1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Op in ion N um be r:

____ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: N ove m be r 12, 201 5 4 CATHY MOSE S a nd PAUL F. 5 WEINB AU M, 6 Pl ai nti ff

s- Pe tit ion er s, 7 v
. N O. S -1 -S C -3 4, 974 8 HAN NASKA ND ERA , D esignate 9 Secr etary of Ed ucation, Ne w Mexico 10 Pu blic Ed ucation D epartm ent, 11 D ef

en dant- Re spon de nt, 12 an d 13 ALBUQUE RQUE ACADEMY, et a l., 14 D ef

en dants /I nte rv en or s- Re spon de nts . 15 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 16 Sa ra h M . S in gle to n, D ist ri ctJu dg e
17 Graes er & M cQu een , LLC 18 Christoph er L . G raeser 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 Frank Susm an 21 San ta Fe, NM 22 for Pe tition ers1 N ewMe xic o P ubl ic E duc at ionD ep ar tm en t 2 Albert V . G onzales, D eputy Ge neral Counsel 3 San ta Fe, NM 4 Sutin, T hay er & Brow ne, P .C. 5 Su san M
. H ap ka 6 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 7 fo r Re spon de nt
8 Mo dr al l, Sp erl in g, Ro eh l, Harr is & Si sk , P.A. 9 R. E
. T hom

pson 10 E m il J. K ie hne 11 Je nni fe r G
. A nde rs on 12 Sarah M

. S te ve nson 13 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 14 Be ck et

F und fo r Re lig iou s L ibe rty 15 Er ic S. Baxter 16 W as hi ng to n, DC 17 fo r In te rv en or s- Re spon de nts1 OPIN ION

2 CHÁ VEZ , Just ice. 3 { 1} Since th e ado ption of t he Ne w Mexico Constitu tion on January 21, 1 911, Ne w 4 Me xic o ha s ha d ac onst itu tio na l r es pons ibi lity to pr ovi de a fr ee pub lic e duc at ionf or 5 al l ch il dr en of s c h o o l a g e . N.M. Co ns t. ar t. XII, § 1. Ho wev er, “ no p art of the 6 pr oc ee ds ari sin g f

ro m the sa le or

dispos al of

a ny lands gr an te d to the state by 7 congress, or any

other funds appro p ri ated, levied or collected for e ducational 8 pur pose s, sha ll be use d f

or the sup port of

any se ct ar ian, de nom ina tio na l or p riv ate 9 sc hool , c ollege or univ ersity .” N. M. Const. art. XI I, § 3 (em phasis add ed). T he Ne w 10 Mexic o D e part m e nt

o f P ub l i c E du c a t i on ’ s ( D e part m e nt ) I ns t r uc t i on a l M a t e r ial 11 Bure aupur ch as es non -r el igi ous ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia ls s el ec te d by pub lic or pr iva te 12 sc hool s, w ithf

unds ap pr opr ia te d by

the L eg isl at

ur e an d e ar

m ar ke d f or the sc hool s, 13 an d le nds the se m at er ia ls to qua lif ie d stu de nts w ho atte nd p ubl ic or pr iva te sc hool s. 14 N MS A 197 8, § 22 -1 5- 7 ( 201 0) ; se e als o N MS A 197 8, § 22 -8 -3 4 ( 2001 ). T he 15 que sti on w e ad dr es s i n thi s c as e is whe the r the pr ovi sio n of boo ks t o st

ude nts w ho 16 attend private schools violates Art i cl e XI I, Sec tion 3

. W e conclude that the New 17 Me xic o C onst itu tio na l C onve nti on w as not wil li ng to navig at e the unc le ar li ne 18 be tw ee n sec ular an d se ct ar ian e duc at ion , or the unc le ar

li ne be tw ee n di re ct

a nd 19 ind ir ec t su

ppor t t o othe r than publi c sc hool s. I nde ed , in 1969 the vot er s rejec te d a16 “ ‘ [I] nstruction al m aterial’ m eans school textb ooks and other educational 1 17 m ed iathat are use d a s th e ba sis f or ins tr uc tio n, inc lud ing c om

bin at ion s of

te xtb ooks , 18 le ar nin g ki ts, sup ple m en tary

m at er ia l and e l e c tr o n i c m ed ia

. ” S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 2( C) ; see 19 als o § 22 -1 5- 3( A ) (“ T he ‘ ins tr uc tio na l m at erial bur ea

u’ is cr eate d w ith in the 20 departm ent of education [publi c education departm ent] .” (alter ation in o riginal)). 2 1 pr opos ed

c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t tha t w oul d have r equir ed N ewMe xic o t o p ro vid e 2 f r e e te xt bo ok s t o a ll New Mex ic o s ch oo l ch il dr en . See Propo sed New M exico 3 Co nst itu tio n ( as adopt ed by the Co nst itu tio nal Co nv en tio n of 1969 ) 45 ( O ct obe r 20, 4 1969 ). W e hol d th at

the pla in m eanin g and h ist or y of A rt ic le X II , Se ct ion 3 f

or bid s 5 the provisi on of boo ks for use by students attending p rivate scho o l s , whether such 6 sc hool s are se cu lar or

se ct ar ian. 7 I. The In struc tional Mater ial Law is fund ed b y appropriations 8 { 2} T he I nstru ct ion al Ma te ri al L aw (I ML ), N MS A 1978 , §§ 2 2- 15- 1 to - 14 ( 1967 , 9 as am ended throug h 201 1), gr ants the Departm ent’ s Instructional Mat erial Bureau 10 statutor y a utho rity

to lend approv ed instruction al m aterials to “ [a] ny qualified 1 11 stu de nt . . . a tte ndi ng a pub lic sc hool , astate ins tit uti on or a pri va te sc hool

approved 12 by the de partm en t i n any

gr ad e fr om

f ir st thr oughthe tw el fth gr ad e of ins tr uc tio n 1 3
. . . . ” S e c t i o n 2 2

- 1 5
- 7 ( A ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. “ I n s t r

u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s h a l l be 14 dis tr ibu te d to sc hool dis tr ic ts, sta te ins tit uti ons an d pr iva te sc hool s as age nts fo r the 15 be ne fi t of stu de nts en tit le d to the fr ee use of the ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l. ” S ec tio n 22

-3

1 15- 7( B) ( em

pha sis a dde d)

. I n turn , “ [a ] ny sc hool dis tr ic t, sta te ins tit uti on or p ri va te 2 sc hool as age nt rece iving instruction al m aterial pursuant to the Instruction al Mater ial 3 L awis re spon sib le f

or di st ribut ionof

the ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l f

or use by e lig ibl e 4 stu de nts a nd for

the saf ek ee pin g of the instruction al m aterial. ” Se ction 22 -15-7(C) 5 (e m pha sis a dde d)

. St

ude nts or the ir pa re nts ar e “ re spon sib le f or the los s, da m ag e or 6 d e s t r u c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l w h i l e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l i s i n the 7 poss ession o f the student.” S ection 22-15 -10(B). 8 { 3} The D epartm ent is required to pub lish a “ m ultip le list” of st at e-approv ed 9 ins tr uc ti on al m ate ri al s. S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 8( A ), ( B) ; § 22- 15- 2( D ) (“‘ [M ] ult ipl e lis t’ 10 m eans a w ritten list of thos e i nstruction al m aterials approved by the departm ent.”)

