DOCSLIB.ORG

SCHOOL CHOICE: Answers to Frequently Asked Legal Questions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SCHOOL CHOICE: Answers to Frequently Asked Legal Questions Institute for Justice 1717 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W. SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-1300 FAX (202) 955-1329 HOME PAGE: WWW.IJ.ORG SCHOOL CHOICE: Answers to Frequently Asked Legal Questions (5th Edition—Revised January 2004) by Clint Bolick and Richard D. Komer 1. Are school choice programs that include religious schools permissible under the First Amendment? Yes. In the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2002 decision upholding Cleveland’s school choice program, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,1 the Court makes it clear that educational benefit programs that include religious schools among the range of options do not violate the First Amendment. Zelman officially removed the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause from the legal arsenal of school choice opponents. The ruling upholding the Cleveland choice program falls squarely in line with recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and several state supreme courts. In its 1983 decision in Mueller v. Allen,2 the Court upheld Minnesota’s income tax deduction for educational expenses, including private school tuition. In that case, the Court upheld tax deductions for public and private school expenses even though the vast majority were claimed by religious school parents. In Witters v. Washington Dep’t of Services for the Blind,3 the Court unanimously upheld the use of public funds by a blind student pursuing a divinity degree at a religious college. In Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist.,4 the Court ruled that the First Amendment does not forbid the use of public funds to provide an interpreter for a deaf child attending a Catholic high school. In Agostini v. Felton,5 the Court overturned prior rulings to uphold the provision of public school teachers to teach students in religious schools for compensatory education under the federal Title I program. Most recently, in Mitchell v. Helms,6 the Court again overturned prior rulings to allow direct aid in the form of 1 536 U.S. 639 (2002). 2 463 U.S. 388 (1983). 3 474 U.S. 481 (1986). 4 509 U.S. 1 (1993). 5 521 U.S. 203 (1997). 6 120 S. Ct. 2530 (2000). computers and other instructional materials for students at religious schools under the federal Chapter 2 program. The first three state supreme courts to consider the constitutionality of school choice have the programs under the First Amendment. In Jackson v. Benson,7 the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, which allows low-income students to use state education funds in private or religious schools. In Simmons-Harris v. Goff,8 the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Cleveland program later affirmed as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Zelman. And in Kotterman v. Killian,9 the Arizona Supreme Court sustained a state income tax credit for contributions to private scholarship funds. 2. According to Zelman, what features of a choice program are necessary to satisfy the First Amendment? Zelman confirms that the critical features of a choice program are religious neutrality and genuine, independent school choice by the beneficiaries of the program. This is precisely the position argued by school choice advocates like the Institute for Justice on the basis of past U.S. Supreme Court precedents. The key idea is that it is parents and students choosing the schools to attend, without the state directing or steering them towards either secular or religious schools. Any “benefits” to the chosen schools are indirect and incidental to their having been chosen by the beneficiaries of the program. Stated another way, programs that satisfy the First Amendment share three essential common features: • Parents or students (not the state) decide which school to attend. In other words, funds are transmitted from the state to religiously affiliated schools only through the independent decisions of third parties. As a result, the public funds are not subsidies to schools, which are impermissible, but aid to students, which is permissible. In Mitchell, Justice O’Connor emphasized that programs involving “true private choice” are permissible even if funds are used in religious schools.10 • The program does not create a financial incentive to attend parochial or sectarian schools. In Mueller, deductions were available for expenses in public or private schools, even though most were claimed by religious school parents. In Witters and Zobrest, benefits were available for use in private or public schools. The Court in Agostini observed that programs do not offend the Establishment Clause where “aid is allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion, and is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.”11 The programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida and Arizona add private schools to an existing array of public school programs. Neutrality is enhanced when public schools are among the options and/or the private school options are a part of broader education reform. • The program does not create an ongoing state presence in religiously affiliated schools. The state’s regulations should be limited to those necessary to ensure that the program’s educational mission is 7 578 N.W.2d 602 (Wis. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 466 (1998). 8 711 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio 1999). 9 972 P.2d 606 (Ariz.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 283 (1999). 10 120 S. Ct. 2530, 2559-60 (2000) (O’Connor, J., concurring). 11 521 U.S. 203, 231 (1997). 2 achieved. This may (but does not have to) include compliance reports, financial audits, nondiscrimination requirements, health and safety regulations, minimum education requirements and/or testing. It should not include any state oversight of curriculum, personnel or administration. Any program that creates extensive involvement by the state in the schools’ internal affairs is likely to be found an unconstitutional “excessive entanglement.” 