ACLU hypocrisy; Pro-voucher politicians worry about lack of action on issue

1) Below is John Kirtley's assessment of the ACLU's actions in Florida regarding which of the state's voucher programs it's choosing to challenge in court.  It is indeed a sad day for a great organization if the ACLU is making these decisions based on cold political calculus.

The real reason is so clear: they don't want to challenge Bright Futures because it is tremendously popular with upper middle class voters. And they haven't filed their suit on pre-K yet because they don't want to make plain their intention to sue until after the November elections, when there may be on the ballot a constitutional amendment protecting school choice from pre-K to college. They sent a letter to the House Speaker and Senate President last year threatening litigation if faith-based providers were allowed in the pre-K program. They were. Where's the suit? They admit themselves that "we become the target" so they wait until after the election.

This is the organization that claims to be immune from bad publicity? Who takes the tough, unpopular but principled stands? That defends the right of Nazis to march in Illinois?

2) Here's an article about the ACLU in Florida.  At least they seem to be honest about their hypocrisy...

Kirtley said that is disingenuous and accused the ACLU of waiting until after a possible vote on a constitutional change this November to get involved, rather than becoming a lightning rod for voucher opponents to rally support.

Spalding agrees an ACLU suit would draw flak.

"If we go that route, then we're going to be the target," Spalding said.

--------------------

Comments by John Kirtley:

I find it incredible that the ACLU is given a free pass on this. They filed suit the day the Opportunity Scholarship Program was signed into law, so concerned were they that money might flow to faith-based organizations. Yet with the pre-K program, tens of thousands of children and tens of millions of dollars have already done so--and yet "they are studying the issue." They admit that Blaine is worse with the pre-K program, and yet offer no reason for not filing suit.

With Bright Futures Scholarships, which are funded by state taxpayers, they claim "college is not mandatory", so it doesn't trouble them. OSP was voluntary as well--but whether it is or not isn't relevant to the constitutional issue at hand! Look at just a sampling of colleges receiving funds under Bright Futures -- they are more religious than any K-12 school in the OSP. The ACLU knows this and yet they don't file suit.

They aren't going to challenge McKay scholarships because these kids "aren't well served?" Were the OSP kids being well served? Again whether the children are or not is totally irrelevant to the constitutional issue the ACLU raised.

The real reason is so clear: they don't want to challenge Bright Futures because it is tremendously popular with upper middle class voters. And they haven't filed their suit on pre-K yet because they don't want to make plain their intention to sue until after the November elections, when there may be on the ballot a constitutional amendment protecting school choice from pre-K to college. They sent a letter to the House Speaker and Senate President last year threatening litigation if faith-based providers were allowed in the pre-K program. They were. Where's the suit? They admit themselves that "we become the target" so they wait until after the election.

This is the organization that claims to be immune from bad publicity? Who takes the tough, unpopular but principled stands? That defends the right of Nazis to march in Illinois?

No one in the Florida press will hold them accountable. The ACLU's real intentions and their hypocrisy goes unnoticed. There are real consequences to this press timidity: our Senate may not put the issue on the ballot because there isn't enough sympathy in that body for 30,000 poor and handicapped kids. But if they knew that Bright Futures and pre-k were at risk, that might spur them to act. The Senate will be voting in about three weeks. We desperately need someone to call attention to this issue.

--------------------------------

Pro-voucher politicians worry about lack of action on issue

By JOE FOLLICK, 3/28/06

CAPITAL BUREAU

jfollick@earthlink.net <mailto:jfollick@earthlink.net>

TALLAHASSEE -- Hoping to mobilize support to protect vouchers, proponents of the now-unconstitutional Opportunity Scholarship Program have warned that the American Civil Liberties Union and others will attempt to kill some of the state's most popular educational plans unless lawmakers act.

Not likely, said an ACLU lobbyist earlier this month, though he said the group is still considering legal action against the state's new prekindergarten program.

