Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State
118 So. 3d 1033
| La. | 2013Background
- This case challenges SCR 99 and Act 2 (2012) as funding mechanisms for the Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) and related educational programs in Louisiana.
- Act 2 creates the Course Choice Program and amends SSEEP, expanding voucher funding to nonpublic and other providers.
- SCR 99 approves BESE’s MFP formula and funds SSEEP and Course Choice through the MFP, including an Early High School Graduation Scholarship.
- Plaintiffs allege the instruments divert MFP funds from public to nonpublic entities in violation of Article VIII, §13(B).
- The district court held SCR 99 and Act 2 unconstitutional for fund diversion and procedural flaws; the Supreme Court reversed on SCR 99's timing/vote issues but affirmed severability with respect to Act 2.
- The Court emphasizes the limited role of judiciary to constitutional questions about funding mechanisms, not policy merits of voucher programs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do SCR 99 and Act 2 divert MFP funds in violation of Art. VIII, §13(B)? | Plaintiffs allege diversion from public to nonpublic schools violates the MFP allocation requirement. | Defendants contend MFP may include nonpublic funding as part of a broader educational program. | Yes; state MFP funds diverted to nonpublic entities violate §13(B). |
| Was SCR 99 intended to have the effect of law, triggering Article III procedural rules? | SCR 99 functioned as a lawmaking act; thus it needed proper timing and voting. | SCR 99 followed a budgetary process; not all pages had legal effect. | SCR 99 was intended to have the effect of law and failed timely introduction and voting requirements. |
| Does Act 2 violate the one-object rule of Art. III, §15(A)? | HB 976/Act 2 contains multiple objects beyond school vouchers. | HB 976’s provisions are interconnected to expand school choice. | After severing unconstitutional provisions, the remaining provisions comply with the one-object rule. |
| Are local funds diverted under SCR 99/Act 2? | Evidence shows local funds are expended for SSEEP/vouchers. | Costs framed as local contributions, not transfers, avoid diversion. | State MFP funds diverted are unconstitutional; local fund diversion pretermitted but unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisiana Municipal Association v. State, 893 So.2d 809 (La. 2005) (constitutional review of local/state funding limitations; one-object and appropriations context)
- State v. All Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers Authorized and Licensed to do Business in the State, 937 So.2d 313 (La. 2006) (presumption of constitutionality; burden on challenger)
- Wall v. Close, 14 So.2d 19 (La. 1943) (one-object analysis focus on main object and related provisions)
- Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La. 1981) (one-object test; breadth of relating provisions must be germane)