Court Opinion

ID: 9597951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:04:12.123525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:43.542552
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.
(dissenting) — The majority's analysis of Const. art. 1, § 11 is contrary to the meaning and purpose of this provision in our state constitution. The decision by the Washington State Commission for the Blind to exclude Mr. Witters from the vocational rehabilitation program is not required by the language in our constitution, our previous holdings, or the evidence in this case. It also jeopardizes public funding for students who study nonreligious courses at religious institutions. Additionally, as Justice Dolliver states in his dissenting opinion, and as I have previously stated in Witters v. Commission for the Blind, 102 Wn.2d 624, 633, 689 P.2d 53 (1984) (Utter, J., dissenting), rev'd sub nom. Witters v. Washington Dep’t of Servs. for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481, 88 L. Ed. 2d 846, 106 S. Ct. 748, reh'g *374denied, 475 U.S. 1091 (1986), the State's attempt to condition the receipt of vocational rehabilitation assistance on the absence of a "religious" career goal unconstitutionally abridges the recipient's right under the United States Constitution to freely exercise his faith. For these reasons, I dissent.
The majority holds that an individual who meets all of the state and federal legislative criteria for participating in the vocational rehabilitation program for the blind must be excluded entirely from the program because some of his vocational training may involve "religious" instruction. Yet the State has completely failed to show that Mr. Witters' vocational training constitutes such instruction or that public funding in his case is forbidden.
The majority suggests that this harsh result is mandated by the establishment clause of our state constitution, Const. art. 1, § 11. In reaching its conclusion, the majority fails to follow the interpretive guidelines for state constitutional analysis this court has only recently developed. State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986); State v. Reece, 110 Wn.2d 766, 757 P.2d 947 (1988). Consequently, it reaches a result that I cannot support.
Const. art. 1, § 11 states: (1) no "public money" (2) shall be "appropriated ... or applied" by the State (3) to "religious . . . instruction". A careful examination of these three clauses reveals three major defects in the majority opinion. First, "public money" refers only to those funds emanating from the state treasury; since state money contributes only 20 percent of the funding for this vocational rehabilitation program, the state constitution affects only that portion. Second, application of these funds for instruction at a religious institution is the result of a personal decision by the individual recipient, not the State; therefore, the State would not be "appropriating or applying" the funds. Third, this court has previously defined "religious instruction" to be that instruction which is devotional in nature and is intended to induce faith in the pupil. There is no evidence in the record to support the *375majority's conclusion that all or any of Mr. Witters' training will involve such instruction.
I
The majority fails to address Mr. Witters' argument that the term "public money" as used in Const. art. 1, § 11 refers only to the portion of this vocational rehabilitation program involving state funds. Without stating its reasons or citing any authority, the majority implies that the state constitution governs the entire program, even though 80 percent of the funds derive from the federal government.
The implication is erroneous. Const. art. 1, § 11 prohibits the State from appropriating "public money" for religious worship or instruction. The term "public money" refers only to those revenues raised by the state government, not those raised by the federal government. The definition of "public money" as that term is used in Const. art. 1, § 11 is well settled. As this court stated in Washington Health Care Facilities Auth. v. Spellman, 96 Wn.2d 68, 73, 633 P.2d 866 (1981):
The reasonable meaning of "public money" in article 1, section 11 is money from the treasury of this state or its municipalities, not some other governmental exchequer.
The constitutional constraints apply only to those funds appropriated by the State; in this case, money from the state treasury represents only 20 percent of the program.
The state constitution does not prohibit a state agency from disbursing federal funds to Mr. Witters. Therefore, at a minimum, Mr. Witters is entitled to vocational rehabilitation funding in proportion to the federal funds involved in this program.
II
Const. art. 1, § 11 prohibits the State from "appropriating or applying" public money for religious instruction. In granting Mr. Witters money for his vocational training, the State is neither appropriating nor applying funds for religious instruction. The State is merely appropriating public funds for a neutral vocational rehabilitation program *376designed to assist the visually handicapped in developing skills necessary for employment. The decision to apply those funds for instruction at a religious or secular school is made by the individual aid recipient, not the State. As the United States Supreme Court unanimously observed:
Any aid provided under Washington's program that ultimately flows to religious institutions does so only as a result of the genuinely independent and private choices of aid recipients. . . .
Witters v. Washington Dep't of Servs. for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481, 487, 88 L. Ed. 2d 846,106 S. Ct. 748, reh'g denied, 475 U.S. 1091 (1986).
