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: D ec em be r 17, 201 5 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 4974 5 CATHY MOSE S a nd PAUL F. 6 WEINB AU M, 7 Pl ai nti ff

s- Pe tit ion er s, 8 v
. 9 HAN NASKA ND ERA , D esignate 10 Secr etary of Ed ucation, Ne w Mexico 11 Pu blic Ed ucation D epartm ent, 12 D ef

en dant- Re spon de nt, 13 an d 14 ALBUQUE RQUE ACADEMY, et a l., 15 D ef

en dants /I nte rv en or s- Re spon de nts . 16 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 17 Sa ra h M . S in gle to n, D ist ri ctJu dg e
18 Graes er & M cQu een , LLC 19 Christoph er L . G raeser 20 San ta Fe, NM 21 Frank Susm an 22 San ta Fe, NM 23 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} Intervenors’ m otion for r ehearing is denied. How ever, our prior opin ion filed 4 on Novem

ber 12, 2015 is withdrawn and the following is subs tituted in its place. 5 { 2} Since the adoption o f the N ewMexico Constitu tion on January 21, 1911, Ne w 6 Me xic o ha s ha d a co nst itu tio na l re spon sib ili ty to pr ovi de af

re e publ ic e duc at ionf

or 7 a l l c h i l d r en of s ch oo l ag e. N.M. Co ns t. art. XII, § 1. Ho wev er, “ no p art o f the 8 pr oc ee ds ari sin g f

ro m the sa le or di spos al of

a ny lands gr an te d to the state by 9 congress, or any

other funds approp ri at ed, le vied or collected for educational 10 pur pose s, sha ll be use d f

or the sup port of

any se ct ar ian, de nom inatio na l or p riv ate 11 sc hool , c ollege or univ ersity .” N. M. Const. art. XI I, § 3 (em phasis add ed). T he Ne w 12 Mexico De partm ent of Pu b l i c E ducation’s (D epartm ent) Instructional Material 13 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 ivate 14 sc hool s, w ith funds ap pr opr ia te d by the L eg isl at ur e an d earm ar

ke d fo r the sch ools, 15 an d le nds the se m at er ia ls t o qual if ie d stude nts w ho att en d publi c or pr ivate sc hool s. 16 N MS A 1978, § 22 -1 5- 7 ( 2010 ); se e als o N MS A 197 8, § 22 -8 -3 4 ( 2001 ). T he 17 que sti on w e ad dr es s in thi s ca se is w he the r the pr ovi sio n of book s to stu de nt s who 18 attend private s ch o o l s v i olates Article XI I, Sec tion 3
. W e conclude that the New 19 Me xic o C onst itu tio na l C onve nti on w as not w ill ing to na vi ga te the unc le ar li ne16 “ ‘ [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 be tw een s ec 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 2 ind ire ct

sup port t o othe r than publi c sc hool s. I nde ed , in 1969 the vot er s r ej ec te d a 3 pr opos ed

c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t tha t w oul d have r equir e d N e wMe xic o to pr ovi de 4 free tex tb oo ks to all New Mex i c o sc ho ol ch il dr en . See Propo sed New M exico 5 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, 6 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 , S ec tio n 3 f

or bid s 7 the provisi on of boo ks for use by stud en t s attending private schools, whether such 8 sc hool s are se cu lar or

se ct ar ian. 9 I. The In struc tional Mater ial Law is fund ed b y appropriations 10 { 3} T he I nstru ct ion al Ma te ri al L aw (I ML ), N MS A 197 8, §§ 2 2- 15- 1 to - 14 ( 1967 , 11 as am ended throug h 201 1), gr ants the Departm ent’ s Instructiona l Materia l Bureau 12 statutory authority to le nd a pproved instructional m aterials to “ [a] n y q ualified 1 13 stu de nt . . . atte ndi ng a publi c sc hool , astate ins tit uti on or a pri va te sc hool

approved 14 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 15
. . . . ” S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 7( A ) (e m pha sis a dde d)
. “ In str

uc tio na l m ateri al sha ll be3

1 dis tr ibu te d to sc hool dis tr ic ts, state ins tit uti ons an d pr ivate sc hool s as age nts fo r the 2 be ne fi t of

stu de nts e nti tle 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 15- 7( B) ( em

pha sis ad de d)
. In tur

n, “ [a ] ny sc hool dis tr ic t, state ins tit uti on o r pr ivate 4 sc hool as age nt rece iving instructio nal m aterial pursu ant to the Instructional Material 5 L awis re spon sib le f

or dis tr ibu tio n of

the ins tr uc tio na l m at eri al fo r use by e lig ibl e 6 stu de nts a nd for the saf ek ee pin g of the instructional m aterial. ” Se ction 22 -15-7(C) 7 (e m pha sis a dde d)
. S tud en ts or the ir pare nts ar e “ re spon sib le fo r the los s, da m ag e or 8 de str uc tio n of ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l w hil e the ins tr uc tio na l m at erial is in the 9 poss ession o f the student.” S ection 22-15 -10(B). 10 { 4} The D epartm ent is required t o pub lish a “ m ultip le list” of state-approved 11 ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia ls. S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 8( A ), ( B) ; § 22 -1 5- 2(D ) (“‘ [M ] ult ipl e lis t’ 12 m eans a w ritten list of thos e instructional m aterials approved by the depa rtm ent.”)
. 13 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, 14 state ins tit

uti on o r pr ivate 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 15 of i t s st ud e nt s . . . . ” S e c t i on2 2- 15
- 8( B )
. “ A tl e a st t e n pe r c e nt

o f i ns t r uc tional 16 m at er ia l onthe m

ult ipl e lis t c onc er

nin g langua ge ar

ts an d soc ia l stu die s sha ll co nta in 17 m at er ia l tha t i s r el ev an t to the cu lture s, langua ge s, his tor y a nd e xpe ri en ce s of

m ult i18 ethnic stud ents.” Section 22-15-8(A). Moreover, “ [t] he De partm ent shall ensure that4

1 pare nts an d ot he 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 2 state level.” Id

