Abstract
In Cain v. Home, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously held that school-voucher programs providing state funding for the private education of disabled and foster children violated the Arizona Constitution. Finding that the programs contravened the plain language and purpose of the Aid Clause, the court did not address the constitutionality of the programs under the Religion Clause. Although the court struck down the voucher programs, it reaffirmed its earlier holding in Kotterman v. Killian that tuition tax credits are constitutional. This Case Note considers several questions stemming from Cain. First, what school-choice programs are currently constitutional in Arizona? Second, is there a material difference between the allowed constitutional programs and the school-voucher programs prohibited in Cain? Third, given the differences between the programs, which ones provide the greatest social benefits? The Case Note ultimately concludes that the tax credits are a fairer way of providing school choice, despite some potentially unsavory social consequences.
How to Cite
51 Ariz. L. Rev. 817 (2009)
1
Views
1
Downloads