Douglas County “Scholarships” Divert Public Funds to Religious Schools

December 10, 2014
DENVER - Attorneys representing civil liberties and taxpayer organizations, including the ACLU of Colorado, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Taxpayers for Public Education, argued before the Colorado State Supreme Court today that a Douglas County voucher program that provides public education funds to private religious schools is unconstitutional and should be struck down by the Court.
Matt Douglas of Arnold & Porter LLP, arguing for the plaintiffs, highlighted the Colorado Constitution’s “specific prohibition” on government funds going to schools that are controlled by churches or religious organizations, and Michael McCarthy of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, representing Taxpayers for Public Education, argued that the Colorado Public School Finance Act forbids using public funds to subsidize tuition payments for students who are attending private schools.
Douglas County’s so-called “Choice Scholarship Pilot Program” offered tuition vouchers worth $4,575 to 500 students to spend at religious and other private schools. For the purposes of obtaining state per-pupil educational funds, Douglas County created a public charter school, which exists only on paper, and enrolled students in the non-existent charter school. In reality, students were set to attend one of 23 district-approved “Private School Partners,” and the voucher money would be paid to those private schools. As of the filing of the lawsuit, 18 of the 23 approved Private School Partners were religious schools.
“Parents are free to send their children to a private religious school if they wish, but Colorado taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein.
The groups filed a lawsuit challenging the voucher program in 2011. A lower court agreed with their position and struck down the program, but the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of Douglas County in February 2013. In March 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case.
In a brief filed with the Supreme Court earlier this year, the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote that the program, if allowed to stand, would “eviscerate core provisions of the religion and education clauses of the Colorado Constitution, restrict citizens’ ability to enforce the Public School Finance Act, and give school districts around the state carte blanche to implement similar programs, with potentially devastating consequences for the State’s constitutionally mandated public-school system.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Matt Douglas, Timothy R. Macdonald, and Michelle K. Albert of Arnold & Porter LLP; Ayesha N. Khan and Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United; Heather Weaver and Daniel Mach of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief; and Mark Silverstein and Sara Rich of the ACLU of Colorado.
Resources:

Visit the ACLU case page with corresponding legal documents: https://aclu-co.org/court-cases/la-rue-v-colorado-board-of-education/

View: Civil Liberties Groups Ask Colorado Supreme Court to Strike Down Douglas County Voucher Program.

December 8, 2014
DENVER – Attorneys for the ACLU of Colorado and Taxpayers for Public Education will argue before the Colorado State Supreme Court this Wednesday that the Court should strike down a Douglas County voucher program that provides public education funds to private religious schools.
Douglas County’s so-called “Choice Scholarship Pilot Program” offered tuition vouchers worth $4,575 to 500 students to spend at religious and other private schools. For the purposes of obtaining the state per-pupil educational funds, Douglas County created a public charter school, which exists only on paper, and enrolled students in the non-existent charter school.  In reality, students were set to attend one of 23 district-approved “Private School Partners,” and the voucher money would be paid to the schools. As of the filing of the lawsuit, 18 of the 23 approved Private School Partners were religious schools.
ACLU cooperating attorney Matthew Douglas of Arnold Porter LLP will argue that the voucher plan violates the Colorado Constitution’s ban on the use of public funds for religious schools.  Michael McCarthy of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, representing Taxpayers for Public Education, will argue that the Colorado Public School Finance Act forbids using public funds to subsidize tuition payments for students who are attending private schools.
Details:

WHERE: Colorado State Supreme Court 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203
WHEN: Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2015 1:30 pm MT
Resources:

Visit the ACLU case page with corresponding legal documents: https://aclu-co.org/court-cases/la-rue-v-colorado-board-of-education/

View: Civil Liberties Groups Ask Colorado Supreme Court to Strike Down Douglas County Voucher Program.

This past week the state of Texas was scheduled to execute a severely mentally ill man.  Scott Panetti has suffered from schizophrenia and other mental illness most of his life.  In 1992 he went off his medication, dressed in full camouflage and murdered his mother and father-in-law in front of his wife and daughter.  When he went to trial he was allowed to represent himself during both the guilt and penalty phases of the proceedings.  He dressed in a cowboy costume at court and attempted to subpoena John F. Kennedy, Jesus Christ and the Pope, among others.  During the trial he assumed the personality he called “Sarge” and narrated the events in the third person.
Ultimately, Panetti received a death sentence and although his many appeals focused on his mental illness, each was denied and he was scheduled for execution.  As the date neared, the issue of executing people with mental illness came to the forefront in Texas and around the country.  Many people came out against executing Panetti including former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, former Texas Gov. Mark White, conservative leaders, religious leaders, prominent lawyers, and over 94,000 people signed a change.org petition for clemency.
At this same time a nationwide poll conducted by the University of North Carolina found that Americans oppose the death penalty for persons with mental illness by a margin of 2 to 1.  This opposition was consistent across all political parties, all regions of the country, across both genders, and all income and education levels.
The court requires that an inmate have a rational understanding of why he is being executed. On the morning of Panetti’s scheduled execution date, the 5^th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay “in order to allow us to fully consider the late arriving and complex legal questions at issue in this matter."  Panetti’s last competency exam was seven years ago.
This issue of whether states should be executing people with mental illness has grown as knowledge of these illnesses has increased throughout the years.  Some states including North Carolina and Kentucky have considered legislation to bar the execution of a defendant who "had a severe mental disorder or disability that significantly impaired his or her capacity to appreciate the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness of his or her conduct, exercise rational judgment in relation to conduct, or conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law."  In addition, public outcry has grown as states have moved forward with executions of those who showed signs of and were diagnosed with severe mental illness.
The topic will become important in Colorado as we are bracing for a year-long very public and emotional trial that will look into competency, mental illness and the insanity defense.  Jurors will have to decide whether James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter, was sane at the time of his crime and whether he qualifies for the death penalty.  Holmes’ mental health history will become a part of their decision and the question again will be, do we execute people with mental illness?