Generality Plus Indirection Equals EC Satisfied

Notice in Zelman how Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion emphasizes that the voucher plan was one of "true private choice." (P. 1841 & 1842; see also O'Connor at p. 1845)

The idea here is that generality (i.e.,a plan that provides benefits to a broad class of citizens chosen not because of their religious beliefs but because they satisfy some neutral, secular requirement such as disability or low income) plus indirection (i.e., the state aid "reaches religious schools solely as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals." (p. 1841).

The idea is that the state is not endorsing or advancing religion or even religious education, but rather is supporting a quality education for all beneficiaries who satisfy the neutral, secular criteria.

It is like tax deductions for charitable donations under tax law--the tax code advances charitable giving and the individual decides whether to direct his or her donation to a secular charity (such as Planned Parenthood or the United Way) or to a religious charity (such as a church or religious ministry like the City Mission). The state endorses charitable giving and the individual endorses the particular charity.

Although strict separationists continue to view these programs as providing state aid for religion, the Court seems to have decided that neutral programs of private choice do not violate the EC.

Justice Souter says the voucher plan is not neutral because the voucher laws "were written in a way that skewed the scheme toward benefitting religious schools." p. 1847

What does he mean by that? What options do parents seeking a secular K-12 education have under Ohio law? Which families receive more state educational funding--families attending secular schools or those attending religious schools?