. 3 { 5} T he I ML is funde d th ro ugh a non- re ve rt ing “ ins tr uc tio na l m at eri al f

und” 4 es ta bli she d by

the S ta te T re as ur er

“ co nsi st[ ing ] of

appr opr ia tio ns, gif

ts, gr an ts, 5 donatio ns and an y oth er m one y c re dit ed to the f und. ” S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 5( A ). I n 19 31, 6 the L eg isl at

ur e en ac te d the St at e Sc hool Bu ild ing , T ex t B ook an d R ur al A id F und to 7 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 fund s obta ine d th ro ugh 8 the Mineral L ands Leasing Ac t (ML LA ), 30 U. S. C. §§ 181 to 287 (1920, as am ended 9 thr ough201 2)
. N
. M. L aw s 1931 , ch
. 138, § 2 (“ T he re is he re by ap pr opr ia te d f or the 10 pur pose s of this fund, an nua lly , al l of the ba lanc e, not oth er w ise appr opr ia te d, in the 11 [ML LA ] Fund . .
. .” ). T oday the De partm ent’ s Instructional Mat er i al Burea u 12 continu es to purchase instructio nal m aterials for Ne w Mexico student s usin g federa l 13 MLLA fun ds
. See § 22 -8 -3 4( A ) (“ E xc ep t f or an a nnua l a

ppr opr ia tio n to the 14 ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l fund an d to the bur ea u of geol ogy an d m ine ra l r es our ce s of the 15 N ewMe xic o in sti tut e of m ini ng and t ec hnol ogy . . . al l othe r m one y re ce ive d by the 16 state pur suant t o th e pr ovi sio ns o f the f ed er al [ ML L A ] , sha ll be dis tr ibu te d to the 17 publ ic school fund .” (citation om itted)). 18 { 6} E ac h publi c an d pr ivate sc hool is al loc at ed a pe rc en ta ge of m one y a va ila ble in5

1 the I ML f

und ba se d on the num

be r of stu de nts en ro lle d inthe ir sc hool
. S ec tio n 22
- 2 15- 9( A ). “ Pr ivate sc ho ols m ay e xpe nd u

p to f if ty pe rc en t of t

he ir i nstruc tio nal 3 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 4 be expended for religious, sectarian or nons ecular m aterials . . . . ” Se ction 22 -15-9(C) 5 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )
. S u c h i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l p u r c h a s e s m u s t b e i d e n t i f

i e d a nd 6 pur ch as edth ro ug h t he Depa rtment’s i n- st at e d ep os it ory . Sect io n 2 2- 15 -9 (C), (E ); see 7 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 8 a pr ivate sc hool at the en d of the fi sc al y ear sha ll re m ai n ava ila ble fo r re im

bur se m en t 9 by the de partm en t fo r ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l pur ch as es in subs eque nt y ears . ” S ec tio n 10 22- 15- 9( F)
. T he D ep ar tm en t’ s I nstru ct ion al Mate ri al Bu reau ha s th e au tho ri ty to 11 “ wit h d ra w o r withho ld the privilege of participating in the free use of instruction al 12 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 w iththe pr ovi sio ns o f the 13 In str uc tio na l M at er ia l L awor

a ny ru le s adop te d purs uant to tha t l aw . ” S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 14 4(C). 15 { 7} 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 16 pr ivate sc hool s are a llo cate d ape rc en ta ge of the f unds ba se d onthe num

be r of 17 stu de nts e nr oll ed

in the ir sc hool s. Pr ivate sc hool s se le ct ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia ls f

ro m 18 a m ult ipl e lis t, but

the y m ay spe nd u p to 50 p er ce nt of

the ir ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia ls6

1 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 th e m at er ia l is not r el igi ous 2 in c ont en t. A ny

m one y r em ai nin g inthe pr ivate sc hool s ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l f

und 3 m ay be c ar

ri ed ove r to s ubse que nt y ears . O nc e the m at er ia ls are pur ch as ed , the 4 m at er ia ls are lo an ed to th e stu de nts . H er ea ft er in thi s op ini on w e w ill r ef er to thi s 5 process as a “ schoolb ook lo an program ” for e ase of r efer ence. 6 II. Pr ocedur al history 7 { 8} Plaintiffs-Pe tition ers Cathy Moses and Paul F. Wei nb au m (P et i t i o n er s ) are N ew 8 Mexico residents and have been taxpay ers for at least the past f ive y ears. Petitioners 9 curr en tly

ha ve one or m or e ch ildre n e nr oll ed in el em en tary

a nd/ or se co ndary

pub lic 10 schools in NewMexico. As N ewMexico residents and taxpay ers, Petitioners assert 11 that the I ML vio la te s thei r co nst itu tio na l r igh ts b ec au se it sup pose dly

f or ce s th em

to 12 “ supp ort[] and aid[] t h e re ligio us dictates of others with whom they disagree”; 13 ap pr opr ia te s or

don at es pub lic f

unds to pr ivate part ie s; and s uppo rt s “ se ct ar ian, 14 de no m in at io na l o r pr iv at e sc ho ol [s ]. ” 15 { 9} Petitioners filed a verif ied com plaint for declarator y j udgm ent in the dist rict 16 co urt a ga ins t D ef

en dant- Re spon de nt H an na Sk an de ra ( Re spon de nt) , S ec re tary

of the 17 D ep artm 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 18 stu de nts atte ndi ng p ri va te sc hool s is unc onst itutio na l be ca use doi ng s o su

ppor ts7

1 se ct ar ia n, de nom in at io na l, o r pr iv at e sc ho ol s i n v io la ti on of Ne w Mexi co Co nst itutio n 2 A rti cl e X II , S ec tio n 3; f or ce s th em

a s ta xpay er s to sup port the r el igi ous dic ta te s of 3 oth er s invio la tio n of N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n A rt icle II, Se ct ion11; a nd 4 appropriates or donates pub lic funds t o p ri v ate parties in violation o f N ewMexico 5 Co nst itu tio n A rt ic le IX , 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- 6 N MS C- 072, 55 N
. M. 501, 236 P. 2d 949 to supp ort the ir al le ga tion t ha t the 7 sc hool book

loan pr ogr am

is unc onst itu tio na l. 8 { 10} Pe tit ion er s fi le d a m oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t, an d Re spon de nt and 9 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
. 10 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 11 challenged by

Petitioners did no t violate the NewMexico Constitu tion. The district 12 co urt the n e nte re d it s or de r de ny ing P et iti one rs ’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t and 13 gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o R es pond en t. 14 { 11} Pe t i t i o n er s ap p ea l ed t o t h e C o u rt o f A p p ea l s , wh ich affir m ed th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 15 gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t t o R es po nd en t. M oses v. Sk ande ra , 201 5- N MC A -0 36, 16 ¶¶ 3 , 54 , 34 6 P .3d39 6, cert. gran ted , 2015 -N MC E RT -0 01. W e gr an te d P et iti one rs ’ 17 peti ti on f

or w ri t of c er tio rari to co nsi de r the f

oll ow ing iss ue s: (1 ) w he the r thi s 18 Co ur t’s d eci sion in Ze lle rs constitu ted dicta; (2) w hether the IML violates Article X II,8