3. Has Zelman had any effects yet on existing school choice litigation? Yes, most definitely. In the ongoing litigation challenging inclusion of the choice of religious schools in Florida’s Opportunity Scholarships Program, after Zelman the plaintiffs dropped their claim that the Program violated the Establishment Clause. In Colorado, which is the first state to pass a parental choice program after Zelman, the plaintiffs, represented by the teachers’ unions, limited their allegations to violations of the state constitution, declining to even allege a violation of the federal Establishment Clause. Zelman has also led the Institute to renew its challenge to the exclusion of religious options from Maine’s tuitioning program, where both the federal First Circuit and the Maine Supreme Court had ruled contrary to Zelman that the Establishment Clause required the exclusion. 4. Will Zelman eventually mean that legal challenges to parental choice programs will end? Certainly not. School choice opponents have too much at stake to leave these programs to state legislatures to decide as policy matters. Immediately after Zelman they indicated they would continue using any tools at their disposal to continue to thwart the spread of parental choice programs and they no doubt will. Principal among these tools will be state religion clauses discussed in IJ’s Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About State Constitutions’ Religion Clauses, found online at www.ij.org/schoolchoice. In the Florida litigation, for example, their remaining allegation is that inclusion of religious options violates the state Blaine Amendment forbidding taking money from the state treasury for sectarian institutions. Similarly, in Colorado the plaintiffs allege violations of three state constitutional provisions involving religion. The Colorado litigation also involves claims that two other state constitutional provisions not involving religion are violated by the program there—one concerning special legislation and another concerning local control. These sorts of claims were also made against the Wisconsin and Ohio programs, and to the extent that they succeeded proved to be only temporary victories for school choice opponents. The legislature quickly enacted curative legislation fixing the problem, without any breaks in the continuity of the program. 5. Does it matter under the First Amendment how funds are transmitted to the schools? No. In its recent cases, including Zelman, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that so long as the program is neutral as between public and parochial or sectarian schools and aid is triggered by the independent decisions of parents or students, the program does not have the “primary effect” of advancing religion—even if funds are directly transmitted to the schools and if religious education is included. The 3 Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida and Colorado programs make checks payable to parents but send them to the designated school. However, the exclusion of religious schools from a “tuitioning” program in Maine was justified in part by the fact that checks were sent directly to the schools.12 Although those decisions conflict with U.S. Supreme Court rulings, a well-designed program will make checks payable to the parents who sign them over to their chosen school, to avoid the appearance of intending to aid the schools. 6. Is there one best model for a school choice program? Absolutely not. No “magic formula” for school choice exists from either a policy or legal standpoint. Any well-designed program will heed a couple of important principles: • First, school choice is about opportunities for children—not subsidies for private schools. The focus should remain on expanding educational options available to children. • Second, involving the community in designing the choice program brings the people with the greatest stake into the process. Having parents, private school officials, clergy and community leaders involved from the beginning will ensure the program is responsive to their needs. School choice comes in more than one shape and size. In Arizona, for instance, public school choice allows students to attend school in a different district from where they live, allowing families to choose a school that meets their needs even if it is farther away from home.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Real Clarence Thomas He's a Natural Rights Advocate Who Quotes Karl Hess and Malcolm X and Admires Ayn Rand
    The Real Clarence September 1991 VolS, No 1 $4.00 Thomas ((We are fiere to ret in tlie {iglit ofLi6erty upon po{itica{superstition. 11 - 'Benjamin rrucKgr mility. Yet, it seems, Dr Friedman thinks that humility is an objective value and he is able to make the moral judgment that Letters Rand lacks it! [ ] Also, Karl Popper is by no means the simple empiricist and realist about facts ... A Good Man Is Hard to Find my could be open to manipulation" and Dr. Friedman seems to think he is. And JSR's "Actions vs Words" is probably his "rather benign view of the future of even when explicated more completely, worse than the feminists he is trying to capitalism." But much more significant there are serious doubts about the wis­ slander. were Keynes' contributions to economic dom of Popper's analysis of disagree­ Feminists are not really bad. All they theory: his concern with the role of ex­ ment-see, for example, David Stove's want is a good man who can do the pectations in the market process and his Popper and After: Four Modern Irrational­ dishes. explanations of secondary depressions. ists (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982). Norman Gorback Heilbroner's appraisal of Keynes was an In most developed sciences it has be­ Plantation, Fla. appraisal of Keynes as politician and come evident that facts are not obvious prophet, not as economist. Serious dis­ or plain to apprehend. They are theory­ Self-Incrimination at Stanford cussion of Keynes' ideas will persist. But laden and often the issue is whether the I found Stuart Reges' article "1 Am a considering Heilbroner's judgment, I theory backing up the identification of Casualty of the War on Drugs" (July predict that one of the best things about the facts is a sound one, compared to oth­ 1991) most interesting.
