. //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">, 474 U.S. 481 (1986)