William L. Phillis on the constitutional problem with EdChoice in Ohio.

In a Jan. 22 guest column, David Hodges said Ohio has made a simple promise for two decades: children in certain low-performing schools and those with low family income are eligible for a voucher.

Hodges, a resident of Virginia, serves as legal counsel for Institute of Justice which has filed a motion to intervene in a recent lawsuit opposing EdChoice  school voucher program filed by 100 public school districts here. 

Attorney says:Ohio kids merely ‘income statements on a balance sheet’ to school voucher opponent

Over the past two decades, the rules for voucher funding and voucher eligibility have changed multiple times. 

No one legislature can bind any policy on a subsequent legislature; otherwise, legislatures could not repeal or alter any law. The current 134th General Assembly cannot bind “a voucher promise” on future general assemblies.

The various legislative “promises” of vouchers in the past were based on the untested premise that the legislature has the constitutional right to take funds away from the constitutionally required common school system and pitch it to vouchers. 

The Ohio Constitution requires the General Assembly to secure (protect) one thorough and efficient system of common schools, not multiple systems.

Hodges’ appeal is that vouchers are a ticket for low-income students and/or those who attend poorly performing schools to attend private schools.

The current view of voucher advocates in Ohio is that each student is entitled to a voucher. In some school districts, a majority of voucher students have never attended a public school.

Lawsuit:100 public schools are suing Ohio, saying EdChoice voucher programs are unconstitutional

Hodges’ guest column is conspicuously absent any legal arguments in opposition to the complaint that was filed.