Georgia
Georgia has always been, and continues to be, hospitable to voucher, tax credit, and education savings account programs. While the Georgia Constitution does contain a Blaine Amendment, its education article explicitly authorizes the General Assembly to provide grants and scholarships to students and parents for educational purposes, including educational choice programs.
Constitutional Provisions
Blaine Amendment
“No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution.” Georgia Const. Art. I, § II, ¶ VII.
Education Articles
“Pursuant to laws now or hereafter enacted by the General Assembly, public funds may be expended for any of the following purposes: (1) To provide grants, scholarships, loans, or other assistance to students and to parents of students for educational purposes …. ” Georgia Const. Art. VIII, § VII, ¶ I.
“Authority is granted to county and area boards of education to establish and maintain public schools within their limits …. No independent school system shall hereafter be established.” Georgia Const. Art. VIII, § V, ¶ I.
Relevant Case Law
Gaddy v. Georgia Department of Revenue, 802 S.E.2d 225 (Ga. 2017)
Plaintiffs, taxpayers who support the public schools, argued that the Georgia Tax Credit Scholarship program violated the Blaine Amendment, the Educational Assistance provision (Article VIII, Section VII, Paragraph 1) and several other state constitutional provisions, as well as the Georgia Tax Code. The Supreme Court of Georgia unanimously held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the lawsuit.
Taetle v. Atlanta Independent School System, 625 S.E.2d 770, 771 (Ga. 2006)
In refusing to void a lease agreement between a local school district and a church, the Georgia Supreme Court held that “[a] political subdivision of this state cannot give money to a religious institution in such a way as to promote the sectarian handiwork of the institution. But that is not to say that a political subdivision of the state cannot enter into an arms-length, commercial agreement with a sectarian institution to accomplish a non-sectarian purpose.”
Richter v. Savannah, 127 S.E. 739 (Ga. 1925)
With no analysis, the Georgia Supreme Court reinstated a taxpayer suit seeking to stop the city of Savannah from paying for the services of a Catholic hospital.
Bennett v. La Grange, 112 S.E. 482 (Ga. 1922)
The Georgia Supreme Court held that a city’s contract with a Christian service organization to provide care for the city’s poor violated the precursor to Georgia’s current Blaine Amendment because the organization could not separate its religious and secular missions.
2000 Ga. AG LEXIS 11 (2000 Opinion Attorney General Ga. No. 2000-5)
The Georgia attorney general opined that the federally funded Georgia Reading Challenge Program grants could not be made directly to churches or other religious institutions for the provision of after-school care, opportunities to improve student reading skills, and enhancement of student interest in reading without violating Georgia’s Blaine Amendment.
1988 Ga. AG LEXIS 35 (1988 Opinion Attorney General Ga. 126)
In an unofficial opinion expressing the views of the author and not those of the Attorney General’s Office, the senior assistant attorney general for Georgia opined that allowing a religious organization to generate income through use of school property under a lease arrangement at less than the fair market rental rate would violate the indirect aid language of Georgia’s Blaine Amendment.
1988 Ga. AG LEXIS 11 (1988 Opinion Attorney General Ga. 94)
In an unofficial opinion expressing the views of the author and not those of the Attorney General’s Office, the senior assistant attorney general for Georgia opined that a county school system can contract with a religious organization to provide after-school programs for its students if the arrangement does not involve a flow of public or school funds from the school system to the religious organization.
1972 Ga. AG LEXIS 146 (1972 Opinion Attorney General Ga. 266)
The Georgia attorney general opined that legislation providing $400 per academic year to Georgia students attending religious institutions of higher learning that were not primarily for religious training is consistent with Georgia’s Blaine Amendment.
Existing Private School Choice Programs
Georgia Special Needs Scholarships Program
Georgia Code Annotated Sections 20-2-2110 to -2118
Qualified Education Expense Tax Credit
Georgia Code Annotated Sections 20-2A-1 to -7, 48-7-29.16
What You've Heard About Blaine Amendments
Blaine Amendments are controversial state constitutional provisions rooted in 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry. Their original purpose was to prevent the government from funding Catholic schools while preserving funding for America’s nascent “common” schools, which were predominantly Protestant and often inhospitable to Catholics. For decades, opponents of educational choice have employed Blaine Amendments—found in 37 state constitutions—as blunt weapons to impede and invalidate educational choice programs. However, thanks to a decades-long legal strategy tenaciously pursued by IJ, these state constitutional obstacles to educational freedom are now largely a dead letter.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2002, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, that the federal Constitution allows states to empower parents to choose religious and nonreligious schools alike when participating in educational choice programs so long as the state remains religiously neutral and parents exercise true private choice. But Zelman left open the question of whether the constitution would permit a state to exclude religious options from an educational choice program. On June 30, 2020, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court answered that open question and held that the federal Constitution forbids states from excluding religious schools as options for families participating in educational choice programs, including through Blaine Amendments.
The federal Constitution, wrote Chief Justice Roberts for the Espinoza majority, “condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. They are members of the community too, and their exclusion from [Montana’s] scholarship program here is odious to our Constitution and cannot stand.” The Supreme Court’s holding was clear and unambiguous—and it applies to every state: While a “State need not subsidize private education[,] . . . once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
As a result of Espinoza, nearly every state is free to enact programs that will empower parents to choose the educational environment that is best for their own children. Of course, each state has a unique history, context, and constitutional provisions. That is why IJ has produced this 50-state guide. The guide analyzes each state’s constitution in light of Espinoza and explains how the ruling impacts policymakers’ ability to enact educational choice programs.
What You Need to Know After Espinoza
Blaine Amendments are controversial state constitutional provisions rooted in 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry. Their original purpose was to prevent the government from funding Catholic schools while preserving funding for America’s nascent “common” schools, which were predominantly Protestant and often inhospitable to Catholics. For decades, opponents of educational choice have employed Blaine Amendments—found in 37 state constitutions—as blunt weapons to impede and invalidate educational choice programs. However, thanks to a decades-long legal strategy tenaciously pursued by IJ, these state constitutional obstacles to educational freedom are now largely a dead letter.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2002, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, that the federal Constitution allows states to empower parents to choose religious and nonreligious schools alike when participating in educational choice programs so long as the state remains religiously neutral and parents exercise true private choice. But Zelman left open the question of whether the constitution would permit a state to exclude religious options from an educational choice program. On June 30, 2020, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court answered that open question and held that the federal Constitution forbids states from excluding religious schools as options for families participating in educational choice programs, including through Blaine Amendments.
The federal Constitution, wrote Chief Justice Roberts for the Espinoza majority, “condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. They are members of the community too, and their exclusion from [Montana’s] scholarship program here is odious to our Constitution and cannot stand.” The Supreme Court’s holding was clear and unambiguous—and it applies to every state: While a “State need not subsidize private education[,] . . . once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
As a result of Espinoza, nearly every state is free to enact programs that will empower parents to choose the educational environment that is best for their own children. Of course, each state has a unique history, context, and constitutional provisions. That is why IJ has produced this 50-state guide. The guide analyzes each state’s constitution in light of Espinoza and explains how the ruling impacts policymakers’ ability to enact educational choice programs.
