Florida Amendment 8 Opponents Say It's a Gateway to Vouchers

Florida Amendment 8 Opponents Say It’s a Gateway to Vouchers

The supporters of Florida’s Amendment 8 say that the main purpose of the measure, which will go on the ballot this November, is to strengthen the religious freedom protections in the state’s Constitution. But the opponents are arguing that the main goal of Amendment 8 is to open a back door for the state to [...]

Currently, the Florida Constitution prohibits spending any tax dollars on religiously-affiliated institutions. The amendment would see this language removed, and additionally would make sure that the state can’t prohibit the public from taking advantage of tax-funded programs just because they happen to be offered by a religious entity.

The main supporter of the ballot initiative, the Roman Catholic Church, says that far from trying to make new law, it is instead attempting to preserve the status quo. At the moment, many programs run by religious institutions are funded by the state, and Amendment 8 is bulwark against a judicial challenge.

“It would be a pre-emptive strike to make sure no activist judge would rule that a Catholic hospital, for example, could not receive funds from Medicaid,” said Archbishop Thomas Wenski, the Catholic leader in South Florida and a strong advocate of the amendment. “Do we have reason to be afraid of this? Yes.”

Opponents, however, don’t see that there’s any immediate danger from “activist judges,” since the programs have been in place for decades without facing any legal challenges. The Miami Herald reports that there’s nothing in the state Constitution that could be used as grounds for yanking the funding — unless it could be shown that some of the money goes to finance proselytizing activities. Furthermore, far from preserving religious freedom, the Amendment could open the door to forcing the state to fund groups that spout extremist and bigoted views.

If the programs run by religious institutions haven’t had to deal with legal challenges, then what brought on this sudden interest in amending the Constitution? Opponents claim that the real motivator behind the campaign to pass Amendment 8 is a 2006 decision by the Florida Supreme Court to invalidate the voucher program championed by then-Governor Jeb Bush because it was unconstitutional.

The opponents are an eclectic group that includes the Florida Education Association, which is the state public teachers union; the American Civil Liberties Union; the Anti-Defamation League; the League of Women Voters; Americans United for the Separation of Church and State; and the National Council of Jewish Women. They say Amendment 8 has been devised to intentionally mislead voters and reignite the voucher debate.

“The whole effort is built on trying to fool the voters,” said Alan Stonecipher of the Vote No on 8 Committee. “It doesn’t really have anything to do with religious freedom at all. It’s a smoke screen and it’s not true. They are perfectly safe under not only the state constitution but the U.S. Constitution. They’re not endangered at all.”

The Education Action Group disagrees that Amendment 8 is a fast-track to vouchers – but thinks teachers unions might have a reason to worry:

“But a successful public vote to rewrite Florida’s Blaine Amendment could set a precedent for other states to follow – states where it may be the last viable legal justification for keeping kids trapped in bad schools. Rewriting Florida’s Blaine Amendment could set a precedent teachers unions can’t afford.”

Comments

Jim Frankowiak

October 12, 2012 at 5:58 am

Citizens for Religious Freedom and Non-Discrimination urge voters to note the case, Council for Secular Humanism v. McNeil, is a lawsuit with the Florida Supreme Court, challenging two faith-based programs for prison inmates on the basis of the Blaine (no-aid) Amendment. Further, CSH has used terms like “a potential watershed” and “springboard” referencing additional suits likely to follow. These programs are at risk simply because they are provided by religious organizations. That potential jeopardy is real for the hundreds of faith-based social service programs serving thousands of Floridians each day from health care and housing assistance to senior care and disaster assistance.. Passage of Amendment 8 ensures these crucial programs will continue.
Denial on the basis of the Blaine Amendment for continued support or for consideration with respect to future needs is nothing more than discrimination.

Also, vouchers — whether Amendment 8 passes or not — continue to be unconstitutional in Florida, a statement of fact that cannot be disputed.

Reply
Andrea

October 25, 2012 at 3:44 pm

JF: “Further, CSH has used terms like ‘a potential watershed’ and ‘springboard’ referencing additional suits likely to follow”

Patricia Levesque, on the Tax & Budget Reform Commission, pushed to have this same idea ‘religious freedom’ placed on the 2008 ballot. It was eventually taken off, but she referenced this same lawsuit as ‘proof’ of the threat to these programs. So far, it has not been ruled on. As far as I know in the last four years there have been exactly …. none new lawsuits of this type.

Yes, please, everyone learn about the suit. It charges two religious groups having a state contract with the prison system running rehab and re-integration programs of having to “Pray for Pay”, in essence requiring their clients to be forced to hear and take religious ‘instruction’ in order to receive the service.

Your Catholic hospital, Jewish food pantry program, and Methodist Soup Kitchen are not at risk if Amendment 8 fails to pass, because they don’t do that.

As to the argument about this not being about vouchers, it is very hard to believe it has nothing to do with vouchers, as the aforementioned Levesque was and is serving on the board of one of Jeb Bush’s educational foundations. Furthermore, she and six other members were placed on that commission by Marco Rubio, and all had/have ties to Jeb Bush and his educational foundations or previously supported voucher policies.

Jeb Bush wrote a letter to incoming Gov. Rick Scott and urged him to continue pushing voucher opportunities, even if he’d run into legal challenges:

‘I am guessing lawyers inside Tallahassee will say that it is not constitutional,’ wrote Bush. ‘I don’t know how our court will respond but it will be a game changer for the country and you might have the chance to change the makeup of the court.’”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/rick-scott-jeb-bush_n_935536.html

On this very same ballot is that opportunity to ‘change the make-up of the court’.

Please stop trying to convince everyone that vouchers simply cannot happen because they are unconstitutional, just because they may be unconstitutional today. That could too easily change if the judges up for retention are not retained, and/or if Amendment 5 passes, allowing the legislature to overturn court rulings with a simple majority vote, rather than 2/3rd currently required.

Vote smart, Florida. No on 8, No on 5 (safest bet is to vote no on all of them) and Yes to retain the judges.

Reply
Andrea

October 25, 2012 at 3:55 pm

(RE: my reply to JF): As to the argument about this not being about vouchers, it is very hard to believe it has nothing to do with vouchers, as the aforementioned Levesque was and is serving on the board of one of Jeb Bush’s educational foundations. Furthermore, she and six other members were placed on that commission by Marco Rubio, and all had/have ties to Jeb Bush and his educational foundations or previously supported those policies.

Jeb Bush wrote a letter to incoming Gov. Rick Scott and urged him to continue pushing voucher opportunities, even if he’d run into legal challenges:

‘I am guessing lawyers inside Tallahassee will say that it is not constitutional,’ wrote Bush. ‘I don’t know how our court will respond but it will be a game changer for the country and you might have the chance to change the makeup of the court.’”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/rick-scott-jeb-bush_n_935536.html

On this very same ballot is that opportunity to ‘change the make-up of the court’.

Please stop trying to convince everyone that vouchers simply cannot happen because they are unconstitutional just because they are unconstitutional today. That could too easily change if the judges up for retention are not retained, and/or if Amendment 5 passes, allowing the legislature to overturn court rulings with a simple majority vote, rather than 2/3rd currently required.

Vote smart, Florida. Vote NO on 8, vote NO on 5, vote YES to retain the judges.

Reply