. 11 U sin g th e m

ult ipl e lis t of

state -a ppr ove d in str

uc tio na l m at er ia ls, “ ea chsc hool dis tr ic t, 12 sta te ins tit

uti on or pr iva te sc hool as ag en t m ay se le ct ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l f

or the use 13 of its stud ents . . . .” Sec tion 2 2-15-8 (B ). “ At lea st ten percent of instructional 14 m at er ia l onthe m

ult ipl e lis t conc er

nin g lang ua ge ar

ts and soc ia l st

udi es sha ll co nta in 15 m at er ia l tha t i s r el ev an t t o th e cu lture s, langua ge s, his tor y an d ex pe ri en ce s of

m ult i16 ethnic stud ents.” S ection 22-15 -8(A ). Moreover, “ [t] he De partm ent shall ensure that 17 pare nts a nd o the r co m m uni ty m em be rs a re inv olv ed in the a dopt ionpr oc es s a t the 18 state level.” Id

.4

1 { 4} T he I ML is fu nde d th ro ugh a non- re ve rt ing “ ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l f

und” 2 es ta bli she d by

the S ta te T re as ur er

“ co nsi st[ ing ] of

appr opr ia ti ons, gif

ts, gr an ts, 3 donatio ns and an y oth er m one y cr ed ite d to the fund. ” Se ct ion 22- 15- 5( A ). I n 19 31, 4 the L eg isl at

ur e en ac te d the S ta te S ch ool Bu ild ing , T ex t B ook an d R ur al A id F und to 5 pur ch as e ins tr

uc tio na l m at er ia ls w ith una ppr opr ia te d fe de ra l funds obt ai ne d th ro ugh 6 the Mi ne ra l L an ds L ea sin g A ct , 30 U
. S. C. §§ 181 to 287 (1920 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 7 2012 ). N .M. Laws 1931, ch. 138, § 2 (“ Ther e is hereby appropriated for the purposes 8 of this fund, annually , all of the balance, not oth erw ise appropriated, in the Mineral 9 [L ands Leasin g ] Ac t Fund . .

. .” ). T oday the De partm ent’ s Instructional Material 10 Bure auc ont inu es to pur ch as e ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia ls f

or N ewMe xic o st

ude nts usi ng 11 fed eral Mi ne ral Land s Lea si ng Act fu nd s. See § 22-8-34(A) ( “ Exce pt for an annual 12 ap pr opr ia tio n to the ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l f

und an d to the bur ea

u of ge olo gy a nd 13 m ineral re sources of the Ne w Me xico institute of m ining and technolog y . . . all other 14 m one y

r ec ei ve d by

the state pur suant t o th e pr ovi sio ns o f the fe de ra l Mi ne ra l L an ds 15 Le asing Act, shall be distribu ted to the pub lic school fund .” (citation om itted)). 16 { 5} E ac h publi c an d pr iva te sc hool is al loc at ed a pe rc en ta ge of m one y av ai la ble in 17 the I ML f

und ba se d onthe num

be r of stu de nts en ro lle d in the ir sc hool

. S ec tio n 22

- 18 15- 9( A). “ Pr iva te sc hool s m ay e xpe nd u

p to f if ty pe rc en t of t

he ir i nstruc tio nal5

1 m ate ria l f

unds f or it em s th at

a re not on the m ult ipl e lis t; pr ovi de d th at no f unds sha ll 2 be expended for religious, sectarian or nons ecular m aterials .

. . . ” Se ction 22 -15-9(C) 3 (em phasi s a dde d)

. S uc h in str uc tio na l m at er ia l purc ha se s m ust be ide nti fi ed

a nd 4 pur ch as ed

thr oughthe D ep ar

tm en t’ s in -s t at e d e p o s ito ry . S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 9( C) , ( E ); see 5 als o § 22 -1 5- 4( D ). “ A ny ba lanc e re m ai nin g in an ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l ac co unt of 6 a pr iva te sc hool a t the e nd o f the f isc al y ear sha ll re m ai n av ai la ble f or r ei m bur se m en t 7 by the de partm en t f

or ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l purc ha se s insub se que nt y ears . ” S ec tio n 8 22- 15- 9( F)

. T he D ep ar tm en t’ s I nstru ct ion al Ma te ri al Bure auha s the au th or ity to 9 “ withdrawor w ithho ld the privilege of participati n g i n t h e free use of instructional 10 m at er ia l i n c as e of

a ny vio la tio n of

or non co m pli an ce wit h th e pr ovi sio ns o f the 11 In str uc tio na l M at er ia l L aw or an y ru le s adop te d purs ua nt t o th at law . ” S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 12 4(C). 13 { 6} Insum

m ar y , the L eg isl at

ur e ap pr opr ia te s in str

uc tio na l m at er ia ls f

unds a nd 1 4 pr i v a t e s c h o o l s a r e a l l o c a t e d a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e f u n d s b a s e d o n t h e n u m

b e r of 15 stu de nts en ro lle d in the ir sc hool s. P ri va te sc hool s se le ct ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia ls f

ro m 16 a m ult ipl e lis t, b ut the y

m ay spe nd u p to 50 p er ce nt o f the ir

ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia ls 17 funds on i te m s th at

a re not on the m ult ipl e lis t, a s lo ng a s the m at er ia l i s no t r el igi ous 18 in c ont en t. A ny

m one y r em ai nin g inthe pr iva te sc hool s in str uc tio na l m at er ia l f

und6

1 m ay be c arried o ve r to s ubse que nt y ears . O nc e the m at er ia ls are pur ch as ed , the 2 m at er ia ls are loane d to the stu de nts . H er ea ft er in thi s op ini on w e wil l refe r to this 3 process as a “ schoolb ook lo an program ” for e ase of r efer ence. 4 II. Pr ocedur al history 5 { 7} Plaintiffs-Pe tition ers Cathy Moses an dPa u l F. Wei n b au m (P et i tioners) are Ne w 6 Mexico residents and have been taxpay ers for at least the past fiv e y ears. Petitioners 7 curr en tly

ha ve one or

m or e ch ildre n en ro lle d ine le m en tary a nd/ or se co ndary

pub lic 8 schools in Ne w Mexico. As New Mexico residents and taxpay ers, Petitioners assert 9 tha t the I ML vio la te s th ei r co nst itu tio na l r igh ts bec au se it supp ose dly f or ce s th em

to 10 “ supp ort[] and aid[] the re l i g i o us dictates of others with whom they disagree”; 11 ap pr opr ia te s or

don at es pub lic f

unds to pr iva te part ie s; and s uppo rt s “ se ct ar ian, 12 de no m in at io na l o r pr iv at e sc ho ol [s ]. ” 13 { 8} Petitioners filed a verif ied com plaint for declaratory

j u d g m ent in the dist rict 14 co urt aga ins t De fe ndant- Re spon de nt H an na Sk an de ra (R es pond en t) , Se cr et ar y of the 15 D ep ar tm en t, se ek ing ade cl ar at ionthat the S ta te iss uin g in str uc tio na l m at er ia ls t o 16 stu de nts a tte ndi ng priva te sc hool s is unc onst itutio na l be ca use doi ng s o su

ppor ts 17 se ct ar ian, de nom ina tio na l, or pr iv at e s c h o o l s i nv i o l at i o no f N e w M e xic o C onst itu tio n 18 A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3; f or ce s th em

a s ta xpay er s to su pp or t the r el igi ous dic ta te s of7

1 oth er s invio la tio n of New Me xic o C onst itu tio n A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 11 ; and 2 appropriates or donates pub lic funds to p rivate parties in vio l at i o n o f N ewMexico 3 Co nst itu tio n A rt ic le I X , S ec tio n 14
. P et iti one rs a lso r el ie d on Ze lle rs v . H uff , 195 1- 4 N MS C- 072, 55 N
. M. 50 1, 23 6 P
. 2d 9 49 t o su ppor t the ir a lle ga tio n th at

the 5 sc hool book

loan pr ogr am

is unc onst itu tio na l. 6 { 9} Pe tit ion er s f

ile d am oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t, a nd Re spon de nt and 7 A lbu que rque A ca de m

y , e t a l. ( In te rv en or s) e ac h f ile d am em or an dum

in oppo sit ion

. 8 T he dis tr ic t c ourt r

ule d th at Ze lle rs did no t control and the prov ision s of the IML 9 challenged by

