Uncategorized

Good Tuesday morning,

We have a very important message for you this morning:

Do not be threatened by the anti-public school lawmakers in Columbus.

They want to bully you because they know the EdChoice private school voucher program they are pushing, for a rash of ideological reasons, is unconstitutional, wrong, and indefensible.

A few years ago, then-Senate President, now House Speaker, Matt Huffman sicced the State Auditor Keith Faber on our coalition.

It was a big public display of nothing. Faber issued threats and subpoena, and nothing happened.

What was their goal? They wanted to scare district superintendents, board members, and treasurers into not joining our lawsuit.

We had about 200 districts at that time.

Guess what happened since then?

Our coalition has more than doubled in size to 330-plus school districts.

Franklin County Judge Jaiza Page ruled on June 24, 2025 that the EdChoice private school funding program is unconstitutional on three counts. Our winning case is now before the 10th District Court of Appeals.

We keep growing and we keep winning, and that makes Huffman and his pro-voucher crowd uneasy.

After all, Huffman is the guy who once told the Columbus Dispatch “we kind of do what we want.”

Well, he’s not getting his way because we’re challenging him in the courts.

All of this brings us to the latest trial balloon threat floated last week by Rep. Jamie Callender.

Callender, a Huffman minion who carried water for David Brennan’s extremely profitable charter school crusade and has advocated for charter schools ever since, introduced legislation to withhold state funding from school districts that participate in our lawsuit.

Callender knows better. He knows this trial balloon will burst with the tiniest of pinpricks, but he and Huffman are sweating big time because they know they’ve got a loser on their hands in trying to make the case that EdChoice vouchers are constitutional.

Here’s what you need to know.

Callender’s bill is a dog that won’t hunt.

Our lawyers will go to court and quash this dumb idea faster than you can say Call-END-er.

We have three branches of government, not one.

People far wiser than Matt Huffman and Jamie Callender knew you can’t give absolute power to one branch, and created checks and balances.

We have the right to sue the state, and so do other governmental entities like cities, townships, and counties.

Callender’s threat is ludicrous.

Taking $1.7 billion from the same line item in the state budget that is supposed to fund public schools, which are underfunded, and giving it to mostly wealthy families in mostly religious schools is unconstitutional.

Don’t be intimidated. We’re not backing down.

Join our growing coalition.

Are you part of our lawsuit? Check here.

If not, why not stand up to the bully and be on the right side of history? Join here.

Sincerely,

Vouchers Hurt Ohio

Good Tuesday morning,

The pro-voucher crowd is starting to let us see them sweat.

Last week, they rolled out legislation to cap income levels for eligibility for EdChoice private school vouchers.

So what is the proposed cutoff point? How much can a family earn before their income makes them ineligible for a voucher?

$500,000!

Yes, the proposed legislation would say no voucher for you if you earn $500,000 or more a year.

This is legislation designed to remove talking points, not solve problems.

It hurts the pro-voucher crowd when we say millionaires and billionaires like Les Wexner are eligible for vouchers.

One, because it’s true. Two, because it just looks bad from a public relations standpoint. And three, because it’s true.

Don’t be distracted.

Here’s what the legislation doesn’t do and why the proposal is not worth the paper it is printed on: it doesn’t address the fundamental core, unconstitutional questions posed by the EdChoice private school voucher scheme that will siphon $1.7 billion in the next two years away from public schools.

We are not suing over income eligibility.

We are suing and winning because EdChoice vouchers create a separate and unequal system of uncommon schools (primarily for the haves and not the have nots) while the Ohio Constitution says lawmakers shall create a single system of common schools open to all children with our tax dollars.

We are suing because state lawmakers are shortchanging public schools by tossing out the Cupp Patterson Fair School Funding plan that would have funded schools at a constitutional level while diverting billions of dollars to vouchers and once again shifting the burden of paying for local public schools to local taxpayers.

A ludicrous income cap of $500,000 is only a bad public relations stunt.

Stay the course.

We’re making history.

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

If not, why not? Learn more here.

Sincerely,

Vouchers Hurt Ohio

Good Tuesday morning,

While you’re trying to stay warm, we recommend you stay connected to Vouchers Hurt Ohio and our lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the harmful private school voucher scheme known as EdChoice.