Pro-voucher politicians, including Gov. Jeb Bush, have said the ACLU will not be satisfied with the Florida Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year that ended the OSP. That program gave about 700 students in failing public schools taxpayer money to attend private schools.

The court did not rule on the ACLU's concerns that the program unconstitutionally used public money to send children to church-based schools. Instead, it said the program was unconstitutional since it created a separate education system that did not meet the same standards as public schools, such as requirements to take the FCAT standardized test.

Voucher proponents say popular programs like the Bright Futures program, which allows Florida college students to use money to attend public and faith-based colleges, and the McKay Scholarship plan, which allows students with special needs to attend church-run schools, would also be in jeopardy unless the constitution is changed.

But ACLU lobbyist Larry Spalding said earlier this month the group has no intentions of challenging either the McKay or Bright Futures programs.

That drew an angry challenge from John Kirtley, a Tampa millionaire who has championed vouchers.

"I think that's a ruse," Kirtley said. "They sued on the OSP program because they said money flowing to faith-based providers of K-12 education violates" the constitution.

He said the ACLU's claim that the OSP was unconstitutional while ignoring other programs that allow state money to go to faith-based schools or colleges was "intellectually dishonest."

Yet Spalding said OSP was different from Bright Futures and the McKay program. He said Bright Futures students are adults voluntarily choosing options and are not required to attend school like K-12 students. McKay addresses students with unique needs that cannot be served in public schools, he said.

Kirtley said that is disingenuous and accused the ACLU of waiting until after a possible vote on a constitutional change this November to get involved, rather than becoming a lightning rod for voucher opponents to rally support.

Spalding agrees an ACLU suit would draw flak.

"If we go that route, then we're going to be the target," Spalding said.

Voters in 2002 chose to require the state to provide a fully-funded option for 4-year-olds to attend pre-K classes. The state opted to pay private schools, including church-run facilities, to teach some of the participating students.

Spalding said the lack of a public school alternative makes the pre-K program a more blatant violation of the constitutional ban on the use of taxpayers' money to pay for religious uses.

"On the church-state issue, pre-K is worse," Spalding said. ACLU officials sent a letter to legislative leaders last year threatening legal woes if the pre-K plan allowed faith-based providers.

Asked why the ACLU has not legally challenged the pre-K program that is now nearly a year old, Spalding said the issue was still being studied. The ACLU sued the state immediately after the OSP was put into place.

Tens of thousands of children and their families are now enrolled in the pre-K program.

Even lawmakers who have mixed feelings about vouchers feel programs like pre-K, McKay and Bright Futures may be left vulnerable to legal attacks unless lawmakers act.

"If we don't do something this year," said Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville, the ACLU or another group "could bring the whole process of vouchers to an end."

This year, sufficient legislative support appears to exist to change the law so that most of the students currently in the OSP program could receive the corporate vouchers to maintain attendance at their current schools.

But Bush and others feel the constitution must be changed to not only resurrect OSP, but to protect the corporate voucher plan and the McKay Scholarships.

The Florida House concurs, but the Senate has yet to even consider such a constitutional remedy, which would need a three-fifths approval in the House and Senate before facing a statewide vote in November.

Senate Education Committee chairwoman Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, said that three weeks into this year's two-month-long session, she has yet to see any such proposals in the Senate.

"If someone wanted to do the bill or have the bill, it would be floating around somewhere, and I haven't seen it," she said.

King said it has been difficult to get a majority of senators to back vouchers in the past, and the Supreme Court decision has only added to their reticence.

"I'm not so sure that the Senate in particular is that eager to jump into waters that they know now are tested," he said.

King is pushing legislation that would enact stricter rules on private schools accepting voucher students. Whether that would be sufficient to meet the Supreme Court's concerns is unknown.

It's a sign of the new defensive posture among advocates of school choice that OSP, once touted as an integral part of revamping education, is now portrayed as a tiny experiment.