Our Views: Jindal loses, but also wins

While a judge’s ruling about the diversion of public funds to private schools is a blow to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s voucher plans, it is neither entirely unexpected nor without victories for administration arguments.

The wide-ranging challenge to the law, Act 2 of this year’s session, included several constitutional issues. Judge Tim Kelley, a Republican, agreed with teacher unions and school boards that the constitution explicitly limits the chief state/local funding program for schools, the Minimum Foundation Program, to public schools. That decision will be appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Say what you will, and much was said in three days of district court hearings of doubtful relevance to the constitutional issues, the fact is the plain wording of the MFP provision of the constitution says “public schools.” The administration ignored that language, and the Legislature was more than willing to go along.

That Kelley ruled with the plaintiffs should really not be a surprise, when the constitutional language is so explicit.

The judge, though, balked at other challenges to Act 2 and the joint legislative resolution, SCR 99, that authorizes the MFP formula.

The latter passed with only 51 votes for to 49 against in the House. Opponents argued passage required 53 votes as a resolution having the force of law. However, Speaker Chuck Kleckley, R-Lake Charles, who was hand-picked for the post by Jindal, ruled that a majority of the House in attendance, not a 53-vote majority, was required.

One consequence of the Kelley ruling is that there should be a serious debate about that issue in the Legislature.

Additionally, the judge declined to declare Act 2 — a wide-ranging bill, with many provisions — subject to the constitutional requirement that bills have a single legislative object. This ruling is probably also not a surprise, as judges in many states have been reluctant to inject themselves into the legislative decision-making process.

Again, though, the administration’s escape from that challenge ought to provoke some soul-searching in the Legislature: If a powerful governor can bundle all sorts of provisions and ram that bill through the legislative process, the public’s ability to know what its lawmakers are doing, and lawmakers’ ability to understand what they are voting on, may be severely compromised in future.

Finally, is the Kelley ruling the end of vouchers? Probably not. Just fewer than 5,000 students have the “scholarships” to non-public schools, at an average $5,300 a head. That’s not money that can be taken from the MFP, as per the judge’s ruling, but Kelley’s ruling does not preclude other sources of state funding being found to pay the tab. The judge did not issue an injunction against the MFP funding, so children are not going to be taken out of school because of this court battle.

But if this ruling stands, the administration eventually will have to find alternative sources of money for vouchers, probably from the state general fund. That won’t be easy, Jindal and lawmakers having turned state finances into a sausage factory over the past few years.

So the Kelley ruling does not stand in the way of Jindal’s voucher plan. Rather, it rolls back the governor’s raid of the state-local pot of money in the MFP. That’s a victory for the plaintiffs, but not a knock-out blow against vouchers.

On appeal, the state may have difficulty overturning Kelley’s opinion. The ruling is anchored firmly in the plain language of the Louisiana Constitution. Justices may face some difficulty in finding a way to say that the constitution’s use of the words “public schools” doesn’t mean what it says.

Maybe the funding crisis won’t come until next spring’s legislative session, but the governor might want to start studying his funding options sooner rather than later.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (11)


1) Comment by Scrooge - 09/12/2012

Speaking of credibility, there are several persons in positions of responsibility in the La Dept of Education whose qualifications make a mockery of it.

2) Comment by brguy - 09/12/2012

Jindal doesn't grant interviews to The Advocate nor the Times-Picayune because they call him out on his dubious policies and underhanded political tactics. And Piyush requires total agreement from any audience, any questioning or disagreement is simply not tolerated. But more importantly, our governor has moved on and has his sights set on the national political scene. He can't be bothered with the local media because he doesn't care what the citizens of this state think, especially if they don't support him 100%. But notice how quickly he courted the national media after his candidate Romney lost the presidential race. He's more than willing to get his message out on any national platform, as evidenced by his half-baked op-ed piece on the fiscal cliff on Politico this week.

3) Comment by Scrooge - 09/12/2012

Yeah Cousin Dave that freedom of speech is such an irritant. Might it be that "they don't trust them to report " what they want the media to report (sometimes known as propaganda) and the credibility is not so questionable on the journalistic side? Not everyone in Louisiana is as stupid as you think they are but it sure looks like you guys are intent on making the educated minority even smaller.

4) Comment by Cousin Dave - 09/12/2012

@Traveler...the reason that the Governor and a lot of people don't talk to the Advocate is because they don't trust them to report what they say. Credibilty is a big deal if you re in the media, and the Advocate doesn't have any. Then they write these lame editorials based on their one-sided articles and that erodes their credibility even more.

5) Comment by Terd Handler - 09/12/2012

Not sure if anyone is a winner in this one. It is going to cost us all big money in the end.

6) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 09/12/2012

Anything the Unions are for is beneficial to them and not us.

7) Comment by tradewinns - 09/12/2012

if the revenue for vouchers has to come from other sources (general funds) the amount set aside for public education will (should be) reduced by the appropriate (same) amount. there's more than one way to walk around the tree. that being said, i'm against vouchers. fix the public schools. and that requires, as 8point6 states, fixing the parents of the students. students that are parents are, or should be, in a class, section or building by themselves. they have made their "adult" decision and should not be mixed with children. that is why most states have a maximum age for attending high school.

8) Comment by bourbon-soda - 09/12/2012

One problem is that some of the unruly children are also parents.

9) Comment by 8point6 - 09/12/2012

After getting my 2012 property tax notice, and seeing all of my tax amounts more than double, especially the seven public education taxes I'm paying, there will be more than enough tax money for the unions to get their hands on, AND still have some for the vouchers. However, the teachers union will not be happy until they get ALL of the tax money. "It's for the children". One thing is for certain. Throwing more money at public education will not fix it, until parents get involved and discipline their unruly children. Several other posters have said this over the months/years. JMO

10) Comment by Traveler - 09/12/2012

Cousin Dave, the way I hear it, the governor doesn't consent to interviews. I hear that reporters from The Advocate would LOVE to interview your boss.

11) Comment by Cousin Dave - 09/12/2012

When was the last time anyone at the Advocate actually talked with Gov. Jindal? That's what I thought...