1 Sect io n 3 of t he New Mex ic o Co ns ti tu ti on ; (3 ) whe th er th e IML v io la te s Art ic le IV, 2 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, 3 Se ct ion14 o f the N ew Me xic o Cons tit uti on; an d (5) w he the r the IM L vio la te s A rt ic le 4 II , S ec tio n 11 of

the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 5 { 12} W e co nc lu de that the sc hool book loan pr ogr am

vio la te s A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 6 3, and theref

ore w e do not address the rem aining is sues. W e re verse both the Court 7 of Appe al s and the dis tr ic t c ourt. 8 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 9 { 13} 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 the r ed uc 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 or ever rem ai n un de r the 12 ex cl usi ve c ontro l of the state , an d no part of the pr oc ee ds ari sin g f

ro m 13 the sa le or dis posa l of an y lands gr an te d to the state by c ongr es s, or

a ny 14 oth er funds ap pr opr ia te d, le vie d or co lle ct ed fo r ed uc at ion al pur

pose s, 15 sha ll be use d f

or the sup port of an y

se ct ar ian, de nom inatio 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 (Em ph as is ad de d.) 18 { 14} Whe the r the sc hool book loan pr ogr am vio la te s the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n 19 is a qu es ti on of l aw th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Tr i- Sta te G en erati on &T rans m iss ion 20 A ss’ n v . D ’A nto nio , 2012-NMS C-039, ¶ 11, 289 P.3d 1232
. “ It is we l l settled that 21 th ere i s a p r es um

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

an d re gu la rit y

of l eg is la ti ve en act m en ts .”9

1 B ound s v. Sta te ex re l. D’Antonio , 2013-NMS C-037, ¶ 11, 306 P.3d 457 (internal 2 quot at ionm ar

ks and c it at io ns om itt ed ). P et iti one rs be ar the bur de n of

pr oof to 3 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 4 upho ld the c onst itu tio na lity of the I ML unl es s w e ar e sa tis fi ed be y ond al l r ea sona

ble 5 doub t tha t the L eg isl at ur e ex ce ed ed

the bound s of

the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n in 6 en act in g t he IML. Id

. 7 { 15} “ [T ] he rules of statutory construction apply

equally to consti t u t i o nal 8 construction .” Sta te v . B oy se , 201 3- N MS C- 024, ¶ 8, 303 P. 3d 8 30 ( int er na l qu otatio n 9 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ [W ] e exam ine the pla in l an gua ge of the statut e as w el l 10 as the c ont ex t i n w hic h it w as p ro m

ulg at ed , inc lud ing the his tor y of the statut e an d 11 the objec t and purpos e the Le gislature soug ht to accom plish .” St at e v. Ni ck R. , 200 9- 12 N MS C- 050, ¶

11, 147 N
. M. 182 , 218 P. 3d 868 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 13 om itted). 14 { 16} 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 t o pr ovi de pr ote ct ion 15 onl y a ga ins t the e sta

bli shm en t of

r el igi on, sim ilar to the E sta bli shm en t C lause of

the 16 Fi rs t Am en dm en t to the U nit ed S ta te s C onst itu tio n and the E sta bli shm en t C lause of 17 Arti cl e II, Sec ti on 11 of th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. Moses , 20 15 -NMCA- 03 6, ¶ 18 22. A cc or din gly , the Co urt of Appe al s re lie d pr im ar ily on F ir st A m en dm en t c as es to10

1 ho ld th at th e IML di d no t vi ol at e Arti cl e XII, Sect io n 3. Moses , 201 5- N MC A -0 36, 2 ¶ 3 4 ( c iti ng El ane Photogra phy, LL C v. W

illock , 201 2- N MC A -0 86, ¶ 33, 284 P
. 3d 3 428). 4 { 17} W e m ight agree w it h t h e Cou rt of Appeals if the language of Article X II, 5 Se ct ion3 only pr ohi bit ed the use of

a ny pub lic f unds f or the sup port of

se ct ar ian or 6 denom ination al schools. Th e p l ai n language of Article XI I, Sec tion 3 is m ore 7 re str ic tiv e, a nd i t the re fo re stands as ac onst itu tio na l pr ote ct ionse parate f ro m the 8 E sta bli shm en t C lause as ill ustrate d by the dif fe re nc e in langua ge in ea chpr ovi sio n. 9 { 18} T he E sta

bli shm en t C lause pr ovi de s, in re le vant par t, that “ Co ngr es s shal l m ak e 10 no law re specting an establis hm ent of rel i g i o n . . . .” U .S . C onst. am end. I. In 11 co ntr as t, A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 p ro vid es : 12 T he sc hool s, c oll eg es , uni ve rs itie s and o the r ed uc at ion al ins tit

uti ons 13 pr ovi de d f

or by th is co nst itu tio n sh al l f or ev er r em ai n un de r the 14 ex cl usi ve c ontro l of the state , a nd n o part of the pr oc ee ds ar isi ng f ro m 15 the sa le or dis posa l of an y lands gr an te d to the state by c ongr es s, or

a ny 16 oth er

f unds ap pr opr ia te d, le vie d or c oll ec te d f

or e duc at ion al pur

pose s, 17 sha ll be use d for the sup port of

a ny se ct ar ian, de nom inatio na l or p riv ate 18 sc hool , c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y. 19 (E m pha sis a dde d. ) T he pla in l an gua ge of A rt ic le X II , S ec tion 3 ex pr es sly r es tr ic ts 20 the us e of

pub lic f unds to oth er

than se ct ar ian sc hool s, a nd the re fo re our a na ly sis 21 cannot be restricted by cases that analy ze the E stablish m ent Clause.11

1 { 19} 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 w as ad opted he lps 2 ex pla in why

thi s c onst it uti ona l pr ovi sio n w as not ar ec odi fi catio n of

the 3 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 4 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 5 schools .” See Mar k Ed wardDeFo rres t, A n O ve rv ie w a nd E va lua tio n of

Sta te B lai ne 6 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. 7 Pol’ y 5 5 1 , 558 (2003). “ The c omm on schoo l wa s design ed to function as an 8 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 the m goo d 9 pr od uc ti ve cit iz en s i n t he im ag e o f th e ru li ng m ajor it y .” Jo se ph P. Vit eri tt i, Blaine’s 10 W ak e: Sc hool Ch oic e, Th e F

irs t A m en dm en t, and

Sta te Co nst itu tio nal

L aw , 21 H ar

v. 11 J. L
. & Pu

b. P ol’ y 657 , 668 ( 1998 ). “ Pr ote stant m ini ste rs a nd l ay pe opl e w er e in the 12 fo re fr ont

of the publ ic -s ch ool cr

usa de an d too k apr opr ie tary int er es t i n th e ins tit

uti on 1 3 the y h a d h e l p e d t o b u i l d
. T h e y a s s u m e d a c o n g r u e n c e o f p u r

p o s e b et w ee n th e 14 com m on schoo l and the Protestant churches.” Id

. ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and 15 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ Inm an y c as es , it w as dif

fi cu lt to dist ing uis h betw ee n publi c an d 16 private instit ution s because they we re often housed in the sam e buildin g.” Id