Petitioners did no t violate the Ne w Me xico Const itutio n. T he district 10 co urt the n ente re d its ord er de ny ing Pe tit ion er s’ m oti on for sum m ar y j udgm en t and 11 gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o R es pond en t. 12 { 10} P e t i t i o n e r s ap p e a l e dt o t h e C o u rto f Ap p e a l s , w h i c h a f

f i rme dt h e d i s tri ctco urt ’s 13 gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t to Res po nd en t. M oses v . Sk ande ra , 201 5- N MC A -0 36, 14 ¶¶ 3, 54 , 34 6 P .3d 39 6, cert. gran ted , 2015 -N MC E RT -0 01. W e gr an te d P et iti one rs ’ 15 pe tit ionf

or w ri t of c er tio rari to co ns ide r the f

oll ow ing iss ue s: (1 ) w he the r thi s 16 Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Ze lle rs co n s t i tu t ed d i ct a; (2 ) w h et h ert h e I M L v i o l at es Art i cl e X II, 17 Sect io n 3 of th e New Mex ic o Con st it ut io n; (3) whet he r th e IML v io la te s Art ic le IV, 18 Sect io n 3 1 o f th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n; (4) whet he r th e IML v io la te s Art ic le IX,8

1 Se ct ion14 o f the N ew Me xic o Cons tit uti on; an d (5) w he the r the I ML vio la te s A rt ic le 2 II , S ec tio n 11 of

the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 3 { 11} W e co nc lud e tha t the sc hool book loan pr ogr am

vio la tes A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 4 3, and theref

ore w e do not address th e re m aining is sues. W e reverse b oth the Court 5 of Appe al s and the dis tr ic t c ourt. 6 III . Th e IM L v iol at es A rt ic le X II, S ec ti on 3 of t he N ew M ex ic o C on st it ut ion 7 { 12} A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 p ro vid es : 8 T he sc hool s, co lle ge s, uni ve rs iti es an d oth er ed uc at ion al ins tit

uti ons 9 pr ovi de d fo r by this c onst itu tio n sh al l f or ev er r em ai n un de r the 10 ex cl usi ve c ontro l of the state , a nd no pa rt of the pr oc ee ds ari sin g f ro m 11 the sa le or

dis posa l of any lands gr an te d to the sta te by co ngr es s, or a ny 12 oth er

f unds appr opr ia te d, le vie d or c oll ec te d f or e duc at ion al pur

pose s, 13 sha ll be use d fo r the supp ort of an y se ct ar ian, de nom ina tio na l or p riv ate 14 sc hool , c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y. 15 (Em ph as is ad de d.) 16 { 13} Whe the r the sc hool book loan pr ogr am vio la te s the N ew Me xic o C onst itu tio n 17 is a qu es ti on of l aw th at we rev ie w de n ov o. Tr i- Sta te G en erati on & T rans m iss ion 18 Ass ’n v. D ’A nto nio , 2012-NMS C-039, ¶ 11, 289 P.3d 1232

. “ It is we ll settled that 19 th ere i s a p res um

pt io n o f th e v a li di ty andreg ul ari ty of le gi sl at iv e en act m en ts .” 20 B ound

s v . Sta te e

x re l. D ’A nto nio , 2013-NMS C- 0 37, ¶ 11, 306 P.3d 457 (internal 21 quot at ion m ark s an d c itatio ns o m itt ed ). P et iti one rs be ar the bur de n of

pr oof to9

1 ov erco m e th e p res um

pt io n o f th e v al id it y

an d re gu la rit y

of t he IML. Id

. W e w ill 2 upho ld the co nst itu tio na lity of the IM L unl es s we ar e sa tis fi ed be y ond al l r ea sona

ble 3 doub t tha t the L eg isl at ur e ex ce ed ed

the bounds of

the N ew Me xic o C onst itu tio n in 4 en act in g t he IML. Id

. 5 { 14} “ [T ]h e ru les of statutory construction apply

equally to constit ution al 6 construction .” Sta te v . B oy se , 2013 -N MS C- 024, ¶ 8, 303 P. 3d 830 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n 7 m ar ks and cit at ion om itt ed ). “ [W ] e ex am ine the pla in l an gua ge of the statut e as w el l 8 as the c ont ex t i n w hic h it w as pr om

ulg at ed , inc lud ing the his tor y of th e st at ute a nd 9 the object and purpo se the L egislature soug ht to accom plish .” St at e v. Ni ck R. , 200 9- 10 N MS C- 050, ¶

11, 147 N
. M. 182, 218 P. 3d 8 68 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 11 om itted). 12 { 15} T he Co urt of

Appe al s in te rp re te d A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 to pr ovi de pr ote ct ion 13 onl y a ga ins t the es ta

bli shm en t of re lig ion , sim ilar to the E sta bli shm en t Clause of

the 14 Fi rs t A m en dm en t t o the U nit ed St at es Co nst itu tio n and the E sta bli shm en t C lause of 15 Arti cl e II, Sect io n 11 of th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. Moses , 20 15 -NMCA- 03 6, ¶ 16 22. A cc or din gly , the Co urt of Appe al s r el ie d prim ar ily on Fir st A m en dm en t ca se s to 17 ho ld th at th e IML d id no t v io la te Arti cl e XII, Sec ti on 3. Moses , 201 5- N MC A -0 36, 18 ¶ 34 (ci ti ng Elane Photo grap hy, L LC v. W illock , 201 2- N MC A -0 86, ¶ 33, 284 P
. 3d10

1 428). 2 { 16} W e m ight agree w ith the Court of Appeals if th e l an guage of Article X II, 3 Se ct ion3 on ly

pr ohi bit ed

the use of

a ny pub lic funds fo r the sup port of se ct ar ian or 4 denom ination al sch o o l s . The plain lang uage of A rticle X II, Sec tion 3 is m ore 5 re str ic tiv e, a nd i t the re fo re stands as ac onst itu tio na l prot ec tio n se pa rate f ro m the 6 E sta bli shm en t C lause as ill ustrate d by the dif fe re nc e in l an gua ge in ea chpr ovi sio n. 7 { 17} T he E sta

bli shm en t Cl au se pr ovi de s, in re le va nt pa rt , that “ Co ngr es s sh al l m ak e 8 no law re specting an establis hm ent of religion . .

. .” U .S . C ons t . amen d. I. In 9 co ntr as t, A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 p ro vid es : 10 T he sc hool s, c oll eg es , uni ve rs iti es a nd o ther e duc at ion al ins tit

uti ons 11 pr ovi de d f

or by thi s c onst itu tio n sh al l f orev er rem ai n un de r the 12 ex cl usi ve c ontro l of the sta te , an d no pa rt of the pr oc ee ds ar isi ng f ro m 13 the sa le or

dis posa l of any lands gr an te d to the sta te by co ngr es s, or a ny 14 oth er

f unds appr opr ia te d, le vie d or c oll ec te d for

e duc at ion al pur

pose s, 15 sha ll be use d f

or the supp ort of

a ny se ct ar ian, de nom ina tio na l or p riv ate 16 sc hool , c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y. 17 (E m pha sis ad de d.) The pla in l an gua ge of A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 e xpr es sly r es tr ic ts 18 the use of

pub lic f unds to oth er

than se ct ari ansc hool s, a nd the re fo re our a na ly sis 19 cannot be restricted by cases that analy ze the E stablish m ent Clause. 20 { 18} T he his tor ic al c ont ex t i n w hic h A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 wa s a dopt ed he lps 21 ex pla in why

thi s c onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n w as not ar ec odi fi catio n of

the11

1 E sta bli shm en t C lause of

the N ew Me xic o Cons tit uti on. D ur ing the e ar ly

nin et ee nth 2 ce ntury , pub lic e duc at ionw as pr ovi de d inpub lic sc hool s kn ow n a s “ co m m on 3 schools .” See MarkEdward DeFo rres t, A n Ov ervi ewand E va lua tio n of