    [Show full text]
  • Scripturalprayers for Good Government
    ScripturalPrayers for Good GovernmenT 2021 Scriptural Prayers for Good Government © 2021 BridgeBuilders International Leadership Network, Phoenix, Arizona. Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture verses are quoted from the NLT. Published by BridgeBuilders Int’l Leadership Network P.O. Box 31415, Phoenix, AZ 85046 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored online, or transmitted in any form by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise—with- out attribution to the author and the publisher, according to U.S. copyright law. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION . 1 ADORATION . 3 CONFESSION . 4 THANKSGIVING . 6 SUPPLICATION . 7 Prayers for Our Nation | 7 Prayers for Godly National Leadership | 8 Prayers for Our President and His Advisors | 10 Prayers for Arizona | 11 Prayers for Arizona Government Leaders | 12 A SCRIPTURAL PRAYER FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT . 14 THE STATE OF ARIZONA’S TOP 114 GOVERNMENT LEADERS . 16 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE . 17 ARIZONA STATE GOVERNMENT CONTACT INFORMATION. 18 RESOURCES . 19 Introduc- Introduction Deartion Friend, od’s Word encourages all Christians to be involved in making their nation a stronger, healthier place. Scripture tells us that praying for our Gleaders is one of the best ways we can do this. “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Timothy 2:1-2 NKJV). It is better to pray for governmental leaders — local, state, and national — than to criticize them. This doesn’t mean we always agree with their every action or condone legislative decisions contrary to biblical principles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Institute of Bill of Rights Law: Summer 2001 Report
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository IBRL History Institute of Bill of Rights Law 2001 The nsI titute of Bill of Rights Law: Summer 2001 Report Davison M. Douglas William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Douglas, Davison M., "The nI stitute of Bill of Rights Law: Summer 2001 Report" (2001). IBRL History. 11. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ibrlhistory/11 Copyright c 2001 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ibrlhistory The Institute of Davison M. Douglas (757) 221-3810 Director, Institute of Bill of Rights Law Fax: (757) 221-3775 Email: [email protected] www.ibrl.org The Institute of Bill of Rights Law Summer 2001 Report For almost two decades, the Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William and Mary School of Law has sought to improve scholarly and popular understanding of our Bill of Rights. The Institute of Bill of Rights Law carries out its mission in a variety of ways, including conferences on both scholarly and popular topics, parliamentary-style debates and public lectures, a prize-winning book series, a scholarly journal, and an endowed visiting professorship. The Institute also coordinates an extensive visitor program that brings many leading jurists, scholars, lawyers, and journalists to L11e William and Mary campus to discuss important issues that pertain to our Bill of Rights. The C-Span television network frequently broadcasts Institute programs and conferences to a national audience. Supreme Court Preview The Institute marks the commencement of the new term of the United States Supreme Court each fall with its Supreme Court Preview conference.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2018
