On Vouchers, Guv Sticks To His Guns
by Paul Bass | Jan 11, 2012 12:00pm
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Education, Local Politics
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy knew what New Haven’s Jewish leaders wanted him to say. He didn’t say it.
Malloy came prepared to be asked about school vouchers for private-school tuition when he visited an Ellsworth Avenue home Tuesday night for a “town meeting” with two dozen influential Jews.
He was prepared, because it was a return visit. He had visited the house—Edgewood and Jewish community activist Eliezer Greer’s home—in October 2009, during his campaign for governor. The 2009 gathering had pressed him to support government vouchers for families who send their children to religious day schools. Despite seeking the politically influential group’s support at a key juncture in a tantalizing close gubernatorial campaign, Malloy said at the time that he had a philosophical disagreement with the group on vouchers. Greer and other neighborhood organizers supported Malloy in the campaign anyway.
Click here to continue reading Paul’s report.
(11) Comments
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | January 11, 2012 12:41pm
The Supreme Court says vouchers for religious schools are OK. States can and should allow parents to get their share of tax dollars back to choose the shcools they want—including religious schools.
Dan Malloy is denying vouchers as a form of religious persecution. Malloy is denying religious schools and religious people their constitutional rights.
Let the people go Dan! Regional Vouchers for all. Let the parents vote with their feet!
The great aprt aout couhvers? Parents don’t ahve t use them. The great part about vouchers? In states where they have vouchers they are like Lay’s potato chips. People try them, they like them, and can’t stop at just one.
Stop the persecution Dan. Restore the right of choice to the religious as the Supreme Court intended in the 2002 zelman decision.
http://tinyurl.com/7dmac6u
posted by: Disgruntled | January 11, 2012 1:20pm
I must be mellowing but good for The Nutmeg King!
While I have become a supporter of vouchers for public schools as a way to bringing underperforming schools into line,I am opposed to public funding of private schools,right down to nurses and school buses. The article clearly points out that the folks have a choice.
Dan sent his kids to private schools and did not complain about not having vouchers.He is leading by example here.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | January 11, 2012 7:46pm
Florida’s Senate passed a religious freedom and equality bill last week (26-10) that will end up on the 2012 Florida ballot as an Amendment.
The Bill repeals Florida’s anti-Catholic Blaine amendments and resets the playing field in accordance with the US Supreme Court and Zeman (2002) and the US Constitution.
The amendment would allow vouchers for religious schools and funding for religious social agencies that refrain from offering abortion services or LGBT friendly services (including adoption services) based on religious objection.
Specifically:
“No individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding, or other support, except as required by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution”
Get on board Daniel. Deny your SEBAC and CEA overlords and masters.
posted by: ... | January 11, 2012 9:45pm
Ya know Disgruntled, I thought I’d never see ya utilize your nickname for Dan in a semi-positive light. I would agree with the fact you might be mellowing out; but don’t worry, the new legislative session will start up soon and many will find dissatisfaction in something going on up in Hartford.
posted by: NOW What? | January 11, 2012 10:42pm
My son and I are Jewish, we both went to both public and Hebrew school, and I am 100% in agreement with Governor Malloy.
Rabbis and other Jewish “leaders” - of all people - should know better than to request or suggest ANYTHING by way of public policy that could have the effect of compromising our separation of religion and state. RIGHT ON, GOV!!!
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | January 12, 2012 12:38am
The rabbis were asking for something that is a constitutional right.
If Ruth Ginsberg dies during a Romney Presidency I’m sure you will see it that way too. The entire nation will 
Romney on the SCOTUS during the 2008 primaries:
I would approve justices—I would have favored justices like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas. I like justices that follow the Constitution, do not make law from the bench.
The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling. Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary (May 2009).
posted by: Disgruntled | January 12, 2012 9:49am
You like it? Move to Florida. I understand the schools are swell down there! Then march like Sherman across the south and use your vouchers all the way to Texas.
The schools are not all that great up here but if education is really what you are seeking,I would suggest that you stay north of the Mason-Dixon.
posted by: Jay | January 12, 2012 3:54pm
Ok, first the US Supreme Court did not rule this as a constitutional right, what was at stake was “The state of Arizona and the STOs argue that the taxpayers who brought the suit against them do not have legal standing to do so.” This was a decision on Arizona tax policy and the Court’s decision did not give a right to anyone. What it did was allow state officials to have a policy that would allow vouchers to go to parochial schools. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn—grows out a clever ruse. The Arizona legislators who like Christian schools knew that they couldn’t just take the state’s tax money and hand it over directly—even the Roberts Court would frown on that. So they conspired with conservative Christian groups to create these intermediary tuition organizations. They then qualified the organizations to receive state tax credits. Oh, and by coincidence they allowed the organizations to discriminate in respect to the students and schools that would receive tuition assistance.
Hence, this is not a decision based on a right, it is a decision that disallows taxpayers from challenging tax policy based upon religion. The problem here is that now nobody, not even christian conservatives, can challenge tax policy because it affects the constitutional wall of separation between church and state. While in this case it appears as a win for vouchers in Arizona, it could also work both ways. It neither confers nor takes away any rights its a tax policy.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | January 12, 2012 5:44pm
Jay,
Zellman (Ohio 2002) is somewhat more far reaching in allowing tax dollars to be rebated or credited to recipients to spend in the free market including on sectarian religious organizations.
In effect secularism becomes just another sectarian interest with no greater claim to funding.
As a First Amendment, or a Bill of Rights case, it does in fact confer rights on religious organizations.
The state may be required to allow religious groups equal participation in programs and benefit savailable to comparable nonreligious groups.
That last premise is waiting for a court case.
If a state specifically chooses to
pursue options where the religious can’t play, is the state required to create religious-friendly options (such as school vouchers) in addition to direct funding.
A case for structural discrimination could be made based on a long history of structural discrimination law.
posted by: Reasonable | January 12, 2012 5:45pm
Gov. Malloy spoke against what his audience wanted to hear, as he is confident, as a Democrat, they will vote for him, anyway.
posted by: Jay | January 13, 2012 6:26pm
Ok Goat boy. The 2002 decision is important. But the 2011 decision I cited goes further. It still does not confer a right. the Zellman decision was more limited in that it was limited to a program in Cleveland Schools only. See the link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZS.html) The Arizona decision was decided in April. The Court further states “When the Government spends funds from the General Treasury, dissenting taxpayers know that they have been made to contribute to an establishment in violation of conscience. In contrast, a tax credit allows dissenting taxpayers to use their own funds in accordance with their own consciences. Here, the STO tax credit does not “extrac[t] and spen[d]” a conscientious dissenter’s funds in service of an establishment, 392 U. S ., at 106, or “ ‘force a citizen to contribute’ ” to a sectarian organization, id. , at 103. Rather, taxpayers are free to pay their own tax bills without contributing to an STO, to contribute to a religious or secular STO of their choice, or to contribute to other charitable organizations.” It was a tax credit rather than a tax expenditure. If you read the decision (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-987.ZS.html) the case does not confer any right upon anyone. If anything, it further diminishes the ability of taxpayers to have standing in a federal court. Individual rights are upheld and not conferred. The State is not obliged to support any religious school. The Court even left open at the end the possibility of further suits if it can be proved that a causal link exists between the tax credits and the increase in state taxes. Hence, The state is not obliged to offer a voucher system or tax credits if it does not want to. There is no religious persecution or denial of rights. Anyone who wants to go to a religious school still can. It does not provide a “right” for people to go to religious school merely a mechanism that state can introduce if it so chooses. No rights are violated here.