The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the voucher program for the state's public school students is unconstitutional, the Daily Caller reported. The 3-2 decision will impact 2,880 families already receiving funding through the Education Scholarship Trust Fund.
The South Carolina state constitution prohibits any kind of "direct benefit" to private schools with taxpayer dollars. The ESTF was created as a workaround to allow families to use public school funding for private schools of their choice.
The program benefitted families with moderate and lower incomes to have a say in their children's education. However, the court ruled that the program indeed violated the state constitution.
This has nullified some 2,880 scholarships already awarded, with students already receiving $1,500 toward this year's tuition. It suddenly leaves families in a tough spot weeks into a new school year, though the justices don't seem concerned.
Associate Justice D. Garrison Hill downplayed the impact on families in the majority opinion. "The dissent claims our decision ‘pulls the rug out’ from under the feet of the General Assembly and ‘ultimately, the feet of the students the law was designed to serve,'" Hill wrote.
"Our duty is to serve the Constitution, the supreme policy of our land. As such, our obligation is not to allow a rug to cover up well-marked constitutional ground, no matter how inconvenient that ground may prove to be to otherwise arguably salutary policies," Hill claimed.
Chief Justice John W. Kittredge, who wrote the dissenting opinion, disagreed with the argument that the program was unconstitutional. "Under the South Carolina Constitution, the use of public funds for the direct benefit of a private school is impermissible; the use of public funds for the indirect benefit of a private school is entirely permissible," Kittredge pointed out.
"I am firmly convinced the ESTF Act provides an indirect benefit and is facially constitutional," the justice added. What's lost in the argument is the real-world effects of such a ruling.
States like Missouri, Georgia, and Florida already have school voucher programs that help underprivileged citizens find educational alternatives. Tennessee and Ohio similarly faced challenges to their programs, but those who object seldom think of the children impacted.
South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster was one of many to think of the impact this decision would have on students looking for a better education. "The Supreme Court’s decision may have devastating consequences for thousands of low-income families who relied on these scholarships for their child’s enrollment in school last month," McMaster said in a statement following the ruling.
"[W]e will request the Court to expeditiously reconsider this decision — so that the children of low-income families may have the opportunity to attend the school that best suits their needs," he added. Wendy Damron, president of the education advocacy group Palmetto Promise, similarly expressed concern for the students.
"Today, a court overturned a duly passed piece of legislation on the basis of an indefensible misreading of the words of our State Constitution. Prekindergarten students and college students enjoy state programs that allow them to attend private and religious schools," Damron pointed out.
"How is a program for K-12 students any different? It is unconscionable that the Supreme Court would rip away these scholarships from children and families counting on the funds for their education this year," Damron added.
The challenge to this program in the GOP stronghold of South Carolina is surprising, but it's part of a broader trend when it comes to those who say they believe if public schools. If the system works so well, why are they afraid of choice?