Sta te B lai ne 4 A m en dm en ts: O rig ins , Sc ope, and F irs t A m en dm en t C

onc erns , 26 H ar

v. J. L
. & Pu

b. 5 Pol’ y 551, 558 (200 3). “ The c omm on schoo l wa s design ed to function as an 6 ins tr um en t f or the a cc ult

ur at ionof

im m igr an t po pul at ion s, r en de ri ng th em goo d 7 pr od uc ti ve cit iz en s i n t he im ag e of th e ru li ng m ajor it y .” Jo se ph P. Vit eri tt i, Blaine’s 8 W ak e: Sc hool Ch oic e, T

he F irs t A m en dm en t, and Stat e Con sti tut ion al L aw , 21 H ar v. 9 J. L
. & Pu

b. P ol’ y 657 , 668 (1 998)

. “ Pr ote stant m ini ste rs a nd l ay pe opl e w er e in the 10 fo re fr ont

of the pub lic -s ch ool c ru sa de a nd too k a pr opr ie tary int er es t in the ins tit uti on 11 the y ha d he lpe d to bui ld. T he y a ssu m ed aco ng ru en ce of

pur pose be tw ee n th e 12 com m on schoo l and the Protestant churches.” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 13 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ Inm an y ca se s, it w as dif fi cu lt to d ist ing uis h be tw ee n publi c an d 14 private institu tions because they we re often housed in the sam e buildin g.” Id

. a t 66 4. 15 State statutes at the tim e authorized Bible rea ding s in publ ic s chools and state j udges 16 ge ne ral ly refus edto reco gn iz e th e Bi bl e as a se ct ari an bo ok

. G. Alan Tarr, The New 17 Judicial Federalism in Pe rspective , 72 N otr e D am e L
. Re v. 109 7, 110 3- 04 n n. 22- 23 18 (c iti ng Mi ss. Co nst . of 1890 , a rt . 3, § 18 ); H ac ke tt v. B rook

sv ill e G rade d Sc h. D ist

. ,12

1 87 S
. W
. 792 ( K

y . 190 5) ; D onah oe v . R ic hard s , 38 Me. 3 79 (1 85 4) ); Vi te rit ti , supra , 2 at 667 -6 8. 3 { 19} By

the m idd le of

the nin et ee nthc en tur

y , the Catho lic im m ig rant pop ula tio n 4 ro se si gn ifi can tl y . Vite rit ti , supra , at 669. The influx of Catholic imm igrants created 5 a de m an d f

or Catho lic e duc atio n, an d c onse que ntl y Catho lic s and o the r m ino ri ty 6 rel ig io ni st s ch al le ng edth e Pro te st an t i nf lu en ce i n t he co m

m on sch oo ls

. Id

. a t 66 7- 68; 7 St ev en K. Green , The B laine Am endment R econsidered , 36 A m . J. L eg al H ist

. 38, 44 8 (1992). By the 1870 s, Catholi c church leader s began to lob by their state legislatures 9 fo r pu bl i c f

u n d s t o d ev el op th ei r own educ at io na l s y st em . Vite rri ti , supra , a t 66 8; 10 Green , supra , a t 44
. T his r ise in Ca tho lic inf lue nc e cre at ed an obv iou s te nsi on 11 be tw ee n t he P ro te stant m aj or ity a nd the m ost ly

Catho lic m ino ri ty

on the iss ue of 12 educ at io n, see Vi t e rr it i, supr a , a t 67 0- 72, be ca

use the P ro te stant- run “ co m m on s ch ool 13 w as de si gn ed

to func tio n a s an in str um en t f or the a cc ult

ur at ionof

im m igr an t 14 popu la tio ns, ren de ring the m goo d pr oduc tiv e ci tiz en s inthe im ag e of the r uli ng 15 m aj ority .” Id

. a t 66 8. 16 { 20} Inr es pons e, “ [o ] ppos iti on t o a id t o ‘ se ct ar ian’ sc hool s ac qui re d pr om ine nc e in 17 t he 18 70 ’ s . . . . ” M

i t ch el l v. Hel ms , 530 U. S. 793, 828 (200 0). “ [I] t wa s an open 18 se cr et t hat ‘ sectarian’ wa s code for ‘ Catholic.’ ” Id

. Com m on schoo l leaders13

1 suc ce ssf

ull y lob bie d th ei r sta te le gis la tur es to ado pt am en dm en ts p ro hib iti ng the use 2 of st at e fu nd s t o s up po rt s ect ari an sch oo ls by the m id -to -la te ni ne te en th cen tu ry . See, 3 e. g. , Co lo. Co nst . ar

t. IX , § 7; D el

. Co nst . ar

t. X , § 3; N
. D
. Co nst . ar

t. V II I, §§ 1, 5; 4 O hio Co nst . a rt . V I, § 2. “ InS ep te m be r of 187 5, Presi de nt U ly sse s S
. G rant 5 re spon de d to m ount ing pol iti ca l pr es sur e w he n he pub lic ly vow ed to ‘ [e ] nc ourage 6 free schools , and resolve that no t one doll ar be a ppropriated to su pport any sectarian 7 sc ho ol s.’ ” Vite rri ti , supra , a t 670 (a lte ratio n in or igi na l)

. Pr es ide nt G rant c al le d on 8 Cong res s to dr af

t a pr opos ed

c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t tha t w oul d de ny pub lic 9 su pp or t t o re li gi ou s i ns ti tu ti on s. Id

. 10 { 21} Co ngr es sm anJa m es G
. Bl ai ne of Ma ine a gr ee d t o sp on so r ana m en dm en t t o 11 th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t t ha t fu lfi ll edPr es id en t Gra nt ’s req ue st . Se e id. a t 67 0- 71. 12 Co ngr es sm anBl ai ne ’ s pr opos ed c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t r ea d: 13 N o S ta te sha ll m ak e an y law re spe ct ing ane sta

bli shm en t of

r el igi on, or 14 pr ohi bit ing the f re e ex er ci se the re of

; and n o m on ey

r ai se d by ta xa tio n 15 in any

S ta te f or the supp ort of publi c sc hool s, or de ri ve d fr om a ny pub lic 16 fund therefor, nor any publ ic lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under 17 the c ontro l of

a ny r el igi ous se ct ; no r sha ll an y m one y so ra ise d or l an ds 18 so d ev ote d be div ide d be tw ee n r el igi ous se ct s and d en om ina tio ns. 19 Green , supra , a t 38 n. 2 ( quot ing 4 C ong. Re c. 545 3 (1 876) ( quot at ionm ar ks 20 om itt ed ))

. C ongr es sm anBl ai ne be lie ve d that his pr opos ed co nst itu tio na l am en dm en t 21 w oul d c or

re ct a“ co nst itu tio na l de fe ct ” be ca use a t the tim e, the E sta

bli shm en t C lause18 Section 8 of the E nabling Ac t explicitlyrequires that 2 14 1 ha d not bee n in te rp re te d to appl y to the state s un de r the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. 2 Vit erri ti , supra , a t 67 1 n. 66 ( ci tin g P erm oliv . M uni ci pal ity No

. 1 of

Ne w O rle ans , 44 3 U
. S. (3 H ow . ) 589, 609 (1 845) (“ T he Co nst itu tio n m ak es no p ro vis ionf or pr ote ct ing 4 the c iti ze ns o f the r es pe ct ive state s inthe ir r el igi ous lib er

tie s; this is le ft to the state 5 constitu tions and laws .