You are already receiving our weekly email, but do you know others who are interested in following Vouchers Hurt Ohio?

Please share this link with them.

Our social media presence is strong and growing, and we post regularly about the lawsuit, the issues surrounding vouchers, and even what is happening in other states.

We are not suing Ohio in a vacuum. In state after state where anti-public school groups have pushed to expand vouchers, grassroots organizations like Vouchers Hurt Ohio have sprung up in opposition.

Our Facebook page now has more than 3,000 followers, and is growing every day. We post shareable images, links to news stories in Ohio and elsewhere, and information about how vouchers are hurting our students, educators, parents, taxpayers, and others.

In the past week, we shared news articles about how vouchers are forcing local homeowners to pay more in property taxes, a podcast from Cleveland.com that dug into how lawmakers created a $1 billion private school voucher program without asking voters, share badges, and a continuing look at the impact of the legislature abandoning the Cupp Patterson Fair School Funding plan.

In Valley View Local, in Montgomery County, for example, lawmakers shortchanged the public school students in Valley View by $3.47 million, as they siphon away $1.7 billion in public tax dollars for private school vouchers in the next two years.

Follow us here.

We are seeing tremendous growth on our X or Twitter page. Follow us here.

And we post regularly on Instagram as well. Check our Instagram page out here.

You can find quick links to all these pages and more information at our website: vouchershurtohio.com.

As you know, Franklin County Judge Jaiza Page ruled in our favor on three counts and found the EdChoice private school funding scheme unconstitutional in June, 2025.

This year, our case will be heard before the 10th District Court of Appeals, where we believe once again EdChoice will be found unconstitutional.

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

If not, why not? Learn more here.

Sincerely,

Vouchers Hurt Ohio

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

Good Tuesday morning,

Yesterday, our attorneys, Miriam Fair and Mark I. Wallach, filed a reply brief in our lawsuit that is now before the Ohio 10th District Court of Appeals.

As you know, on June 24, 2025, Franklin County Judge Jaiza Page ruled the EdChoice voucher program unconstitutional on three of the five counts in our case.

Judge Page agreed with us that the EdChoice vouchers create a separate and unequal system of uncommon schools open to the few and increasingly privileged, and that the Ohio Constitution is clear that lawmakers shall create a single system of common schools open to all students for the common good.

Judge Page also ruled the state could not shortchange the public school system and not fund the Cupp Patterson Fair School Funding at a constitutional level at the same time lawmakers were ready to spend $1.7 billion on EdChoice vouchers in the next two years.

Judge Page also noted the Ohio Constitution is crystal clear when it says no religious schools should receive tax dollars intended for public schools.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and intervenors, including lawyers hired by pro-voucher, anti-public school billionaires from out-of-state, appealed and responded with briefs that can only be classified as “weak tea.”

Yesterday, our lawyers took apart their lawyers’ arguments. You can read the reply brief filed by Fair and Wallachhere.

Just as importantly, our team asked the 10th District Court of Appeals to revisit our Count 5 in the case, which challenges the constitutionality of the EdChoice private school voucher program based on the Equal Protection clause in the Ohio Constitution.

Judge Page ruled in favor of the state and against us on this count.

“The state spends 3-4 times less for public education of (public school students) than it does for their private school counterparts via vouchers. The EdChoice program violates Article 1, Section 2, of Ohio’s Constitution; (public school) students ask this Court to reverse the trial court and grant them summary judgment on Count V,” Fair and Wallach wrote in their reply brief.

They go on to say: “And the right to choose public education cannot be conditioned on accepting 3-4 times less in per pupil funding for that education. In praising school choice, the legislature cannot punish the choice of public education, the only option it is constitutionally mandated to secure,” Fair and Wallach write.

Private schools receive $6,166 for K-8 students and $8,408 for high school students. Richmond Heights receives $1,530 for a student in state funding.

Fair and Wallach point out that the state is giving a $2,000 per pupil bonus to private schools for high school students because pro-voucher attorneys attest that private schools charge more for high school students.

What?

Public schools do not receive a similar bonus.

As Fair and Wallach point out, “either it costs more to educate high school students, or it doesn’t.”

This boils the blood a little, doesn’t it?

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

If not, why not? Learn more here.

Sincerely,

Vouchers Hurt Ohio