National School Boards Association Applauds Louisiana Supreme Court Ruling to Strike Down Voucher Scheme

ALEXANDRIA, Va., May 7, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National School Boards Association (NSBA) applauds the ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court that finds the state's school vouchers unconstitutional.

The Louisiana voucher law has diverted taxpayers' money from public schools to private individuals and schools that are not subject to academic, operational, and accountability standards.

"NSBA stands for strong public school system for all students. Vouchers undermine that fundamental principle and, as the court concluded, violate constitutional principles, too," said NSBA President David A. Pickler. 

Working with the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA), NSBA pushed to overturn the law through an amicus brief in Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State of Louisiana. That lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of several measures adopted by the Louisiana legislature, including the ploy to give vouchers to students in low-performing schools. The NSBA brief noted that the voucher scheme further aggravates the plight of academically challenged schools by taking away much-needed funds from low-performing public schools, thus perpetuating its own survival. 

"These kinds of gimmicks undermine our country's longstanding commitment to public education and steal resources from public school students," said NSBA Executive Director Thomas J. Gentzel. "These are not grassroots efforts being proposed by residents who are concerned about the education and future of the state's most vulnerable children, these are the products of out-of-state special-interest groups looking for profits."  

Under the provisions of the voucher law, Louisiana gives public funds to private schools, including religious schools, as "scholarships" to cover the tuition and fees of students whose parents choose to remove their children from public schools deemed "failing." However, the plan goes so far as to allow parents to use vouchers for their children as early as kindergarten, even if the child never attended a public school or the school is highly ranked.  

"We are pleased that the Louisiana Supreme Court has reaffirmed a basic tenet of the state Constitution: that taxpayer money should go to public schools that are open to all students," said LSBA Executive Director Scott Richard. "We hope all state residents can understand the dangerous precedent that a voucher program has set and how such a program undermines our local community schools. LSBA will continue to work towards its mission of service, support and leadership for local school boards and to ensure a quality public education for all students." 

NSBA opposes private school vouchers and tuition tax subsidies, which have continuously failed to improve student achievement. NSBA is committed to defeating legislation and initiatives that unconstitutionally divert taxpayers' funds from public schools to private and religious institutions that can exclude students for any reason.  

Founded in 1940, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) is a not-for-profit organization representing state associations of school boards and their more than 90,000 local school board members throughout the U.S. Working with and through our state associations, NSBA advocates for equity and excellence in public education through school board leadership. www.nsba.org

SOURCE National School Board Association

View the original article here

Supreme Court indicates it may strike down marriage law

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the second day running, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will confront the issue of gay marriage, hearing arguments on a U.S. law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Almost two hours of oral argument before the court will focus on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), just a day after the nine justices considered the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

Both cases come before the court as polls show growing support among Americans for gay marriage but division among the 50 states. Nine states recognize it; 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between.

Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.

DOMA limits the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It permits benefits such as Social Security survivor payments and federal tax deductions only for married, opposite-sex couples, not for legally married same-sex couples.

President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 after it passed Congress with only 81 of 535 lawmakers opposing it. Clinton, a Democrat, earlier this month said that times have changed since then and called for the law to be overturned.

In the California case argued on Tuesday, the justices seemed wary of endorsing a broad right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, as gay rights advocates had wanted. As a result, the Proposition 8 case is less likely to influence how the court approaches DOMA, which presents a narrower question.

The slightly lower-profile case being argued Wednesday focuses on whether Edith Windsor, who was married to a woman, should get the federal estate tax deduction available to heterosexuals when their spouses pass away.

Windsor's marriage to Thea Spyer was recognized under New York law, but not under DOMA. When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay federal estate tax because the federal government would not recognize her marriage. She sued the government, seeking a $363,000 tax refund.

Windsor's lawyers say the federal government has no role in defining marriage, which is traditionally left to states.

"It's the states that marry people," said James Esseks, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is part of Windsor's legal team. "The federal government doesn't do that."

The roughly 133,000 gay couples nationwide, married in one of the nine states where it is legal, are not recognized as married by the federal government, Windsor's supporters say.

Various groups are calling for DOMA to be struck down, such as the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal, whose members include Marriott International Inc, Aetna Inc, eBay Inc, and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of the Reuters news agency.

OBAMA TURNS BACK ON DOMA

The Obama administration has agreed with Windsor that the section of law that defines marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The Justice Department has therefore declined to defend the statute, as it normally would when a federal statute is challenged.

That has left a legal group acting on behalf of the Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG, as the party defending the federal law. Its lawyer, Paul Clement, will argue that there are several reasons to support Congress' decision to enact DOMA.

Noting the strong bipartisan support the law attracted when it was first enacted, Clement said in court papers that a move to strike it down as unconstitutional "would be wholly unprecedented."

Before the court reaches that bigger question, preliminary matters could prevent the court deciding the case. One is whether BLAG has legal standing.

If such a procedural issue prevents the court from deciding the case on the merits, Windsor would win her refund. Yet DOMA would remain on the books in parts of the country where courts have not ruled on it. Further litigation would likely ensue.

(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)

View the original article here