Supreme Court rejects state's voucher plan
June 29, 2004

The Colorado Supreme Court said in a June 28 decision that the state's school voucher program "is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt."

The Court heard the case May 25 on appeal from Denver District Court by Governor Bill Owens and the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C. Gov. Owens and the state are the defendants in the lawsuit filed in June 2003.

The Supreme Court said the voucher program "violates the local control provisions" of Article IX, Section 15 of the state constitution, holding that "the Constitution mandates that local school districts retain control over locally-raised funds." The justices refuted the defendants' argument that "local control means control over instruction per se, and does not implicate funding in any way."

The Court said, "This argument simply ignores nearly one hundred years of this Court's precedent clearly linking control over instruction to discretion to spend locally-raised funds." It also said the voucher program "undermines the basic rationale of our state-wide school finance system."

It ruled only on the local control issue. No court has yet ruled on the issues in the lawsuit of using public tax dollars for private and religious schools.

District Court's Decision

Judge Meyer also issued an injunction, barring school districts from going forward with the program and parents from applying to the private schools approved by school districts as voucher schools.

Soon thereafter, the State asked the court for a stay on the injunction. But, on January 6, 2004, Meyer denied the state's request, halting further implementation of the law. Unable to win an injunction, the State filed an appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court. This resulted in the June 28 Supreme Court ruling.

In its December decision, the Court found the new law unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the principle of local control in the Colorado Constitution.

"I see no way to interpret the voucher program statute in a way that does not run afoul of the principle of local control embodied in Section 15," Judge Meyer wrote. "The goals of the voucher program are laudable, and providing vouchers so that select children may use public funds to attend private schools may be an effective means of addressing the educational disparities the General Assembly has recognized. However, even great ideas must be implemented within the framework of the Colorado Constitution."

In June 2003, upon filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs (Colorado PTA and others) moved for judgment on two of several pleadings. The Court heard oral argument November 12. The Court dismissed the pleading on "special legislation." This argument by the plaintiffs contended that the 11 school districts mandated to provide vouchers under HB 1160 are in a special class of school districts. They can never leave that class no matter how much their schools improve and no other districts not already in that class can not be part of it even if their schools meet the same criteria as the original 11 - that they have eight or more "low" or "unsatisfactory" schools.

But Judge Meyer rejected that argument, and found the law unconstitutional based on the local control argument. The other sections of the state constitution included in the lawsuit have not been addressed because of the first cause of action (plaintiffs' motion for judgment on two of the sections). These include provisions on the use of public tax dollars for private and religious purposes. Should the State Supreme Court rule against the plaintiffs this summer, reversing the District Court's decision, the case will go back to District Court for a trial on the religion clauses.