. at 664
. 17 State statutes a t the tim e authorized Bible readings in publ ic schools and state j udges 18 ge ne ral ly refus edto reco gn iz e th e Bi bl e as a se ct ari an bo ok . G. Ala n Tarr, The New12

1 Judicial Federalism in Pe rspective , 72 N otr e D am e L
. Re v. 109 7, 110 3- 04 n n. 22- 23 2 (c iti ng M iss
. Co nst . of 1890 , ar t. 3, § 18 ); H

ac ke tt v. B rook

sv ill e G rade d Sc h. D ist
. , 3 87 S
. W
. 792 ( K

y . 190 5) ; D onah oe v . R ic hard s , 38 Me. 3 79 (18 54 )); Vit eri tt i, supra , 4 at 667 -6 8. 5 { 20} By

the m id dl e of

the nin et ee nthc en tur

y , the Catho lic im

m igr an t po pul at ion 6 ro se si gn ifi can tl y . Vi te rit ti , supra , at 669. The influx of Catholic im m igrants created 7 a de m an d f

or Catho lic e duc at ion , a nd con se que ntl y Catho lic s and o the r m ino ri ty 8 rel ig io ni st s cha ll en ge d th e Pro te st an t in flu en ce in th e co m m on sch oo ls
. Id

. a t 66 7- 68; 9 St ev en K. Green , The Blaine Am endment R econsidered , 36 A m . J. L eg al H ist
. 38, 44 10 (1992). By

the 1870 s, Catholi c chu rch leader s began to lob by their state legislatures 11 fo r pu bl ic fun ds to de ve lo p t he ir o wn ed uc at io na l s ys t e m . Vite rit ti , supra , a t 66 8; 12 Green , supra , a t 44
. T his r ise in Catho lic in flu en ce c re at ed a n ob vio us t en sio n 1 3 b e t w e e n t h e P r o t e s t an t m a j o r i t y a n d t h e m o s t l y C a t h o l i c m i n o r i t y o n t h e i s s ue of 14 educ at io n, see Vit eri tt i, supra , a t 67 0- 72, be ca use the P ro t e s tant- run “ co m m on s ch ool 15 w as de sig ne d to f

uncti on as a n in str

um en t f or the a cc ult

ur at ionof

im m igr an t 16 popu la tio ns , r en de ri ng the m goo d pr oduc tiv e ci tiz en s inthe im ag e of the r uli ng 17 m aj ority .” Id

. a t 66 8. 18 { 21} Inr es pons e, “ [o ] ppos iti on t o a id t o ‘ se ct ar ian’ sc hool s a cquir ed pr om ine nc e in13

1 t h e 1 8 7 0 ’ s . . . .” Mit ch el l v. Hel ms , 530 U. S. 793, 828 (200 0). “ [I] t wa s an open 2 secret that ‘ sectarian’ wa s code for ‘ Catholic.’ ” Id

. Com m on s ch o o l leaders 3 suc ce ssf

ull y lob bie d th ei r sta te le gis la tur es to a dopt a m en dm en ts p ro hib iti ng the use 4 of st at e fu nd s to su pp or t sect ari an sc ho ol s by th e m id -to -la te ni ne te en th cen tu ry . See, 5 e. g. , Co lo. Co nst . a rt . I X , § 7; D el
. Co nst . a rt . X , § 3; N
. D
. Co nst . a rt . V II I, §§ 1, 5; 6 O hio Co nst . a rt . V I, § 2. “ InS ep te m be r of 187 5, P re sid en t U lysse s S. G rant 7 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 our ag e 8 free schools , and resolve that not o ne dollar be appropriated to sup port any sectarian 9 sc ho ol s.’ ” Vite rit ti , supra , a t 67 0 ( al te ratio n inor igi na l)
. P re sid en t G rant c al le d on 10 Co ngr es s to dr af

t a propos ed

c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t tha t w oul d de ny pub lic 11 su pp or t t o re li gi ou s i ns ti tu ti on s. Id

. 12 { 22} Co ngr es sm anJam es G
. Bl ai ne of Mai ne ag reed t o sp onso r ana m en dm en t t o 13 th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t t ha t fu lfi ll edPres id en t Gra nt ’s req ue st . Se e id. a t 67 0- 71. 14 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: 15 N o S ta te sha ll m ak e any lawr es pe ct ing a n e sta bli shm en t of

r el igi on, or 16 pr ohi bit ing the f re e ex er ci se th ereo f; and n o m one y r ai se d by ta xa tio n 17 in an y St at e fo r the supp ort of pub lic sc hool s, or

de ri ve d f ro m a ny pub lic 18 fund therefor, nor any publ ic lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under 19 the c ontro l of an y re lig iou s se ct ; nor sha ll an y m one y so r ai se d or

lands 20 so d ev ote d be div ide d be tw ee n r el igi ous se ct s and d en om inatio ns. 21 Green , su

pra , a t 38 n. 2 ( quot ing 4 C ong. Re c. 545 3 ( 1876 ) (quot at ionm ar ks14

1 om itt ed ))
. Congr es sm an Bl ai ne be lie ve d that his pr opos ed

c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t 2 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 lause 3 ha d no t be enint er

pr et ed to ap ply to the state s un de r the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. 4 Vit eri tt i, supra , a t 67 1 n. 66 ( ci tin g P erm oli v. M uni ci pal ity No

. 1 of

Ne w O rle ans , 44 5 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 6 the c iti ze ns o f the r es pe ct ive state s in thei r re lig iou s li be rt ie s; this is le ft to the state 7 constitu tions and laws .
. . . ”). 8 { 23} D es pit e the f

ac t tha t C ongr es sm anBl ai ne ’ s pr opos ed am en dm en t fa ile d to p as s 9 in the Un i t ed St ates Senate , sever al states am ended their constitu tions to includ e a 10 ba n on fu nd in g of sect ari an ed u c a t i o n . Vi te rit ti , supra , a t 67 2. “ By c en tur y ’ s e nd 11 [c ongr es sio na l] le ad er s ha d c om e to unde rs tand tha t f ed er al a id c ould be us ed as a 12 we dge for m anipulatin g publ ic policy
. . . . Particular ly vulnerable to the Republican 13 agenda we re tho se n ew territories seeking statehood.” Id