The State's program of vocational rehabilitation for the blind is in stark contrast to other state funded programs which have fallen afoul of Const. art. 1, § 11. In State ex rel. Dearie v. Frazier, 102 Wash. 369, 173 P. 35 (1918), the court struck down a program giving high school students credits for Bible study outside the school. As that court stated, "the vice of the present plan is that school credit is to be given for instruction at the hands of sectarian agents." Dearie, at 378. Similarly, this court struck down funding programs in which the primary beneficiaries were students at parochial or religious schools. Weiss v. Bruno, 82 Wn.2d 199, 509 P.2d 973 (1973); State Higher Educ. Assistance Auth. v. Graham, 84 Wn.2d 813, 529 P.2d 1051 (1974).
The constitutional infirmity of those cases is not present here. The vocational rehabilitation program for the blind is not structured to confer public benefits to students at religious or parochial schools; no evidence has been presented indicating that any other student pursuing a religiously oriented career has applied for these funds. Therefore, to the extent that students at parochial or religious schools benefit at all, it is incidental to the primary purpose and effect of the program.
The majority suggests that in order to determine whether the application of public funds violates Const. art. 1, § 11 we must examine how the individual recipient of such *377funds chooses to apply the money. The majority provides no precedent for such a microscopic examination of the use of public assistance funds. Such an approach lacks any support in our case law and will have serious unintended consequences. If the use of vocational rehabilitation funds can be so constrained by government regulators, the same logic would allow the state government to impose conditions on the expenditure of other public funds by individual recipients.
It is far more reasonable and consistent to confine our analysis to the nature of the public assistance program itself. If the program itself does not violate the constitution, then our inquiry should end. The purpose of the constitutional prohibition against appropriating or applying public funds for religious instruction is to constrain state government actions, not individual decisions. Since the only state action involved here is appropriating funds for a neutral vocational rehabilitation program, there is no violation of Const. art. 1, § 11. For the same reasons that the State does not now attempt to prevent a salaried public official or recipient of unemployment compensation from giving their public money for "religious worship, exercise or instruction”, the State should not be allowed to control the career choices of a recipient of vocational rehabilitation funds.
III
In affirming the Commission's decision to reject Mr. Witters' application for funds, the majority relies on an alternative theory to the one used by the Commission. The Commission denied vocational rehabilitation funds to Witters because it concluded that the state constitution "forbids the use of public funds to assist an individual in the pursuit of a career or degree in theology or related areas." The Commission excluded Mr. Witters from this program because his vocational objective was to become a pastor, missionary or youth director. This court also focused on Mr. Witters' career goals when it ruled that the provision of state aid to him would violate the federal establishment *378clause. Witters v. Commission for the Blind, 102 Wn.2d 624, 626, 689 P.2d 53 (1984), rev'd sub nom. Witters v. Washington Dep't of Servs. for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481, 88 L. Ed. 2d 846, 106 S. Ct. 748, reh'g denied, 475 U.S. 1091 (1986).
Without addressing the issue, the majority implicitly rejects the religious career rationale as did the State upon reargument before this court. This is just as well. The state constitution does not prohibit application of public funds for vocational training of an individual preparing for a religious career. Const. art. 1, § 11 is very specific; it restricts public funding of religious instruction, not instruction for individuals pursuing religiously oriented careers. To this extent, the court is reversing that portion of the Commission's policy that discriminates against those applicants pursuing religiously oriented careers.
Although the majority rightfully abandons the religious career rationale, it asserts a new rationale which was not presented to the trial court that is equally indefensible. The majority now says that Mr. Witters must be excluded from the rehabilitation program not because of his vocational objectives per se but because his vocational training may involve some "religious instruction". This conclusion is not supported by the record. The State has introduced no evidence describing the nature of the instruction Mr. Witters is receiving.
There is only one case in Washington law that defines "religious instruction" as that phrase is used in Const. art. 1, § 11. In Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v. Board of Regents, 72 Wn.2d 912, 436 P.2d 189 (1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 960 (1968), this court stated that
the framers of our constitution did not intend the word "instruction" to be construed without limit, but that the proscribed field be confined to that category of instruction that resembles worship and manifests a devotion to religion and religious principles in thought, feeling, belief, and conduct, i.e., instruction that is devotional in *379nature and designed to induce faith and belief in the student.
(Italics mine.) Calvary, at 919.
The Calvary court demonstrated that the only way to determine whether any instruction is "religious" within the meaning of Const. art. 1, § 11 is to examine the instruction itself and see whether it is objective or devotional in manner. Calvary, at 920-21. Finding that the teaching of "English 390: The Bible as Literature" at the University of Washington was not designed to induce faith and belief in the student, the court held that this course was not "religious instruction"; therefore, public funding of it did not violate Const. art. 1, § 11. Calvary, at 921.