    www.InMaricopa.com October 2018 EDUCATION THINGS TO DO Deseg funds Trick-or-Eat prove divisive to debut GOVERNMENT Magic 100 days of new city Time manager Kaden Rogers creates his own world of wonder Election+ Guide GIVE YOUR TASTE BUDS SOME EYE CANDY. Breakfast spreads. Midnight snacks. Popping corks and cheers. The choices are endless, whether you’re grabbing a quick bite or sharing plates with friends. Sip, savor and forever run toward a bigger playground. Quality Service at a Fair Price SAVE (520) 213-5021 EVEN MORE WITH GROUP RATES! Call for more info! P Fast, Friendly Local Service P Affordable Service Repair and Replacement Take advantage of great end-of-Summer specials with a new American Standard A/C System FREE NEXIA THERMOSTAT With Installation of New American Standard Unit Nexia — Control Thermal imaging at your now available to Fingertips detect hot spots in your home 24/7 SERVICE Now providing American Standard Play For All lifetime maintenance service harrahsakchin.com Coupon must be presented before project completion. Expires 10/31/2018. Must be 21 or older to gamble. Know When To Stop Before You Start.® Licensed, Bonded and Insured Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-522-4700 or 1-800-NEXT STEP. ROC#294841 ©2018 Caesars License Company, LLC. Contents October 2018 LEADING OFF Editor’s Letter Page 4 Emily Panter teaches Contributors Page 4 Structured English Powered by Orbitel Communications Immersion at Maricopa High PEOPLE School in classes funded by desegregation money. History photo looks at African-American cowboy. Page 5 Welcome to the Ultimate TV Experience A photo gallery captures events around town.
    [Show full text]
  • Month Date Year
    Going Green: Free Market Environmentalism June 24-27, 2013 Seattle, WA STUDENT RESOURCE BINDER Table of Contents Student Welcome Letter ............................................................................ 2 Seminar Schedule ...................................................................................... 3 Participant Guidelines ............................................................................... 4 FEE Staff Biographies ................................................................................ 5-6 FEE Faculty Biographies ........................................................................... 7-9 Lecture Outlines & Readings ..................................................................... 10-23 Student Directory……………………………………………………………………………24-29 Glossary of Terms ...................................................................................... 30-40 P a g e | 1 Dear Seminar Participant, On behalf of the entire FEE staff, welcome to Going Green: Free Market Environmentalism. We have an exciting three days ahead of us and are confident that you will have an experience that is fun, educational, and memorable! Throughout the seminar, we will have a host of lectures, activities, and multimedia presentations designed to teach you more about the foundations of free markets and a free society. After the seminar, you will: Understand the basic principles of free markets and the freedom philosophy. Be able to apply these principles to today’s world and current events. Have the tools and resources to
    [Show full text]
  • A N N U a L R E P O
    ANNUAL REPORT | 2 0 1 8 STANFORD UNIVERSITY HOOVER INSTITUTION 2018 Annual Report “This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity. Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves. The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man’s endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life. This Institution is Letter from the Director & the Chairman 2 Part 1: Investing in Hoover’s Core 5 not, and must not be, a mere library. But with fellowship & research 6 library & archives 14 these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself Part 2: Leveraging Hoover’s Core 25 engaging with government leaders 27 must constantly and dynamically hoover fellows in the media 32 educating americans in public policy 36 point the road to peace, to personal Part 3: Sustaining Hoover’s Core 45 scholars & supporters 46 freedom, and to the safeguards of the financial review 58 American system.” In 1959, forty years after founding the Hoover Institution, Herbert Hoover affirmed its purpose in a statement to Stanford University’s Board of Trustees. An early milestone in the institution’s evolution, these values continue to guide our work today.
    [Show full text]
  • GOLDWATER INSTITUTE What Citizens, Policymakers, and Reporters Should Know
    A Reporter’s Guide to the GOLDWATER INSTITUTE What Citizens, Policymakers, and Reporters Should Know Preface Introduction In March 2013, the Center for Media and Democracy and Arizona Working Families jointly released the Reporter’s Guide to the Goldwater Institute, which detailed the institute’s ties to out-of-state corporate interests, huge bonuses awarded to top executives (made possible by taxpayer funds), and murky internal finances. The Blog for Arizona called the report a “must read for anyone who cares about how laws are actually made in Arizona” and the report was subsequently covered in The Arizona Republic, Phoenix New Times, and on KTVK’s evening news program. Conservative economics journalist Jon Talton called on “every Arizonan” to read the “exemplary piece of investigation.” Since the report’s publication, the Goldwater Institute – which shrugged off the report’s findings that it was closely connected to the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Koch brothers as “hardly a surprise” – has continued to work in favor of those interests and against the interests of working Arizonans. The following research updates the original report by cataloging the Goldwater Institute’s most recent efforts to peddle the agenda of ALEC, the Kochs, and corporate interests at the expense of Arizonans. Still Pushing the ALEC Agenda The Reporter’s Guide to the Goldwater Institute and ALEC in Arizona describe how the Goldwater Institute works hand-in-hand with ALEC to push ALEC’s agenda in Arizona. Goldwater, like many ALEC partners, responded indignantly when U.S. Senator Dick Durbin sought information about whether it supports the ALEC/NRA “model legislation” known as “Stand Your Ground” laws, which ALEC has sought to distance itself from in the aftermath of the national outrage over the handling of the George Zimmerman case.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Election Preview a Pandemic of Electoral Chaos Arizona Association of Health Underwriters Prepared by Dr
    2020 Election Preview A Pandemic of Electoral Chaos Arizona Association of Health Underwriters Prepared by Dr. Marcus Osborn and Dan Romm Kutak Rock, LLP Arizona 2020 Key Election Dates Early Register to Request Last Day to Election Day Voting Vote an Early Mail Ballot Begins Deadline Ballot Deadline 2 Arizona 2020 Ballot Propositions “Pot and Schools Go together like Peas and Carrots” 3 Proposition 207 – Smart and Safe Arizona Act Proposition 207 would legalize recreational marijuana use in Arizona for people ages 21 and over. Under the proposal, purchases would be charged the regular sales tax plus an additional 16 percent, which would fund the government’s cost of administering the program. Any money left over will be allocated to community colleges, infrastructure, roads and highways, public safety and public health. This measure allows people who have been arrested or convicted of some marijuana offenses, such as possessing, consuming or transporting 2.5 ounces or less, to petition to have their records expunged. Additionally, this proposal clarifies that people can be charged with driving under the influence of marijuana. 4 Proposition 208 – Invest in Education Act Backed by the state’s teacher’s union, Proposition 208 calls for a 3.5 percent tax surcharge on income above $250,000 for an individual or above $500,000 for couples. This initiative hopes to raise about $940 million a year for schools. Under this ballot proposal, half of the new tax generated would be devoted to raises for credentialed teachers, 25 percent would go to increasing the wages for cafeteria workers, bus drivers and other support staff, and the remaining amount would be allocated for teacher training, vocational education and other initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunity Gap Participant Directory DRAFT3
    Closing the Education Opportunity Gap: Strategies and Challenges September 11, 2020 Part 1 – The Opportunity Gap Ludger Woessmann, University of Munich – Chair Ludger Woessmann is Professor of Economics at the University of Munich and Director of the ifo Center for the Economics of Education at the ifo Institute. He is also Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His main research interests are the determinants of long-run prosperity and of student achievement. He uses microeconometric methods to answer applied, policy-relevant questions of the empirical economics of education, often using international student achievement tests. Special focuses address the importance of education for economic prosperity – individual and societal, historical and modern – and the importance of institutions of the school systems for efficiency and equity. Further research topics cover aspects of economic history, economics of religion, and the Internet. Eric Hanushek, Stanford University – Presenter Eric Hanushek is the Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He has been a leader in the development of economic analysis of educational issues. His most recent book, The Knowledge Capital of Nations, describes the economic impact of higher achievement. Prior books include Endangering Prosperity, Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses, and Making Schools Work. Government service includes being Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office. He is a Distinguished Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy and completed his Ph.D. in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dany Shakeel, Harvard Kennedy School – Presenter M. Danish Shakeel is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeking Justice with the Love of God