. . . ”). 6 { 22} D es pit e the fa ct tha t Cong re ssm an Bl ai ne ’ s prop ose d am en dm en t f ai le d to pa ss 7 in the United States Se nate, several states am en d ed t h ei r constituti ons to include a 8 ba n o n fu nd in g o f se ct ari an educ at io n. Vi te rri ti , supra , a t 67 2. “ By cen tu ry ’ s e nd 9 [c ongr es sio na l] l ead er s ha d c om e to unde rs tand tha t f ed er al a id c oul d be use d a s a 10 we dge for m anipulatin g publ ic p olicy

. . . . Particular ly vulnerable to the Republican 11 agenda we re those new territories see king statehood.” Id

. at 672- 73. “ A s am atte r of 12 course, [new te rritories seeking statehood ] would be required to incorporate Blaine13 like provis ions in to their new c onst i t ution s in order to rece ive congression al 14 approval.” Id

. a t 67 3. 15 { 23} Co ngr es s gr an te d N ewMe xic o stat eh ood on the e xpl ic it co ndi tio n th at it a dopt 16 a si m il ar “ Bl ai ne ” pr ov is io n in th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. See E nabli ng Ac t f or 17 N ewMe xic o of

Jun e 20, 191 0, 36 S ta t. 557 , c h. 310 , § 8 (E nabli ng A ct ). I n th e 216 [t ] he sc hool s, c oll eg es a nd univ er sities pr ovi de d f or in thi s a ct

sha ll 17 forever

rem ain under the exclusive cont rol of the said state, and no part 18 of the proceeds arising f rom the sale or dispo sal of any lands g ra nted 19 he re in f

or e duc at ion al pur

pose s sh al l be us ed

f or the sup port of

a ny 2 0 s e c t a r i a no r

d e n o mi n a t i o n a l s c h o o l , c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y. 15 1 Enabling Act, “ Congress set forth the term s by which New Mexico would be adm itted 2 as a state. ” F

orest G uardian s v . P ow el l , 200 1- N MC A -0 28, ¶ 6, 130 N
. M. 368 , 24 3 P. 3 d 8 0 3. I n an election held on J anuary 21, 1911 to vote on th e N ewMexico 4 Constitu tion ado pted by the Constitu tional Conv ention of 1 910, Ne w Mexico vot ers 5 ratified all of the term s of t he Enabling Act in A rticle 21, S ection 9 of the 191 1 New 6 Mex ic o Co ns ti tu ti on . Se e Co nst itu tio ns o f N ewM ex ic o 19 10- 34
. A rt ic le 21, S ec tio n 7 10 o f the 19 11 N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n pr ovi de s th at “ [t ] his or din an ce is 8 ir re voc ab le w ith out

the co nse nt of the U nit ed St at es an d the pe opl e of thi s Sta te , a nd 9 no c hange or ab ro ga tio n of thi s or din an ce , in w hol e or in pa rt , sha ll be m ad e by a ny 10 constitu tional am endm ent without the consent of Congress.” Id

. ; E nabli ng A ct

§ 2; 11 se e als o N
. M. Co nst . a rt . 21, §§ 1 -1 1 ( inc or por at ing a ll E nabli ng A ct m ea sur es int o 12 the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n and m ak ing the E nabli ng Ac t i rr ev oc ab le w ith out the 13 consent of Cong ress and the citizens of New Mexico). Beca use the Enabling Act w as 14 ad opt ed

dur ing N ewMe xic o’ s 19 10 C onst itu tio na l C onve nti on, N
. M. Co nst . ar t. 21, 15 §§ 1-11, it functions as a “ fundam ental law to the sam e extent as i f i t h ad b een16

1 directly incorporated into th e Constituti on.” Sta te ex rel. Ki ng v . L yo ns , 201 1- 2 N MS C- 004, ¶

3, 149 N
. M. 330, 248 P. 3d 878 (in te rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n 3 om itted). 4 { 24} Sections 6 through 9 of the Enabling A ct pertain to specif ied publ ic lands that 5 were g ran te d t o New Mex ic o t o b e h el d i n t ru st “ fo r th e su pp or t o f co m m on sch oo ls .” 6 Enabling Act § 6. To the extent that lands “ are m ineral, or h ave been sold, re served 7 or oth er w ise appr opr ia te d or

r es er ve d by or und er the auth or ity

of a nya ct of 8 co ngr es s, ” the y

a re to be tr eate d as all oth er publ ic lands spe ci fi ed unde r Se ct ion s 6 9 thr ough9 of

the E nabli ng A ct . E nabli ng A ct § 6. 10 Co ngr es s c ont em pla te d tha t an y ch an ge . . . to the use of the pr oc ee ds o f 11 the lands gr an te d to the sta te shou ld be ef fe ct ua te d by am en dm en t t o th e 12 Co nst itu tio n, a nd .

. . a ny c ha nge in the use a nd appl ic at ionof the 13 proceeds of these land grants m ay . . . b e d one by way of a cons titutio nal 14 am en dm en t. 15 Ly ons , 201 1- N MS C- 004, ¶ 4 (f ir st and thi rd om iss ion s inor igi na l) ( int er na l qu ota tio n 16 m arks and citation om itted). T hus, Intervenors’ argum ent that funds from the Mineral 17 L an ds L ea sin g A ct

that are use d f

or the In str uc tio na l Mat er ia l Fund ar e “ fe de ra l f unds 18 w hic h are not

sub j ec t t o st at e co nst itu tio na l l im itatio ns” is w ith out m er it. 19 { 25} G rants of

land w er e m ad e to N ewMe xic o sp ec if ic al ly f or , a m ong oth er

thi ngs, 20 “ un iv ers it y

pu rp os es , . . . sc ho ol s an d as y lu m s fo r th e de af, du m b an d th e bl in d,

. . .17

1 nor m al sc hool s, . . . a gr ic ult

ur al a nd m ec ha nic al c oll eg es , . . . sc hool of m ine s, [ an d] 2 m ili tary instit

ute s. ” E nabli ng A ct

§ 7. L an ds g rante d to N ewMe xic o and any 3 pr oc ee ds d er ive d f

ro m the m a re to be he ld i n tr

ust . E nabli ng A ct

§ 10 , ¶ 1. I f the 4 lands or

m one y so d er ive d are use d f

or som ethin g othe r than th e na m ed pur pose s, it 5 is a b r e a c h o f t h e E n ab l i n g A c t . E n ab l i n g A c t § 1 0 , ¶ 2
. T h e E n ab l i n g A c t “ is 6 bin din g and e nf

or ce ab le a nd the le gis la tur e is w ith out pow er to dive rt

the f und fo r 7 another purpos e than that expressed.” State ex rel. Interstate Str eam C omm ’n v. 8 R ey nolds , 196 3- N MS C- 023, ¶ 22, 71 N
. M. 389 , 378 P
. 2d 6 22. 9 { 26} Specifica lly

relevant to our inquiry

is Section 8 of the Enabling Act, which m ay 10 be c hara ct er iz ed as a Bl ai ne pr ovi sio n be ca use of the ti m e of

it s a dopt iona nd b ec au se 11 it precludes the u s e o f public funds for the support of sectarian or denom ination al 12 sc hool s. 13 [T ] he sc hool s, c oll eg es , a nd univ er sit ie s pr ovi de d f or in thi s a ct

sha ll 14 forever

rem ain under the exclusive control of the said state, and no part 15 of the proceeds ar ising from the sale or d i s posal of any lands granted 16 he re in f

or e duc at ion al pur

pose s sh al l be use d f

or the su pp ort of

a ny 1 7 s e c t a r i a no r

d e n o mi n a t i o n a l s c h o o l , c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y. 18 Id

. This language is nearly identical to that of Article XI I, Section 3, w ith two critical 19 dif fe re nc es . T he E nabli ng A ct pr ohi bit s the use of “ pr oc ee ds ari sin g f ro m the sa le or 20 dis posal of

a ny lands gr an te d [ in the E nabli ng A ct ] f or e duc at ion al pur

pose s” to18

1 supp ort sectarian s ch o o l s . En abling Act § 8. I n contrast, the draf ters of the N ew 2 M e x i c o C o n s t i tu t i o n r e s t r i c t e dt h e u s e o f p r o c e e d s f

r o m anylands granted to New 3 Me xic o by

Co ngr es s, not

onl y tho se gr an te d inthe Enab ling A ct , a nd the y a lso 4 restricted the use of any funds appr o p ri ated, levied, or c ollected for educational 5 purpos es for t h e su pport of not only sectarian school s, but also the m uch broader 6 cate gor y of pr iva te sc hool s. T hr oughthe se ch an ge s, the Co nst itu tio na l C onve nti on 7 de ci de d to pr ovi de fo r ad dit ion al re str ic tio ns on publ ic fundi ng of e duc at ionbe y ond 8 th e res tri ct io ns req ui redby Secti on 8 o f th e Ena bl in g Act
. Se e Hig hlight s of the 9 A ugus t 15 , 1969, Sessi on o f the 1969 C

onst itu tio nal

Co nv en tio n Sub mit te d August 10 14, 1969 a t 4. T he m em be rs of the Co nst itu ti on al Co nve nti on c hose to play it 11 sa fe —by

br oa de nin g th e pr ovi sio n to re ac h all pr iva te sc hool s, the y a voi de d dr aw ing 12 a lin e betw ee n sec ular an d se ct ar ian e duc at ion

. I n a ddi tio n, the y w er e not w ill ing to 13 lim it the f

unds that w oul d be re str ic te d fr om use fo r pr iva te sc hool s—the y w en t w el l 14 bey ond “ proceeds arising from the sale or disposal of any lands granted” und er 15 Se ct ion8 of

the E nabli ng A ct

a nd c hose to re str ict th e us e of “ an y oth er f unds 16 ap pr op ria te d, l ev ie d o r co ll ect edforeduc at io na l pu rp os es .” N.M. Co ns t. ar t. XII, § 17 3. 18 { 27} The C ourt of Appeals held t h at t h e direct re cipients of the IML financial19

1 pr ogr am

a re the pare nts of the ch ildre n, an d the re fo re the be ne fi t t o pr iva te sc hool s 2 is no t d ire ct en ou gh to vi ol at e Arti cl e XII, Sect io n 3
. Moses , 201 5- N MC A -0 36, ¶ 40. 3 W e can not ag re e tha t A rt ic le X II , Se ct ion 3 onl y pr ohi bit s dir ec t su ppor t t o pr iva te 4 sc hool s. T he br oa d langua ge of thi s pr ovi sio n and the his tor y of its ad opt ion an d th e 5 ef fo rt s to a m en d it ev inc e a cl ear int en t to re str ic t both dir ec t an d ind ir ec t su ppor t t o 6 se ct ar ian, de nom ina tio na l, or pr iva te sc hool s, c oll eg es , or uni ve rs it ie s. O ur 7 interpretation is sup ported by the failed attem

pt in 19 69 of the delegates to the New 8 Me xic o C onst itutio na l C onve nti on t o a m en d th e pr ec ur sor of A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3. 9 R ep ort of the Co nst itu tio nal

R evis ion Co m m iss ion 158 ( 1967 ). U sin g th e A la ska 10 Co ns t i tut i ona s at e m pl a t e , t he C on st i tut i on a l R e vi si onC om m i ss i onp roposed 11 re vis ing the pr ec ur sor of A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 t o r ea d “ [t ] he pub lic s ch ool s and 12 ins tit uti ons of the sta te sha ll be fr ee fr om se ct ar ian co ntr ol. N o m one y sha ll be pa id 13 from publi c funds for the dir ec t be ne fit of any religious or oth er private e ducational 14 in st it ut io n.” New Mex ic o Leg is la ti ve Co u n c il Serv ic e, W orkboo k of Selected 15 Co nst itu tio ns Pre

pare d F or D el egates to the Ne w M ex ic o C onst itu tio nal

Co nv en tio n 16 1969 (July

15, 1969) (em

phasis add ed). T his prop osed revision would not have been 17 ne ce ssary

if ar ea sona

ble int er pr et at ionof

A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 a s w ritt enonl y 18 precluded d i re ct s u p port of sectarian and private schoo ls. H owever , the proposed20

1 rev is io n was ne ve r su bm it te d t o t h e v o t e r s fo r rat ifi cat io n i n Dec em be r 19 69
. See 2 ge ne ral lyP ropo se d N ewM ex ic o C onst itu tio n ( as a do

pted by the New M

exico 3 Co nst itu tio nal

Co nv en tio n of

1969 ) (O ctober 20, 1969). 4 { 28} In ste ad , the Co nst itu tio na l C onve nti on p ro pose d ac onst itu tio na l am en dm en t 5 that would address the crux of the questio n: m ay publi c funds be used to provide free 6 t e xt bo ok s t o a l l st

ud e nt s, i nc l ud i ng t ho se w ho a t t e nd pr i vat e sc ho ol s? Se e id. a t 45
. 7 T he c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a m e n d m e n t s ub m i t t e d t o t h e v o t e r s f o r a d o p t i o n r e ad : “ T he 8 le gis la tur e sha ll pr ovi de f or a sy ste m of fr ee te xtb ooks fo r use by sc hool ch ildre n of 9 this state. The sy stem shall be a dm inistered by the state board of education.” Id

. T he 10 L eg isl at ive Co unc il Se rv ic e w ar ne d th e Co nstit ut ion al Co nve nti on tha t “ [t ] his 11 [p ro vis io n] viola te s th e E nabli ng A ct a nd c onf

lic ts w ithoth er

pr ovi sio ns o f the 12 pr op os edco ns ti tu ti on .” New Mex ic o Leg is la ti ve Co un ci l Se rv ic e, A N ew 13 Co nst it ution f

or N ewM ex ic o? A n A nal

ys is o f M ajo r C hang es and

A rgum en ts F

or 14 and A gai nst

43 (Oc tober 31, 1969). Spec ifically , the L egislative C ouncil Se rvice w as 15 concerne d t hat“ [ t ] hi s pr ov i si onr e qu i r e s t he s t a t e t o i nd i r e c t l y a i d a nd s up po rt 16 sectarian and denom ination al schools .” Id

. N otw ith standi ng the L eg isl at ive Co unc il 17 Service ’ s concerns, the C onsti tutio nal Conven t i o n subm itted this constitu tional 18 am en dm en t t o t he vo te rs forrat ifi cat io n, wh ic h t he vo te rs reject ed

. See Propo sed21

1 Ne w M ex ic o C onst itu tio n a t 45 ; N
. M. Co nst . a rt . X II , § 3. 2 { 29} The history

of Congres s m an Blaine’ s attem pt to am end the United States 3 Co nst itu tio n c oupl ed

w iththe N ewMe xic o E nabli ng A ct de m onstrate s w hy A rt ic le 4 X II , Se ct ion 3 can not be int er pr et ed unde r j ur isp ru de nc e ana ly zi ng the E sta bli shm en t 5 Cl au se . A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 m us t be int er

pr et ed c onsi ste nt w ithc as es a na ly zi ng 6 si m il ar Bla ine a m en dm en ts unde r sta te c onst itu tio ns. F or e xa m ple , in C a l i f o r nia 7 Teachers A ss’n v. R iles , the Ca li fo rn iaS upr em e Co urt a ddr es se d ac ha lle nge to a 8 Ca lif or nia lawauth or iz ing the S upe ri nte n d e n t o f P u b lic I nstru ct ionto le nd t o st ude nts 9 atte ndi ng n on- pr of

it, non -p ubl ic sc hool s te xtb ooks use d inthe pub lic sc hool s w ith out 10 c h a r g e . Se e ge ne ral ly 6 3 2 P
. 2 d 9 5 3 ( C a l

. 1 9 8 1 )

. A rt i c l e I X , S e c t i o n 8 of the 11 California Constitutio n provided that “ [n] o publ ic m oney shall ever be appropriated 12 fo r the sup port of an y se ct ar ian or de nom ina tio na l sc hool , or a ny sc hool not

und er the 13 exclusive control o f the offic ers of the publ ic schools . .

. . ” Sim ilar to Ar ticle X II, 14 Section 3 of t he Ne w Mexico Constitu tion, this constitu tional provisi on incorpo rated 15 a Bl ai ne -l ike a m en dm en t f or se ct ar ian and d en om ina tio na l sc hool s, but it a lso 16 ex te nde d th e re str ic tio n to non -p ubl ic sc hool s. A ddi tio na lly , A rt ic le X V I, S ec tio n 5 17 of the Ca lif or nia Co nst itu tio n pr ovi de d: 18 N ei the r the L eg isl at ur e, nor an y co unty , ci ty an d co unty , to w nshi p, 19 school d istrict, or other m u n i cipal corporation, shall ever m ake an22

1 ap pr opr ia tio n, or pay fr om an y publ ic fund wh at ev er , or gr an t anythi ng 2 to o r in a id o f an y re lig iou s se ct , chur ch , c re ed , or se ct ar ian purp ose , or 3 he lp t o su

ppor t or sus ta in any

sc hool , c oll eg e, uni ve rs ity , hos pit al , or 4 other instit ution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian 5 de no m in at io n wh at ev er . . . . 6 { 30} In Californ ia T

eachers Ass’n , the Ca lif

or nia S upr em e Co urt w as c ri tic al of the 7 “ ch ild be ne fit the or

y ” in l igh t of

it s st at e co nst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n be ca use the 8 “ doc tr ine m ay be use d to j ust if y an y ty pe of ai d to se ct ar ian scho ols [; ]
. . . pr ac tic al ly 9 ev er y pr ope r ex pe ndi tur e fo r sc hool pur pose s a ids the c hil d. ” 632 P
. 2d a t 95 7, 960 10 ( i nt e rna l qu ot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i t t e d)

. T he C a l i f or ni a S up r em e Court 11 reasoned that “ the application o f the ‘ child benefit’ th eo ry i n this circum stance 12 ‘ ign or es sub stanc e fo r fo rm , r ea lity f or rhe tori c, an d wo uld

le ad t o to tal 13 ci rc um ve nti on o

f the pri nc ipl es of our Co nst itu tio n. ’ ” Id

. a t 96 3 ( em

pha sis a dde d) 14 (c itatio n om itt ed ). T he Ca lif or nia S upr em e Co urt no te d th at the br oa d langua ge of 15 A rt ic le I X , S ec tio n 8 and A rt ic le X V I, S ec tio n 5 o f the Ca lif or nia Co ns tituti on “ do 16 not c onf ine the ir pr ohi bit iona ga ins t f

inanc ing se ct ar ian sc hool s in who le or i n pa rt 17 to sup port for their re ligio us teaching functio n, as distingu ished from secular 18 instructio n.” Californ ia Teach ers Ass’n , 632 P
. 2d a t 96 4 ( em pha sis a dde d)

. A s a 19 resu lt , a f

ull m aj or ity

of the Ca lif or nia S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed that the te xtb ook 20 pr ogr am

c oul d no t surv ive st at e co nstitu tio na l sc ru tin y , e ve n if the be ne fi t t o th e23

1 sc ho ol s was on ly inc id en ta l. Se e id. a t 96 1- 62 n
. 12. 2 { 31} In Gaffne

y v. Sta te D ep art

m en t of E duc ati on , the N e br a sk aS up r e m e C ourt 3 addressed the constitu tionalit y of a textbook lend ing pr o g ra m u nder Ar ticle V II, 4 Se ct ion11 o f the N eb ra ska Co nst itu tio n: 5 N ei the r the state Leg isl at ur e nor a ny c ounty , c ity

or oth er pub lic 6 co rp or at ion , sha ll ever m ake anyapp ro

pr iation f

ro m a ny pub lic f und, 7 or

gr an t any

pub lic land in a id o

f an y se ctari an o r

d e no m i nat ional 8 school o r college, or any ed uc at ion al ins tit

uti on w hic h is n ot ex cl usi ve ly 9 owned and

controll ed

by the sta te or a gov ernm en tal sub div isi on 10 thereof. 11 220 N
. W
. 2d 5 50, 553 ( N eb

. 197 4) ( quot ing N eb

. Co nst . ar t. V II , § 11 ( em

pha sis in 12 or igi na l) ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ))

. T he N eb ra ska Su pr em e Co urt r el ie d on 13 the br oa d lang uage of A rt ic le V II , S ec tio n 11 of the N eb ra ska

Co nst itu tio n to hol d 14 that the textbo ok loan p rogram unconst itutio nally

furnished aid to private sectarian 15 sc ho ol s. Gaffney , 220 N .W .2d at 557. T he Ne braska Suprem e Court concluded that 16 the f ac t tha t the loan of

te xtb ooks w as to the pare nts an d st ud en ts w as not 17 de te rm inati ve be ca

use the pr ogr am

“ le nds str en gtha nd s uppo rt to the sc hool a nd, 18 al t h o u g h indirectly , le nds st rength and sup port to the sp onso ring sectarian 19 instit ution .” Id

. 20 { 32} The S uprem e Cou rts of O regon, Massac husetts , and Misso uri interpreted 21 sim ilar Blaine- like state co nstitu tional prov ision s and determ ined that even ind irect24

1 aid to the sectarian, denom ination al, or private schools vi olates the constit ution al 2 pr ov is io n. See Dickm an v. Sch. Dist. No. 62C, O r. City, of Clackamas Cty. , 366 P
. 2d 3 533, 543 (Or. 1961 ) (en banc) (hol ding that “ the aid is extended to the pupil only as 4 a m em be r of the sc hool ” the pup il atten ds , a nd al tho ugh the pup il m ay share in the 5 ind ir ec t be ne fi t, “ suc h a id i s an as se t t o” the se ct ar ian or pr iva te sc hool ); se e als o 6 B loo m v . Sc h. Co m m . of Spri ngf ie ld , 379 N .E .2d 578, 580 (Ma ss. 1 9 7 8 ) ( s am e); 7 Paster v. Tussey , 512 S. W .2d 97, 104 (Mo. 1974) (en banc) (sam e). 8 { 33} So uthD ak ota

a nd Hawai i ha ve r ea ch ed sim ilar co nc lus ion s un de r the ir state 9 constitu tions

. This is im portant because li ke Ne w Me xico, these states w ere required 10 to ad opt Bl ai ne -l ike am en dm en ts int o the ir re spe ct ive sta te co nst itu tio ns for the ir 11 adm iss ionint o th e U nio n. F or e xa m ple , in In re Ce rti

fic ati on of a Q uesti on o

f L aw 12 fro m the U

nit ed Sta tes D istric t C

ourt , D istric t of

Sou th D ak

ota , Sou the rn D iv isi on , 13 the S outh D ak ota

S upr em e Co urt a ddr es se d a te xtb ook le ndi ng pro gr am in w hic h th e 14 defendants raised argum ents sim ilar to those r aised by Respondent and Intervenors 15 in th is cas e. Se e ge ne ral ly3 7 2 N
. W. 2 d1 1 3 ( S
. D
. 1 9 8 5 )

