Listening to testimony against House Bill HB 1009, and Large Schools Lobbyist Diana Miller cited the State Constitution today. A passage I was not familiar with, but very current as it relates to a number of issues before the body.
§ 16. Public support of sectarian instruction prohibited. No appropriation of lands, money or other property or credits to aid any sectarian school shall ever be made by the state, or any county or municipality within the state, nor shall the state or any county or municipality within the state accept any grant, conveyance, gift or bequest of lands, money or other property to be used for sectarian purposes, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed in any school or institution aided or supported by the state.
I tend to believe that this would apply to several issues this legislative session. And I would venture that would also include Senator “California” Carley’s bill (SB51) to post the ten commandments in every classroom, as well as Rep. Al Novstrup’s bill to place volunteer chaplains (HB 1054) in public schools.
Interesting that these measures might flagrantly violate the South Dakota State Constitution. And 136 years after it was written, our state’s constitutional framers deserve a shout out for being not just timely, but timeless.
Article VIII, Section 16
Not sure when it was created, but it is certainly in the state Constitution today.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Carson v. Makin
That part of the State Constitution is what was known as the Blaine Amendment. It was struck down by the US Supreme court in 2020 in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.
If you think that’s the case, pretty obvious you were homeschooled and mommy didn’t teach you civics well enough.
My family and I think you are a terrible person.
I hope you sort-out your issues.
Seems pretty clear to me. Not sure how the other Supreme Court decisions apply here.
Yes, but.
The Espinoza decision was regarding the use of state scholarship funds for students attending private parochial schools. Not with how the state spends money in their own schools.
From the Institute for Justice:
“How does the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue impact state Blaine Amendments?
The Institute for Justice has long maintained that applying state Blaine Amendments to prohibit parents from choosing religious schools in school choice programs violates the federal Constitution. On June 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, vindicating IJ’s decades-long legal strategy to remove Blaine Amendments as a legal obstacle to robust educational choice programs. In the landmark case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to exclude religious schools from private educational choice programs. The Court’s opinion, authored by, Chief Justice John Roberts, affirmed that while a state need not subsidize private education, “once a [s]tate decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” Indeed, the Espinoza decision called discrimination against religious parents and schools in the operation of an educational choice program “odious to our Constitution.”
As a result of Espinoza, state policymakers are now free to enact educational choice programs that will enable parents to pay for the private educational environment, religious or nonreligious, that works best for their children. Of course, each state has a unique history, context, and constitution. That is why IJ produced a 50-state guide analyzing each state’s constitution and explaining how Espinoza impacts policymakers’ ability to enact educational choice programs.”
The lobbyists for the public school groups are well aware of this, but refuse to let the facts get in the way of an effective argument.
This SCOTUS decision has been pointed out to them multiple times is hearings on Partners in Education bills.
HB 1009 is distinctly different than the facts in Montana that was at issue in Espinoza. Montana’s legislature established a program offering tax credits to organizations that awarded scholarships to private schools. Like SD, Montana’s constitution barred government aid to schools controlled by religious entities. The Montana DOR adopted a rule that prohibited families from using the scholarships at religious schools. SCOTUS ruled that the DOR violated the Free Exercise Clause because it promoted unequal treatment on a religious basis.
This is entirely different than HB 1009 in that the funds did not come directly from the state’s revenues. That is where the line gets crossed and it violates not only the SD Constitution (which is still valid BTW), and most importantly, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Of course, with this cast of characters as sponsors, this makes very little difference. Pass it. Sign it into law. See how long it lasts in court.
The best part is the sponsors of this bill describe themselves as constitutionalists.
Maybe the Governor, who ever that is at this time, can write an Executive Order and abolish whatever amendment of the consitution that they do not agree with. I seem to remember reading something similar happening recently at the national level.
Added questiuon, SD is in legislative session, do we have a Governor or not? If it is Noem, then get your butt in Pierre and do your job. If it is Rhoden, then make it official. WTH
just what is the Governor’s job this week? Are there any bills that need to be signed yet?
Everyone is responsible for funding the best public education we can because we need to invest in our future workforce. If someone wants to put their child in a public school they have that right but it does not eliminate their responsibility to contribute to our public education system. We can barely fund our public schools and we shouldn’t be giving money in any way to private religious schools.
Just look what happened in Iowa. They passed a bill where every private school student got $8000 of taxpayer money. The majority of these schools were in the large cities. It took away money from most rural school districts and caused a couple to close or consolidate. Most rural students did not have access to a private school in their area.
This was supposed to help less privileged kids get access to private schools but then the private schools raised their tuition so the less privileged still couldn’t afford to attend. The only ones that benefited were the wealthy that already were sending their kids to a private school.
Public schools should not teach any type of religion. That is the parents responsibility.
If someone needs one wants to put their child in a PRIVATE school is what I meant to type
Cope, Cry, Fall
Pat,
You’re out of your league on this one.
Whether the state funding of these choice programs comes from tax-credits (MT) or from legislative appropriations (as proposed here), Espinoza stands for the principle that once the program is created, the state CANNOT prohibit those wishing to use the funds (or tax credits) in parochial/sectarian institutions from doing so.
Your quoted section of the SD Constitution–a typical, discriminatory Blaine amendment–is clearly in violation of the US Constitution as applied to this bill. You’re simply wrong.
Now, feel free to argue that this proposed program is too expensive, or diminishes public school funding, etc., but your on-going objections based on the potential benefits to parents of parochial school students is bigoted, and that’s what Espinosa and our US Constitution prohibits. We ALL should be against religious bigotry.
Lastly, it’s truly sad that SD Big Ed is using this Blaine Amendment to support its cause: they should know better. SHAME on them. Let’s apply the same skepticism to SD Big Ed as we do to other well-paid lobbyists.