. a t 67 2- 73. “ A s am atte r of 14 course, [ new ter

ritories seeking statehoo d] would be required to i ncorporate Blaine15 like provis ions in to their new c onsti t u t ions in order to re ceive congressional 16 approval.” Id

. a t 67 3. 17 { 24} Co ngr es s gr an te d Ne w Me xic o st at eh ood on the e xpl ic it co ndi tio n th at it a dopt 18 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 A ct f or15 Section 8 of the E nabling Ac t explicitlyrequires that 2 16 [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 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 2 2 Enabling Act, “ Congress set forth the term s by which New Mexico would be adm itted 3 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 4 P. 3d 80 3. I n an election held on J anuary 21, 1 9 1 1 t o vote on th e N ewMexico 5 Constitu tion ado pted by the Constitu tional Convention of 1910 , Ne w Mexico voters 6 ratified all of the term s of t he Enabling Ac t in Article 21, Sec tion 9 of the 1911 New 7 Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. Se e Co nst itu tio ns o f N ewM ex ic o 19 10- 34
. Artic le 21, S ec tio n 8 10 o f the 191 1 N ew Me xic o C onst itu tio n pr ovi de s th at “ [t ] his ordin an ce is 9 ir re voc ab le w ith out

the c onse nt o f the U nit ed S ta te s an d the pe opl e of

thi s S ta te , a nd 10 no c hange or

abr oga tio n of this or din an ce , in w hol e or in part , sha ll be m ad e by a ny 11 constitu tional am endm ent without the consent of Cong ress.” Id

. ; E nabli ng A ct

§ 2; 12 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 13 the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n and m ak ing the E nabli ng A ct ir re voc ab le w ith out

the 14 consent of Cong ress and the citizens of Ne w Mexico). Beca use the Enabling Act w as16

1 ad opt ed

dur ing N ewMe xic o’ s 19 10 C onst itu tio na l Conv en tio n, N
. M. Co nst . a rt . 21, 2 §§ 1-11, it function s as a “ fu n d amental law to the sam e extent as if it had been 3 directly

incorporated into th e Co n s t i t ution .” Sta te e x re l. Ki ng v . L

yo ns , 201 1- 4 N MS C- 004, ¶ 3, 149 N
. M. 330 , 248 P
. 3d 8 78 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 5 om itted). 6 { 25} Sections 6 throug h 9 of the Enabling A ct pertain to specif ied publ ic lands that 7 were g ran te d t o New M ex 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 .” 8 Enabling Act § 6. To the extent that lands “ are m ineral, or have been sold, re served 9 or oth er

w ise appr opr ia te d or

r es er ve d by or und er the a uth or ity of a ny a ct of 10 co ngr es s, ” the y ar e to be tr eate d as a ll oth er pub lic lands spe ci fi ed

und er S ec tio ns 6 11 thr ough9 of

the E nabli ng A ct . E nabli ng A ct § 6. 12 Co ngr es s c ont em plate d th at

a ny ch an ge . . . to the use of the pr oc ee ds o f 13 the lands gr an te d to the state shou ld b e ef fe ct ua te d by a m en dm en t t o th e 14 Co nst itu tio n, a nd .
. . a ny c hange in the use a nd a pp lic at ionof

the 15 proceeds of these land grants m ay . . . be done by way of a constitutio nal 16 am en dm en t. 17 Ly ons , 2011 -N MS C- 004, ¶ 4 (f ir st and thi rd om iss ion s inor igi na l) ( int er na l qu otatio n 18 m arks and citation om itted). 19 { 26} 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 hanic 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 { 27} 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 ivate 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 Enabl 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 ivate 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 ivate 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 { 28} T he ML L A ap pr opr ia te s funds to N ew Me xic o “ to be use d by suc h S ta te a nd19

1 its sub div isi ons, a s th e le gis la tur e of the S ta te m ay

dir ec t . . . , f

or (i) planni ng, ( ii) 2 co nstru ct iona nd m ai ntenanc e of pub lic f ac ili tie s, a nd ( iii ) pr ovi sio n of pub lic 3 se rv ic e. ” 30 U
. S. C. § 191( a)
. ML L A f unds a re not

spe ci fi ca lly

a llo cate d f

or sc hool s 4 or sc hool boo ks. T he L eg isl at ur e, w hic h ha s th e co nst itu tio na l res ponsibi lity to 5 ap pr op ri a t e fun ds , see Ne w Me xico Const itutio n Article IV , S ection 30, has 6 discretion to app ropriate ML LAfunds for any purpose cons istent with t h e broad 7 pur pose s de sc ri be d inthe ML L A
. In te rv en or s co nte nd that the pr ovi sio n of sc hool 8 book s f

or c hil dr ena tte ndi ng b othpub lic a nd p ri va te sc hool s c onstitute s a“ publ ic 9 se rv ic e. ” A lth ough w e ag re e w ith thi s br oa d phi los ophi ca l state m en t, the pr ovi sio n 10 of sc hool boo ks i s an e duc at ion al pur pose . A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 c ontro ls the 11 L eg isl at

ur e’ s di sc re tio n w he n m one y is ap pr opr ia te d f

or e ducationa l purp ose s by 12 pr ohi bit ing the appr opr ia tio n of e duc at ion al f

unds to pr ivate sc hool s. 13 { 29} Intervenors contend that th e ML LApreem pts any state constitut ional 14 re str ic tio n onthe L eg isl at ur e’ s disc re tio n wi th re spe ct to ML L A funds as lon g a s th e 15 Leg is la tu re ap pr op ria te s t he fun ds co ns is te nt wit h th e br oa d pu rp os es of th e MLLA. 16 Insup port of

the ir a rg um en t, I nte rv en or s c ite to State ex rel. Sego v. Kirkpat rick , 17 1974 -N MS C- 059, 86 N
. M. 359 , 524 P
. 2d 9 75 and La wr en ce Co unt y v. L ea d18 De adwood

