Pat Anderson says Seifert wrong on vouchers

Posted at 2:40 PM on September 24, 2009 by Tom Scheck (3 Comments)

Republican Pat Anderson sent out a news release today criticizing Marty Seifert for saying the state's constitution would not allow for school vouchers. Both Anderson and Seifert are running for governor (in addition to seven other GOP candidates).

During a Wednesday news conference, Seifert said "I don't want to get in a situation with vouchers because I just don't think Minnesota's constitution allows for it." You can listen to Seifert's entire newser here.

Anderson, who served as MN State Auditor between 2003 and 2007, said this in a news release in response to Seifert's claim:

"Marty is simply wrong on the constitutional law in play on vouchers, and I can't let his error stand to give aid and comfort to the opponents of meaningful parental school choice," said Anderson.

"Commitment to parental school choice is the essence of the education section of the Republican Party Platform, and a lot of people, including gubernatorial candidate, Sen. David Hann, have put in too much hard work fighting for school choice to have it undermined by blatantly bad constitutional analysis."

The candidates for governor are ramping up their profile in light of next weekend's State Party Convention. The MNGOP is holding a straw poll at the event which is the first litmus test for the candidates.

Comments (3)

As a Republican candidate for governor I support vouchers and have said so at at least two public forums. I know you would like to ignore me but I can assure you that I won't go away. The stakes are too high.

Posted by Leslie Davis | September 25, 2009 9:13 AM

Both are right and both are wrong.

Article 13, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution states "In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught."

[Emphasis added.]

Ms. Anderson supports vouchers for religious schools, Mr. Seifert opposes taking state money away from our underfunded public schools.

Both right, both wrong.

Posted by Stormer | September 25, 2009 10:13 AM

Article 13, Section 2 of the Minnesota State Constitution as quoted above is the so-called “Blaine Amendment,” (1877), one of 29 such amendments to state constitutions during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These amendments were spawned by (yes, progressive Republican) anti-Catholic immigrant bigotry.

Public schools of the era were required by law to read from the Protestant Bible and were in fact de facto generic Protestant schools. Resenting the obvious attempt to convert them to Protestantism, Catholics, as taxpayers, demanded states fund parallel Catholic school systems. Blaine Amendments were state responses against that possibility, which is the reason for the “sectarian” language. Catholic schools were clearly sectarian in that they taught a specific creed. However, the “sectarian” language enabled the public school system to indoctrinate religion by teaching generic Protestantism.

In other words, Blaine Amendments (rightly in my opinion) prohibit the direct support of a sectarian school system, but have no bearing on the question of vouchers. Blaine Amendments prohibit specific appropriation and direct payments out of the state treasury to religious schools. Voucher programs, when they meet the clearly defined criteria established by the courts (detailed in Pat’s press release) are payments to parents to secure education for their children. As long as the parents have a variety of options, both secular and religious, choosing a religious education option does not violate the separation of church and state.

The Blaine Amendment has never been tested in a Minnesota case; cases dealing with a variety of state support for private religious schools ranging from textbook funding to transportation issues have been adjudicated on an Establishment Clause (state and Federal) platform. However, in upholding the Milwaukee voucher program, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the Milwaukee program violated neither the Wisconsin Compelled Support Clause nor its Blaine Amendment. Wisconsin and Minnesota share the common constitutional language and heritage of the Northwest Ordinance.

Anderson’s full press release posted on her campaign website details the current legal climate vis-à-vis vouchers and Blaine Amendment. It is too bad that the media has focused on the political issue rather than the substantive issue of school choice.

Posted by Craig Westover | September 26, 2009 12:57 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories