History Isn’t On Side Of Those Claiming Ohio Must Fund Religious Schools

January 20, 2026

Good Tuesday morning,

What a headline!

History Isn’t On The Side Of Those Claiming Ohio Must Fund Religious Schools.

It appeared in the Columbus Dispatch on January 14 with the subhead: A 240-year-old idea now on trial in Ohio.

Written by Mike Curtin, the column is the second in a series of deep dives by the former Dispatch Editor, Associate Publisher, and two-term state lawmaker, delving into Ohio’s history of funding public schools and the clear intent of our forebears, as outlined in the Ohio Constitution, that public tax dollars shall not be used to pay for private, religious education.

This is the basis of our historic lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the EdChoice private school voucher program, which will siphon $1.7 billion away in tax dollars from public schools over the next two years.

Curtin’s latest column is a must-read because he uses a scalpel to take apart a facetious argument made at a press conference by House Speaker Matt Huffman, who, with a straight face, dared to utter the following words: “The Ohio Constitution is unique. It’s the only state constitution in the United States that requires the funding of religious education by the state.”

Huffman actually said this. He’s actually the Speaker of the Ohio House, and he is the biggest cheerleader in our state for giving away hundreds of millions of tax dollars to mostly wealthy families who already had enrolled their children in mostly religious schools.

In a master class, Curtin takes Huffman apart with logic, history, and a great deal of research. You can read his column here.

Curtin writes: “Huffman’s arguments suggest the Ohio Constitution’s religious liberty clause, as part of the Bill of Rights, is a fundamental right that supersedes the clear language of another part of the Constitution – the education clause (Article VI, Section 2). Since 1851, that clause has required that Ohio’s school funds support only common (public) schools.

“But what does Ohio’s religious liberty clause really say? How were its words chosen by lawmakers and understood by the public – at the time of adoption and for more than a quarter century afterwards? And how has it been interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court,”  Curtin writes.

Spoiler alert: The Ohio Supreme Court has twice, in 1872 and 1945, issued unanimous decisions rejecting “Huffman-like interpretations of the religious liberty clause.”

Curtin notes: “More recently, in April, 1976, the Ohio Constitutional Revision Commission examined Article 1, Section 7 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.”

“The 32-member commission, in recommending no change to the religious liberty clause, cited (the 1872 Ohio Supreme Court case), and commented: “The legislature cannot promote Christianity or any other belief beyond passing laws to protect them from outside interference.”

Curtin demonstrates clearly there is a big difference, when it comes to history and law, between looking it up, and just plain making it up.

Is your district part of our historic lawsuit? Check here.

If not, why not? Learn more here.

Sincerely,

Vouchers Hurt Ohio