School District No. 40-1 , 469 U.S. 256 (1985 ). T hese cases ar e20

1 inappo site. T he Se

go Co urt he ld tha t the L eg isl at ur e doe s no t have th e pow er to 2 co ntr ol the m an ne r an d e xte nt o f th e us e or e xpe ndi tur e of

f unds r ec ei ve d by 3 in st itutio ns o f hig he r le ar nin g f ro m Co ngr es s or

f ro m pr ivate don at ion s. 197 4- 4 N M S C
- 0 5 9 , ¶

¶ 4 8
- 51. I n La wrence , the U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t a 5 fe de ra l statu te sp eci fic al ly pro vi di ng lo cal go ve rn m en ts with di sc re tio n in dis tr ibutin g 6 fe de ra l f

unds pr ee m

pte d a st at e statut e atte m

pti ng t o c ontro l ho wloc al gov er nm en ts 7 al loc at ed

suc h f unds
. 469 U
. S. at 261- 68. St at ed sim ply , Co ngr es s a

ppr opr ia te d th e 8 funds to l oc al gov er

nm en ts, no t to the S ta te ; the re fo re , the S ta te did not ha ve 9 authorityto dictate how local governm ents spent th e m oney directly allocated to them 10 by Congress. S im ilarly , when Congress approp riates m oney to New Me xico 11 ins tit uti ons of hig he r le ar

nin g, und er

thi s C ourt’ s ho ldi ng i n Se go , the L egislature 12 la ck s auth or ity

to dir ec t the use of

suc h funds. T he ML L A doe s no t sp ec if ic al ly 13 appropriate funds to o r for school p urposes. Sim ply because the ML LAgives 14 discretion to o ur Legislature does not m ean that the L egislature is at liberty to igno re 15 state c onst itu tio na l l im itatio ns o n it s di sc re tio n. T he ML L A ha s ne ith er e xpr es sly nor 16 im pli ed ly pr ee m pte d th e ap pli cat ionof

A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 b ec au se r es tr ic tin g 17 funds ap pr opr ia te d f

or e duc at ion al pur

pose s to pub lic sc hool s is not inc om pa tib le 18 w iththe pur

pose s an noun ce d in the ML L A
. T hus, In te rv en or s’ a rg um en t tha t f unds21

1 fr om the ML L A that are use d f or the I nstru ct ion al Mate ri al F und ar e fe de ra l f unds 2 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. 3 { 30} The Co u rt o f Appeals held that the direct re cipients of the IML financial 4 pr ogr am ar e the pare nts of the c hil dr en , a nd the re fo re the be ne fi t t o pr ivate sc hool s 5 is no t di rect en ou gh to vi ol at e Art ic le XII, Sect io n 3
. Moses , 2015 -N MC A -0 36, ¶ 40. 6 W e can no t a gr ee that A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 onl y pr ohi bit s dir ec t su ppor t t o pr ivate 7 sc hool s. T he br oa d langua ge of thi s prov isi on and the his tor y of it s a dopt iona nd the 8 ef fo rt s to am en d it ev inc e a cl ear int en t to re str ic t both di re ct a nd i ndi re ct

sup port t o 9 se ct ar ian, de nom inatio na l, or priv at e sc hool s, c oll eg es , or uni ve rs iti es . O ur 10 interpretation is sup ported by the failed attem

pt in 19 69 of the delegates to the New 11 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. 12 R ep ort

of the Co nst itu tio nal

R ev isi on C

om m iss ion 1 5 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )
. U s i n g t h e A la ska 13 Constitu tion as a tem plate, the Constitu tional Re visio n Com m issio n p ro p o sed 14 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 15 ins tit uti ons of the state sha ll be f

re e fr om se ct ar ian contro l. N o m one y sha ll be pa id 16 from publi c funds for the dir ec t be ne fit of any religious or oth er private e ducational 17 in st it ut io n.” New Mex ic o Leg is la ti ve C o un ci l Se rv ic e, W orkboo k of Selected 18 Co nst itu tio ns P re

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

Co nv en tio n22

1 1969 (July

15, 1969) (em

phasis add ed). T his prop osed revision would not h ave been 2 ne ce ssary

if ar ea sona

ble int er pr et at ionof

A rt ic le X II , S ec tion 3 a s w ri tte n on ly 3 precluded direct support of sect ar i an an d private schools. How ever, the proposed 4 rev is io n was ne ve r su bm it te d t o t he v o t e r s fo r rat ifi cat io n i n Dec em be r 19 69
. See 5 ge nera ll

y P ropo se d N

ewM ex ic o C onst itu tio n ( as ado

pted by the New M

exico 6 Co nst itu tio nal

Co nv en tio n of

1969 ) (O ctober 20, 1969). 7 { 31} In ste ad , the Co nst itu tio na l C onve nti on p ro pose d a c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t 8 that would a ddress the crux of the question : m ay publi c funds be used to p rovide free 9 t e xt bo ok s t o a l l s tud e nt s, i nc l ud i ng t ho se w ho a t t e nd p r i vat e s c ho ol s? Se e id. a t 45
. 10 T he c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t su bm itt ed to the vo te rs fo r ad opt ionr ea d: “ T he 11 le gis la tur e sha ll pr ovi de fo r a sy ste m of fr ee te xtb ooks fo r use by sc hool c hil dr enof 12 this state. T he sy stem shall be adm inistered by the state board of education.” Id

. T he 13 L eg isl at ive Co unc il Service w ar ne d th e Co nst itu tio na l C onve nti on tha t “ [t ] his 14 [p ro vis ion ] vio la 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 15 pr op os edco ns t it ut io n.” New Mex ic o Leg is la ti ve Co un ci l Se rv ic e, A N ew 16 Co nst itu tio n fo r N

ewM ex ic o? A n A nal

ys is o f M ajo r C hang es and

A rgu men ts F

or 17 and A gai nst

43 (Oc tober 31, 1969 ). Specif ically , the L egislative Coun cil Ser vice wa s 18 concerned th at “ [t ] his prov ision requires the state to indirectly aid and supp ort23

1 sectarian and denom ination al schools .” Id

. N otw ith standi ng the L eg isl at ive Co unc il 2 Service ’ s concerns, the C onsti tutio nal Conv en t i o n subm itted this constitu tional 3 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 sed 4 Ne w M ex ic o C onst itu tio n a t 45 ; N
. M. Co nst . a rt . X II , § 3. 5 { 32} The h i s t o ry

of Congressm an Blaine’ s attem pt to am end the United States 6 Co nst itu tio n c oupl ed

w iththe N ew Me xic o E nabli ng A ct de m onstrate s w hy

A rt ic le 7 X II , S ec tio n 3 c an not

be int er pr et ed und er j ur isp ru de nc e an al y zi ng the E sta bli shm en t 8 Cl au se . A rt ic le X II , S ec ti on 3 m ust be int er pr et ed c onsi ste nt w ithc as es a na ly zi ng 9 sim ilar Bl ai ne a m en dm en ts un de r state c onst itu tio ns. F or e xa m ple , in Ca lif

orni a 10 Teachers A ss’n v. R iles , the Ca lif or nia S upr em e Co urt ad dres se d ac ha lle nge to a 11 Ca liforn ia law au th or iz in g t he Supe rin te nd en t o f Publ ic Ins tru ct io n t o l en d t o stude nts 12 atte ndi ng n on- pr of

it, n on- publ ic sc hool s te xtb ooks use d inthe pub lic sc hool s w ith out 13 ch arg e. Se e ge ne ral ly632 P
. 2d 9 53 (C al . 1 98 1)
. A rt ic le I X , S ec tio n 8 o f the 14 California Constitutio n provid ed that “ [n] o publ ic m oney shall ever be appropriated 15 fo r the supp ort of any se ct ar ian or deno m inatio na l scho ol, or an y sc hool not unde r the 16 exclusive control o f the offic ers of the public schools
. . . .” Sim ilar to Ar ticle X II, 17 Section 3 of the Ne w Me xico Const itutio n, this constitu tional prov ision incorporated 18 a Bl ai ne-l ike a m en dm en t f or se ct ar ian and d en om inatio na l sc hool s, but it a lso24

