Arizona

BY tune

Published May 25, 2015

Constitutional Provisions on Education

Blaine Amendments

“No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment.” Arizona Const. Art. II, § 12.

“No tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation.” Arizona Const. Art. IX, § 10.

Other Relevant Sections

“Neither the State, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation
….” Arizona Const. Art. IX, § 7.

“Section 1. A. The legislature shall enact such laws as shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system, which system shall include: 1. Kindergarten schools; 2. Common schools; 3. High schools; 4. Normal schools; 5. Industrial schools; 6. Universities, which shall include an agricultural college, a school of mines, and such other technical schools as may be essential, until such time as it may be deemed advisable to establish separate state institutions of such character.” Arizona Const. Art. XI, § 1.

Case Law Relevant to School Choice

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District,509 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1993)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause did not prevent an Arizona school district from furnishing a student with a sign-language interpreter to facilitate his education at a religious school.

Kotterman v. Killian, 972 P.2d 606 (Ariz.1999)

The Arizona Supreme Court held that tuition tax credits are constitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution. They are part of a religiously neutral government program available to alarge spectrum of citizens and do not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Additionally, they do not overly entangle the government with religion because the state does not distribute funds or monitor their application. The court recognized that the scholarships benefit children, not schools. In refusing to apply its Blaine Amendments broadly, the Arizona Supreme Court recognized the bigotry and prejudice underlying their enactment.

Hull v. Albrecht, 950 P.2d 1141, 1145 (Ariz. 1997)

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the “general and uniform requirement” of the Arizona Constitution’s education article applies only to the state’s constitutional obligation to fund a public school system that is adequate and that defining adequacy is a legislative task. A district may then choose to go above, but not below, the statewide minimum standards, and this will not run afoul of the general-and-uniform requirement.

Pratt v. Arizona Board of Regents, 520 P.2d 514, 516 (Ariz. 1974)

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the state did not violate the first of Arizona’s Blaine Amendments (Article II, Section 12) when it leased a state university’s football stadium for prayer worship at a fair market value. The court noted that “[w]e believe that the framers of the Arizona Constitution intended by [Article II, Section 12] to prohibit the use of the power and the prestige of the State or any of its agencies for the support or favor of one religion over another, or of religion over nonreligion.”

Community Council v. Jordan, 432 P.2d 460, 466 (Ariz. 1967)

The Arizona Supreme Court held that by contracting with the Salvation Army, the state is not providing “aid” in violation of the second of Arizona’s Blaine Amendments (Article IX, Section 10). The court noted, “The ‘aid’ prohibited in the constitution of this state is, in our opinion, assistance in any form whatsoever which would encourage or tend to encourage the preference of one religion over another, or religion per se over no religion.”