. T h e S o u t h D a k o t aS up r e me 16 Co urt no te d th at it w as ch ar ge d “ w iththe r es pons ibi lity of int er pr et ing pr ovi sio ns o f 17 [i ts] state c onst itu tio n th at ar e m or e re str ic tiv e than th e E sta bli shm en t C lause of

the 18 United States Const itutio n.” Id

. at 116, 118 (“ [T ] hose pr ovi sio ns o f our c onst itu tio n25

1
. . . are not m ere reiterations of the E stablish m ent Clause of the United States 2 Constitu tion b ut are m ore re strictive as prohibit ing aid in ev er y form .” (internal 3 quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). In ultim ately hold ing that the textbookloan 4 program wa s uncons titutio nal, the South Dakota Suprem e Cou rt s pecifically rej ected 5 the de fe ndants ’ a na log y be tw ee n th e te xtb ook le ndi ng pro gr am “ an d th e le ndi ng o f 6 book s by

the pub lic li br ar ie s in the sta te , ” bec au se an y be ne fi t to se ct ar ian or pr iva te 7 sc ho ol s v io la te d i ts st at e co ns ti tu ti on al pro vi si on . Id

. a t 11 7. 8 { 34} In a ddi tio n, H aw ai i, w hic h w as the la st s ta te a dm itt ed int o th e U nio n, ha s a 9 co nst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n si m ilar to N ewMe xic o’ s. A rt ic le X , S ec tio n 1 o f the H aw ai i 10 Co nst itu tio n pr ovi de s: “ [N ] or sha ll publ ic funds be appr opr ia te d f or the sup port or 11 be ne fi t of

a ny se ct ar ian or

non se ct ar ian pr iva te e duc at ion al ins tit uti on . . . . ” L ike the 12 Ne w Me xico Const itution, the H aw aii Constitu tion is m ore re strictive than the federal 13 E sta bli shm en t C lause . I n Spe ars v . H onda , the H aw ai i S upr em e Co urt a ddr es se d th e 14 co nst itu tio na lity

of astatut e re qu iring state -s ubsi diz ed bus tr an spor

ta tio n f or a ll 15 sc hool c hil dr en , inc lud ing se ct ar ian and pri va te sc hool stu de nts . 449 P
. 2d 1 30, 132 , 16 135, 135 n. 5 ( H aw . 196 8)

. T he Co urt attri but ed gr eat signi fi canc e to the his tor y of 17 what w as then Article IX , S ection 1 of the Hawa i i Co n s t itutio n, now c odified as 18 Hawai i Co ns ti tu ti on Arti cl e X, Sect io n 1
. Spe ars , 4 4 9 P. 2 d at 1 3 4 -3 6 . Th e C o u rt ’s26

1 re vie w o f the c onst itu tio na l hi sto ry of A rt ic le I X , S ec tio n 1 r ev ea le d th at the 2 prohibi tion o n usin g pub lic funds to b enefit private scho ols in Haw aii wa s intended 3 to n ar ro wthe ga

p be tw ee n the qua lity of ed uc at ion pr ovi de d by pr iva te sc hool s and 4 pu bl ic sch oo ls

. Spe ars , 449 P
. 2d a t 13 2- 33, 135 n. 5. 5 { 35} The Spe ars Co urt c onc lud ed tha t it w as im portant to unde rs tand tha t, unl ike the 6 Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se of t he Uni te d S ta te s C o n s t i tu ti on , what was t he n Art ic le IX, 7 Section 1 of the Hawa ii Constitu tion was not exclusiv ely about religion

. 449 P.2d at 8 137-38
. The C ourt found that 9 [( 1) ] the bus sub sidy bui l[ t] up, str en gth en [e d] a nd m a[ d] e suc ce ssf ul the 10 nonp ubl ic sc hool s[ ; (2 )] the sub sidy ind uc e[ d] a tte ndanc e at

nonpubl ic 11 sc hool s, w he re the sc hool c hil dr ena re e xpos ed to a curr ic ulu m

that, in 12 m an y

c as es , if not ge ne ra lly , pr om ote s the spe ci al int er es ts and b ia se s of 13 the nonp ublic group that controls the school[; and (3)] to the extent that 14 the S ta te [ pa id] out f unds to carr ie rs ow ne d by the nonpubl ic sc hool s or 15 agents thereof, the State [ gave] tangible sup port o r benefit to such 16 sc hool s. 17 Id

. (internal quotation m arks om itted). The Spe ars Co urt ul tim at el y he ld tha t the bus 18 subs idy

vio la te d A rt ic le I X , S ec tio n 1, be cause it co nst itu te d an a ppr opr ia tio n of 19 pu bl ic fun ds to no n- pu bl i c s c h o o l s . Id

. at 139. It is w orth noti ng that th e Spe ars 2 0 Co ur ts u g g e s t e dt h a tt h e L e g i s l a tu r e “ r e tu r n t o t h e p e o p l e t o a s kt h e m t o de ci de 21 w he the r the ir

S ta te Co nst it uti on s houl d be a m en de d to gr an t the L eg isl at ur e the 22 pow er

that i t se ek s, in thi s c as e, the pow er to pr ovi de ‘ suppor t or be ne fi t’ to27

1 nonp ublic schoo ls.” Id

. 2 { 36} A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 o f the N ew Me xic o Cons tit uti on pro hib its the use of

a ny 3 part of th e pr oc ee ds f

ro m the sa le or

dis posa l of

a ny land g rante d to the state by 4 Congress or any other funds appropriated, levied, or collected for e d u ca t ional 5 pur pose s f or se ct ar ian, de nom ina tio na l sc hool s. T he f ram er s of our Co nst itu tio n 6 chose to further restric t the use of p ublic funds by prohibit ing th eir use for the supp ort 7 of private schools. As a result, a publi c schoo l under the control of the State can 8 dir ec tly

r ec ei ve f unds , w hil e a pr iva te sc hool not und er the e xc lus ive c ontro l of

the 9 St at e can no t r ec ei ve e ith er dir ec t or ind ir ec t su

ppor t. 10 { 37} It is cle ar t hat private schools in NewMexico have control of what 1 1 instruct i o n al m at er i al s wi l l b e p u rc h as ed wi t h t h ei r a l l o ca t i o n o f i n s t ru ctional m aterial 12 funds. T he f

ac t tha t stu de nts w ho a tte nd p ri va te sc hool s, j ust li ke stu de nts w ho a tte nd 13 publ ic sc hool s, are onl y loane d th es e ins tr

uc tio na l m at er ia ls i s no t m at er ia l t o th e 14 analy sis. Pr ivate schools ben ef i t because they

do not have to buy

instruction al 15 m a t e r i a l s w i t h m on e y t he y o bt a i n by

tui t i ono r

d on a t i on s a nd

t he y c a n di ve rts uc h 16 m oney

to other uses in th eir schools. Consistent with the rules of statutory 17 construction and the m aj ority of jurisdiction s interpreting sim ilar state constitutio nal 18 pr ovi sio ns, the I ML vio la te s A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 b ec au se it pr ovi de s su

ppor t t o28

1 pr iva te sc hool s. 2 IV . C on cl us ion 3 { 38} W e re ve rs e the Co urt of Appe al s and the dis tr ic t c ourt and d et er m ine that the 4 IM L vio la te s N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3. 5 { 39} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
6

________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 7 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice 8 WE CONCUR:

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 10 BA RBA RAJ. V IGIL, C hief Just ice

11 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 12 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

13 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 14 RIC HAR

D C . B OSSON , Just ice, Re tired 15 S it ti ng b y d es ign at ion

16 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 17 CH ARLES W. DA NIEL S, Justice