1 ex te nde d th e re str ic tio n to non- publ ic sc hool s. A ddi tio na lly , A rt ic le X V I, S ec tio n 5 2 of the Ca lif or nia Co nst itu tio n pr ovi de d: 3 N ei the r the L eg isl at ur e, nor a ny co un ty , c ity

a nd c ounty , townshi p, 4 s ch o o l district, or other m unicipal corporation , shall ever m ake an 5 ap pr opr ia tio n, or pay f ro m a ny publ ic fund wh at ev er , or gr an t anythi ng 6 to o r in a id o f an y r el igi ous se ct , c hur ch , cr ee d, or se ct ar ian purp ose , or 7 he lp t o su

ppor t or s ust ai n any

sc hool , c oll eg e, uni ve rs ity , hos pit al , or 8 other instit ution controlled byany religious cree d, church, o r sectar ian 9 de no m in at io n wh at ev er . . . . 10 { 33} In Californ ia Teachers A ss’n , the Ca lif or nia Su pr em e Co urt w as cr iti ca l of the 11 “ ch ild be ne fi t the or

y ” in lig ht o f its state c onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n be ca use the 12 “ doc tr ine m ay

be use d to j ust if

y an y ty pe of a id t o se ct ar ian sc hool s[ ;]
. . . pr ac tic al ly 13 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 14 (internal quotation m arks and citat i o n o m itted). T he California S uprem e Court 15 reasoned that “ the application of the ‘ child benef it’ theory in this ci rc u m s tance 16 ‘ign or es su bs ta nc e fo r fo rm , real it y forrhe to ric , and wo ul d le ad t o to tal 17 ci rc um ve nti on o

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

. a t 963 (e m

pha sis a dde d) 18 (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 19 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 lifo rn iaCo nst itu tio n “ do 20 not c onf ine the ir pr ohi bit iona ga ins t f inanc ing se ct ar ian sc hool s in w hol e or i n pa rt 21 to sup port for their re ligio us teaching functio n, as distingu ished from secular25

1 instructio n.” Californ ia Teachers Ass’n , 632 P
. 2d at 964 ( em pha sis a dde d)
. A s a 2 re sul t, af

ull m aj or ity

of the Ca lif or nia Su pr em e Co urt c onc lud ed that the te xtb ook 3 pr ogr am

c oul d no t surv ive state c onst itu tio na l sc ru tin y , e ve n if the be ne fit to the 4 sc ho ol s was on ly inc id en ta l. Se e id. a t 96 1- 62 n
. 12. 5 { 34} In G a

f f n e yv . St a t e D e

p a r tm e n t o f E d u c ati on , the Nebr aska Suprem e Court 6 address e d t he c on st i tut i on a l i t y o f at e xt bo ok l e nd i ng p r og r a m

u nd e r A rt i c l e V II, 7 Se ct ion11 o f the N eb ra ska Co nst itu tio n: 8 N ei the r the state L eg isl at ur e nor a ny c ounty , ci ty or oth er

pub lic 9 co rp or at ion , sha ll ever m ake a n ya p p r o p r i a tio n fr om

a ny pub lic f und, 10 or

gr an t any

pub lic land in aid of a nyse ctari an or denom ination al 11 school o r college, or an y ed uc at ion al ins tit

uti on whic h is not ex cl usi ve ly 12 owned and

controll ed

by the sta te or a gov ernm en tal sub div isi on 13 thereof. 14 220 N
. W
. 2d 5 50, 553 (N eb
. 1974 ) (quot ing N eb
. Co nst . a rt . V II , § 11 ( em pha sis in 15 or igi na l) ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks om itt ed ))
. T he N eb ra ska S upr em e Co urt r el ie d on 16 the br oa d languag e 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 17 that the textbo ok loan p rogram unconst itutio nally

furnished aid to private sectarian 18 sc ho ol s. Gaffney , 220 N. W .2d at 557. The Ne braska Suprem e Court concluded that 19 the f ac t tha t the loan of

te xtb ooks w as to the paren ts an d stude nts w as not 20 de te rm inativ e be ca

use the pr ogra m

“ le nds str en gtha nd s uppo rt to the sc hool a nd, 21 although i nd i r e c t l y , l e nd s str e ng t h a nd s up po rtt o t he s po ns or i ng s e c t a r ian26

1 instit ution .” Id

. 2 { 35} The S uprem e Courts of O regon, Massac husetts , an d Missou ri interpreted 3 sim ilar Blaine- like state constitu tional provisi ons and d eterm ined that even ind irect 4 aid to the sectarian, denom ination al, or private schools vi olates the constit ution al 5 pr ov is io n. See Dickm an v. Sch. Dist. No. 62C, Or. City, of Clackamas Cty. , 366 P
. 2d 6 533, 543 (Or. 1961 ) (e n banc) (holding that “ the aid is extended to the pupi l onlyas 7 a m em be r of the sc hool ” the pup il attend s, an d al th oughthe pup il m ay share in the 8 ind ir ec t be ne fi t, “ suc h a id i s an a sse t t o” the se ct ar ian or pr ivate sc hool ); se e a lso 9 B loo m v . Sc h. Co m m . of Spri ngf ie ld , 379 N. E. 2d 5 7 8 , 5 8 0 (Mass. 1978 ) (sam e); 10 Paster v. Tussey , 512 S. W .2d 97, 104 (Mo. 1974) (en banc) (sam e). 11 { 36} So uthD ak ota

a nd H aw ai i h av e reache d si m ilar co nc lus ion s un de r the ir state 12 constitu tions
. This is im portant bec ause like Ne w Mexico, these states wer e re quired 13 to a dopt

Bl ai ne -l ike a m en dm en ts i nto the ir r es pe ct ive state c onst ituti ons fo r the ir 14 adm iss ion int o the U nio n. Fo r ex am ple , in In re Ce rti

fic ati on o f a Q uesti on o

f L aw 15 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 , 16 the So uth D ak ota Su

pr em e Court ad dr es se d ate xtb ook le ndi ng p ro gr am in w hic h th e 17 defendants raised argum ents sim ilar to those raised b y Respondent and Intervenors 18 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 me27

