Utah’s largest teachers union says the state’s newest and largest voucher program is unconstitutional, but the state maintains it is. After both sides argued their case in court on Dec. 19, Third District Judge Laura Scott said she’ll likely rule by the end of January.
The Utah Education Association filed a lawsuit in May over the Utah Fits All Scholarship. They were joined by two parents, a public school teacher and Utah State Board of Education member Carol Lear.
The lawsuit named as defendants Gov. Spencer Cox, state Attorney General Sean Reyes and the Alliance for Choice in Education, also known as ACE Scholarships. The nonprofit was hired to manage the voucher program.
Families began receiving the scholarships, worth up to $8,000, this school year. The money can be used for educational expenses, including private school tuition, homeschooling costs and other expenses, like fitness centers or music lessons. The state currently allocates $82.5 million annually for the program.
In her questioning, Scott focused on whether the Utah Fits All Scholarship can be considered a public education system and interpretations of relevant amendments to the Utah Constitution.
The state asked the judge to throw out the lawsuit. The plaintiffs have asked for a summary judgement; they want the judge to rule that the program is unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Ramya Ravindran, argued the Utah Constitution guarantees a free and open education to all students. They said the voucher program is a part of the public education system, but it's not free and open to all. While all families can apply for a voucher, Ravindran said private schools who accept that money are able to maintain discriminatory policies about who they admit.
Even if the judge finds the voucher program is not part of the public education system, Ravindran maintains the program is still unconstitutional because it delegates a public function to a private non-governmental entity unaccountable to the public with ACE Scholarships overseeing the program.
Scott Ryther, with the attorney general’s office, argued that it is not an educational program but just a scholarship program since families, and not the state, decide how the money is used. Additionally, Ryther argued that as long as the state has a public education system that is free and open to all, the state is allowed to create other programs as it sees fit.
The other point Judge Scott drilled down on was how the 2020 voter-approved Constitutional Amendment G should be interpreted. It allowed the state more flexibility on what it could use income taxes for, which were previously reserved for public and higher education. The amendment language said the state would also be able to use that money for children and people with disabilities.
The state argued that voters were warned that the amendment could open the door to a voucher program like the Utah Fits All Scholarship. In the 2020 voter information pamphlet, the argument against passing Amendment G mentions vouchers.
The plaintiffs’ attorney argued that based on how that amendment was discussed by lawmakers and supporters at the time, it was presented as a narrow expansion of the income tax that had been focused on social services, not private school vouchers.
“These are obviously very important issues,” Scott said after the nearly three hour hearing.
Scott hopes to make a ruling by mid-to-late January, but said it could take her the full 60 days she’s allocated.
