Religious Schools Can Get State Tuition Aid

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a decisive victory for religious freedom and school choice this week in a 6-3 ruling in the Carson v. Makin case.

The case revolved around a Maine school-choice program that allowed parents to access taxpayer dollars for private school tuition. However, Maine attempted to prohibit parents from using the program to attend a religious school.

On Tuesday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that a Maine private-school-choice statute violated the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion, writing:

“[T]here is nothing neutral about Maine’s program. The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools— so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion. A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise.”

In response to this important ruling, Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute said:

We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country. Parents in Maine, and all over the country, can now choose the best education for their kids without fearing retribution from the government. This is a great day for religious liberty in America.

Illinois Attorney General candidate David Shestokas celebrates the ruling as well, saying:

The Supreme Court affirmed this nation’s commitment to religious liberty in the case of Carson v. Makin. The court established a far reaching principle that when the government makes a benefit available it may not restrict the benefit based upon religion. While the case involved tuition assistance in schools, the principle established has the potential to extend across our civic life and keeps faith with the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent. In the dissent, Breyer said the majority gave too little credence to the establishment clause and too much to the free exercise clause, saying:

The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second. The majority also fails to recognize the ‘play in the joints’ between the two Clauses.

Yet the Chief Justice’s majority opinion ended with these three sentences:

Maine’s nonsectarian requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program, said the chief justice, operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is not the first time the SCOTUS ruled to uphold the religious exercise clause regarding taxpayer tuition aid for religious schools. In its June 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court struck down a state scholarship program that excluded religious schools. And in 2017, the court found in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer that a church-owned playground can be eligible for a public benefit program.

Bottom line: The government should not discriminate against citizens who would choose to use their tuition-assistance for faith-based schools schools. Carson v. Makin is a victory not just for religious freedom but also for educational choice.

As Election Day November 3 nears tensions in the country continue to run high. The candidates, parties, and voters are expressing worry over mail-in balloting which is being promoted over in-person voting due to the recent pandemic. In the midst of this unease, the Illinois Conservative Union (ICU), along with Judicial Watch, have filed suit against the Illinois State Board of Elections (SBE).

The suit, filed September 21, stems from a request for a list of voter data sent by the ICU to the Illinois State Board of Elections in August 2019, which was denied. According to Judicial Watch, the request sought “information about the maintenance of voter rolls, including the most recent voter registration list for Illinois.” The complaint filed in filed in court states the request noted the records “would be used solely for purposes intended by federal law, namely, to ensure the accuracy and currency of the official list of eligible voters.”

The Election Board denied the request based on the claim that only governmental bodies and political committees were allowed to view such records. A few members of the Illinois Conservative Union were eventually allowed to visit the Board of Elections office in Springfield to review Illinois’ millions of voter records. However, they could only do so “one at a time on a computer terminal, with no ability to sort or organize records,” said Judicial Watch.

In November 2019, the ICU sent the Board of Elections a notice of violation and did not receive a response. As a result, the Illinois Conservative Union determined the Illinois State Board of Elections and its director had violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 by not allowing it access to public voter registration records.

A media release from the Illinois Conservative Union stated, “The SBE refusal to provide voter data as requested is contrary to multiple court decisions around the country ruling that citizen rights to voter data under the NVRA cannot be infringed by state law.”

The attorney handling the case is David Shestokas, who is also an advisor to the Heartland Institute. “ICU’s original request, followed by the notice of violation to Executive Director Steve Sandvoss and the Board of Elections, advised SBE of the federal court orders ruling that the NVRA supersedes state law,” he noted. “The Board’s obligations are clear. Failing to comply results in a waste of taxpayer resources and has delayed ICU’s work on behalf of Illinois voters.”

Its partner in the suit, Judicial Watch, is a Washington D.C. based conservative action group that files Freedom of Information requests on government officials and agencies to investigate alleged misconduct. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois (Illinois Conservative Union et al v. Illinois et al. No. 1:20-cv-05542).

According to Judicial Watch, its research has discovered 14 out of 102 counties (14% of all counties) in Illinois “have more registered voters than citizens over 18, while the state as a whole has 660,000 inactive registrants.”

“This lawsuit aims to open up Illinois voting records so private groups can tell whether they are dirty,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Illinois voters and citizens have a right to review election rolls under federal law and Illinois’ refusal to make them available suggests the state knows the rolls are a mess and won’t stand the light of the day.”

Carol Davis is Chair of the Illinois Conservative Union. “When crafting the NVRA, the intent of Congress was to enable the public to monitor the accuracy of our nation’s voter rolls,” she said. “By denying citizens access to the rolls, state election authorities are thwarting the intent of this legislation, specifically Section 8. Illinois has long been the target of jokes about our elections, such as ‘dead people voting’. Now is the time to verify the accuracy of Illinois voter rolls and put an end to our state’s embarrassing reputation regarding the lack of election integrity.”

Judicial Watch isn’t the only organization that has found irregularities in the state’s voter rolls.

In January 2020, WGN Chicago reported a “programming error in a signature pad at driver services facilities led to hundreds of non-U.S. citizens accidentally being registered as voters.” Once the problem was discovered it was fixed, and of the 574 individuals who were registered to vote, only 16 did.

Cites Illinois Governor Executive Order as Constitutionally Unenforceable

A suit to enjoin the Grundy County State’s Attorney and Sheriff from enforcing Governor JB Pritzker’s worship restrictions has been filed by a local church. The continuing worship restrictions are contained in Pritzker’s Executive Order 2020-32.  The new “guidance” issued May 28 by the Illinois Department of Public Health provided “direction” for safely conducting services. The guidance however did not overturn the limitations contained in the executive order of April 30, 2020.  While EO 2020-32 remains in place, all houses of worship remain in legal jeopardy.

Pastor Richard Gionvennatti, of Standing in the Word Ministries, is seeking court protection to ensure that all citizens’ constitutional rights are affirmed without question and that religious liberties are not ever again infringed by egregious government overreach.

The seven-count lawsuit filed on Thursday, May 28, indicates Illinois Governor Pritzker was acting without legal authority in issuing any Corona Virus Executive Orders beyond 30 days without legislative approval and defied the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois State Constitution, and state statutes.

The pastor and congregation are represented by Attorney David Shestokas. He stated, “The Bill of Rights has no emergency exceptions. Although the governor has issued orders, the constitutionally independent Sheriffs and State’s Attorneys are tasked with enforcement. Court injunctions against enforcing Pritzker’s illegal orders are an appropriate remedy in protecting our freedoms.”

Pastor Giovennatti’s lawsuit seeks to permanently prohibit the sheriff and state’s attorney from enforcing the unlawful Executive Orders and any subsequent order issued with substantively the same restrictions upon the constitutional rights of Free Exercise of religious worship, Free Speech, and Freedom to Assemble.

As a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) and a pastor, Gionvennatti is passionate representing living within the Constitution. “The church is the source of holding the nation accountable. Churches need to assemble. As our nation’s heart and soul, we must and will be diligent and vigilantly stay the course until freedoms are restored and the unconstitutional edict is eradicated,” he said.

The statewide IFI and its Executive Director David E. Smith, vigorously support the efforts and strategy of the lawsuit. “We would like to secure a judicial ruling striking down this tyrannical precedent so that the state of Illinois may never have to experience this again. It doesn’t take much foresight to realize how similar future orders could be mandated (and extended) in the name of safety,” Mr. Smith said.

For full text of Complaint:

Standing in the Word v. State’s Attorney and Sheriff  2020CH23

Historian David Shestokas says “the principles that are found nation’s founding documents are not Republican or Democrat.  And rather than divide us, those principles can unite us.