1 Co urt no te d th at

it w as c harg ed

“ w iththe r es pons ibi lity of int er pr et ing pr ovi sio ns o f 2 [i ts] state co nst itu tio n that ar e m or e re str ic tiv e than the E sta bli shm en t C lause of

the 3 United States Constitu tion.” Id

. at 116, 118 (“ [T ] hose pr ovi sio ns o f our c onst itu tio n 4
. . . are not m ere reiterations of the E stablish m ent Clause of the U nited States 5 Constitu tion b ut are m ore re strictive as prohibit ing aid in every f orm .” (internal 6 quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). In ultim ately holdi ng that th e textbookloan 7 program

wa s uncons titutio nal, the South Dakota Suprem e Court specifica lly rej ected 8 the de fe ndants ’ an al ogy be tw ee n the te xtb ook le ndi ng p ro gr am “ an d th e le ndi ng o f 9 book s by the publ ic lib rari es in the state , ” be ca use a ny be ne fi t t o se ct ar ian or

pr ivate 10 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. 11 { 37} Ina 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 12 co nst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n si m ilar to N ewMe xic o’ s. A rt ic le X , Se ct ion 1 of the H aw ai i 13 Co nst itu tio n pr ovi de s: “ [N ] or sha ll publ ic funds be ap pr opr ia te d fo r the supp ort or 14 be ne fi t of

a ny se ct ar ian or

non se ct ar ian priv at e edu catio na l inst itu tio n . . . . ” L ike the 1 5 New M ex i co Co n s t i tu t i o n , t h e H aw ai i Co n s t i tu t i o n i s m o re re s t ri ct i v e t h an t h e federal 16 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 17 co nst itu tio na lity of

astatut e re qui ri ng s ta te -s ubsi diz ed bus tr an spor

ta tio n f or a ll 18 sc hool c hil dr en , inc lud ing se ct ar ian an d pr ivate sc hool stu de nts . 449 P. 2d 1 30, 132 ,28

1 135, 135 n. 5 ( H aw . 196 8)
. T he Co urt attr ibu te d gr eat sig nif ic an ce to the his tor

y of 2 what w as then Article IX , S ection 1 of the Ha wa i i Co n stitut ion, now codified as 3 Hawai i Co ns ti tu ti on Arti cl e X, Sect io n 1
. Spe ars , 4 4 9 P. 2 dat 1 3 4 -3 6 . Th e C o u rt ’s 4 re vie wof

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 5 prohibi tion o n using publ ic funds to benefit private schoo ls in Haw aii wa s intended 6 to n ar ro wthe ga

p be tw ee n the qua lity of

e duc at ionpr ovi de d by

pr ivate sc hool s and 7 pu bl ic sch oo ls
. Spe ars , 449 P
. 2d a t 13 2- 33, 135 n. 5. 8 { 38} The Spe ars Co urt c onc lud ed that it wa s im portant to unde rs tand tha t, unl ike the 9 Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se of t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n, w h a t was t he n Art ic le IX, 10 Section 1 of the Hawa ii Constitu tion w as not exclusively about re ligio n. 449 P. 2d at 11 137-38
. The C ourt found that 12 [( 1) ] the bus subs idy bui l[ t] up, str en gth en [e d] an d m a[ d] e suc ce ssf ul the 13 nonp ubl ic sc hool s[ ; (2) ] the subs idy ind uc e[ d] atte ndanc e at

nonpubl ic 14 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 15 m an y

c as es , if not ge ne ra lly , pr om ote s th e spe ci al int er es ts and b ia se s of 16 the nonp ublic group that controls the school[; and (3)] to the extent that 17 the S ta te [ pa id] out f unds to carr ie rs ow ne d by the nonpubl ic sc hool s or 18 agents thereof, the State [ gave] tangible sup port or ben efit to such 19 sc hool s. 20 Id

. (internal quotation m arks om itted). T he Spe ars Co urt ul tim at el y he ld tha t the bus 21 subs idy

vio la te d A rt ic le I X , S ec tio n 1, be ca us e it co nst itu te d an a

ppr opr ia tio n of 22 pu bl ic f

u n d s t o no n- pu bl ic sch oo ls
. Id

. at 139. It is w orth noti ng that th e Spe ars29

1 Co urt sugg es te d that the L eg isl at ur e “ re tur n to the pe opl e to as k themto de ci de 2 w he the r the ir

S ta te Co nst itu tio n sh oul d be am ende d to gr an t the L eg isl at ur e the 3 po wer th at

it se ek s, in thi s c as e, the pow er to pr ovi de ‘ supp ort or

be ne fi t’ to 4 nonp ublic schoo ls.” Id

. 5 { 39} A rt ic le X II , Se ct ion 3 of the N ew Me xic o Co nst itu tio n pr ohi bit s th e use of a ny 6 part of the 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 7 Congress or any

other funds ap p ro p ri at ed, le vied, or collecte d for educational 8 pur pose s fo r se ct ar ian, de nom inatio na l sc hool s. T he fr am er s of our C on sti tut ion 9 chose to further restrict t he use of public fund s by prohibit ing th eir use for the supp ort 10 of private schools. As a resul t, a publi c school un der the control of the State can 11 dir ec tly

r ec ei ve f unds , w hil e a pr ivate sc hool not unde r the ex cl usi ve c ontro l of the 12 St at e can no t r ec ei ve e ith er dir ec t or ind ir ec t su

ppor t. 13 { 40} It is clear

that private s ch o o l s in NewMexico have control of what 14 instruc t i on a l m at e r i a l s w i l l be purchased with their allocation of instructional m aterial 15 funds. T he fa ct that stude nts w ho att en d priv at e sc hool s, j ust lik e stud en ts w ho a tte nd 16 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 the 17 analy sis. Pr ivate schools benefit because they do n o t h av e to buy

instruction al 18 m aterials with m oney they obtain bytuition or donation s and they can divert such30

1 m oney to other uses in th eir schools. Consistent with the rules of statutory 2 construction and the m aj ority of j urisdictio ns interpreting si m ilar state constitutio nal 3 pr ovi sions , 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 o 4 pr ivate sc hool s. 5 IV . C on cl us ion 6 { 41} W e re ve rs e the Co ur t of Appe al s an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt and d et er m ine that the 7 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. 8 { 42} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
9

____ ____ ____ ________

____ ____ __ 10 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice 11 WE CONCUR:

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 13 BA RBA RAJ. V IGIL, C hief Just ice

14 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 15 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

16 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 17 RIC HAR

D C . B OSSON , Just ice, Re tired 18 S it ti ng b y d es ign at ion31

1 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 2 CH ARLES W. DA NIEL S, Justice