    Seeking Justice with the Love of God May 3, 2018 The Honorable Scott Bales, Chief Justice The Honorable Robert M. Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice The Honorable John Pelander, Justice The Honorable Ann A. Scott Timmer, Justice The Honorable Clint Bolick, Justice The Honorable John R. Lopez, Justice The Honorable Andrew Gould, Justice The Arizona Supreme Court 1501 W. Washington St., Room 402 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Attn: Clerk of the Supreme Court Re: Christian Legal Society Comment Letter Opposing Adoption of Model Rule 8.4(g) In the Matter of Petition R-17-0032: National Lawyers Guild, Central Arizona Chapter, Petition to Amend ER 8.4, Rule 42, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court Dear Chief Justice Bales, Vice Chief Justice Brutinel, Justice Pelander, Justice Timmer, Justice Bolick, Justice Lopez, and Justice Gould: This comment letter is filed pursuant to this Court’s Order of January 18, 2018, soliciting public comment on Petition R-17-0032. In its petition, the National Lawyers Guild, Central Arizona Chapter, urges this Court to amend Rule 42, ER 8.4, by adopting ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), a deeply flawed and rightly criticized black-letter rule recently formulated by the American Bar Association.1 Because ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) would operate as a speech code for Arizona attorneys, Christian Legal Society respectfully requests that this Court reject its adoption. A number of scholars have correctly characterized ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) as a speech code for lawyers. For example, Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law, a nationally recognized First Amendment expert, has summarized his concerns about ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) and its impact on attorneys’ speech in a two-minute video released by the Federalist Society.2 1 The petition urges this Court to adopt ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) as Rule 42, ER 8.4(h) of this Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Scripturalprayers for Good Government
    ScripturalPrayers for Good GovernmenT 2018 Scriptural Prayers for Good Government © 2018 BridgeBuilders International Leadership Network, Phoenix, AZ. Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture verses are quoted from the NLT. Published by BridgeBuilders Int’l Leadership Network, Phoenix, Arizona 2700 N. Central Ave, Ste LL100, Phoenix, AZ 85004 | P.O. Box 31415, Phoenix, AZ 85046 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored online, or transmitted in any form by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise—with- out attribution to the author and the publisher, according to U.S. copyright law. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION . 1 ADORATION . 3 CONFESSION . 4 THANKSGIVING . 6 SUPPLICATION . 7 Prayers for Our Nation | 7 Prayers for Godly National Leadership | 8 Prayers for Our President and His Advisors | 10 Prayers for Arizona | 11 Prayers for Arizona Government Leaders | 12 A SCRIPTURAL PRAYER FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT . 14 THE STATE OF ARIZONA’S TOP 114 GOVERNMENTAL LEADERS . 16 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE . 17 ARIZONA STATE GOVERNMENT CONTACT INFORMATION. 18 RESOURCES . 19 Introduc- Introduction Deartion Friend, od’s Word encourages all Christians to be involved in making their nation a stronger, healthier place. Scripture tells us that praying for our Gleaders is one of the best ways we can do this. “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Timothy 2:1-2 NKJV). It is better to pray for governmental leaders — local, state, and national — than to criticize them.
    [Show full text]
  • Jump-Starting K–12 Education Reform
    JUMP-STARTING K–12 EDUCATION REFORM HON. CLINT BOLICK* Our K–12 educational system is a national catastrophe. Many, if not most, of the public schools we think of as good or excellent are in fact, by international comparisons, average or poor.1 When we compare ourselves to the other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries that are competitors in the world, we are either at the midpoint or the bottom half of educational performance in every area of education.2 The country closest to us in terms of academic performance is Slovakia.3 I have nothing against Slovakia, but it’s Slovakia, and we’ve got to aspire to be better than Slovakia. The thing about Slovakia is that it spends half as much money on K-12 education per student as the United States, so we pay twice as much to get the same outcome.4 Of course, this situation is especially dire for low-income kids. Nearly half of black and Hispanic kids drop out of school * Clint Bolick was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court in January 2016 by Governor Doug Ducey. Previously he co-founded and served as litigation director for the Institute for Justice (1991–2004) and the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation (2007–16), and as president of the Alliance for School Choice (2004–07). Justice Bolick graduated from U.C. Davis School of Law in 1982 and Drew University in 1979. 1. See ORG. FOR ECON. CO-OPERATION & DEV., PROGRAMME FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ASSESSMENT (PISA): RESULTS FROM PISA 2012: UNITED STATES 1–2, 7 (2012), http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ keyfindings/ PISA-2012-results-US.pdf [https:// perma.cc/R95E-HB9Q] (reporting that fifteen-year-old American students performed below average in mathematics and near average in reading and science in a ranking of thirty-four participating countries).
    [Show full text]