Mr. Witters' curriculum includes courses in Old and New Testament, ethics, speech, and church administration. Aside from this general information, we know little about the vocational training Mr. Witters is receiving. The State has produced no evidence regarding the manner of instruction. The parties stipulated only that the "classwork consists of classes instructional in nature for which he pays tuition. There are also devotional chapel services at the school for which he pays nothing." Petitioner's Proposed Factual Stipulation (Aug. 11, 1980) (signed by counsel for both parties). The parties also stipulated that the college Mr. Witters wished to attend was not a denominational or sectarian institution. Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 6.
Given the absence of any evidence regarding Mr. Witters' other courses and the manner of instruction, the majority's conclusion that his program of study amounts to "religious instruction" rests on no more than speculation. The majority hypothesizes that because Mr. Witters is attending a Christian college and intends to pursue a religious career, his courses "necessarily provide indoctrination in the specific beliefs of Christianity." Majority, at 369. This is mere guesswork and is hardly a sufficient basis for a constitutional ruling. If all instruction of a nondevotional nature at a Christian college is "religious instruction", then we have radically expanded, without reason, the barriers of our constitution.
*380The vocational objective of pastor, missionary or youth director does not imply that an individual would take only those courses offering "religious instruction". Even if Mr. Witters attended courses on the Bible and church administration, our decision in Calvary recognizes that instruction in these subjects can be objective and nondevotional.
Aside from the absence of any factual basis to support a finding that any of Mr. Witters' course work involves "religious instruction", the majority attempts to prove too much in suggesting that all of Mr. Witters' training would involve such instruction. Even the State concedes that not all courses at the Inland Empire School of the Bible are necessarily religious in nature. The State further concedes that use of public funds for tuition to cover nonreligious courses at private religious institutions would not violate Const. art. 1, § 11. Brief of Appellant, at 21-24 (on remand from the United States Supreme Court). This court should do no less.
The majority's holding will have dramatic effect on other public assistance programs that indirectly benefit students at private schools. By refusing to allow vocational rehabilitation funds to cover any portion of Mr. Witters' course work, the majority jeopardizes the public funding relied upon by countless other students in this state who study nonreligious courses but are attending religious or parochial schools. By failing to demand the State sustain its burden to prove the courses taken by Witters are devotional in nature and designed to induce faith and belief in the student, the majority calls into doubt the clear holding in Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v. Board of Regents, supra. It creates a needless barrier not required by the language, spirit, or history of our state constitution.
The State has constitutional authority to exclude Mr. Witters from the vocational rehabilitation program only for that portion of his training which involves "religious instruction". The State has failed to show that any of Mr. Witters' vocational training involves "religious instruction". Because the evidence does not indicate that any of Mr. *381Witters' vocational training will include "religious instruction", he is entitled to the full amount of state and federal benefits under the program.
IV
Many of the pitfalls in the majority's analysis could be avoided if this court adopted a more systematic approach to interpreting Const. art. 1, § 11. A meaningful analysis must begin with application of the guidelines this court has articulated to facilitate constitutional decisionmaking.
In Gunwall, this court announced several nonexclusive neutral guidelines to assist courts in deciding whether to interpret state constitutional provisions differently than the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of analogous provisions of the United States Constitution. State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 56-61. These guidelines were articulated to facilitate state constitutional analysis and prevent result-oriented jurisprudence. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Andersen stated that the purpose of the Gunwall criteria is
to insure that if this court does use independent state constitutional grounds in a given situation, it will consider these criteria to the end that our decision will be made for well founded legal reasons and not by merely substituting our notion of justice for that of . . . the United States Supreme Court. . . . Recourse to our state constitution as an independent source . . . must spring not from pure intuition, but from a process that is at once articulable, reasonable and reasoned.
Gunwall, at 62-63.
The court listed six nonexclusive criteria: (1) textual language of the state constitution; (2) significant differences in the texts of parallel provisions of the federal and state constitutions; (3) state constitutional and common law history; (4) preexisting state law; (5) differences in structure between the federal and state constitutions; and (6) matters of particular state interest or local concern. Gunwall, at 61-62. Although the Gunwall criteria create no presumption for the federal analysis of analogous provisions of the *382United States Constitution, they do serve as useful interpretive aids when state courts must decide whether to interpret analogous state constitutional provisions differently. Reece, 110 Wn.2d at 778.
Inexplicably, the majority discusses none of the Gunwall criteria. Thus, we have no principled analysis to explain why this court chooses to interpret the state establishment clause to prohibit that which a unanimous United States Supreme Court has expressly approved under the establishment clause of the federal constitution. Witters v. Washington Dep't of Servs. for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481, 88 L. Ed. 2d 846, 106 S. Ct. 748, reh'g denied, 475 U.S. 1091 (1986). Without such analysis, the resort to independent state grounds to reach a different result in this case appears to spring from the "pure intuition" that this court rightly scorned in Gunwall.
A close examination of the Gunwall criteria demonstrates why application of the state constitution in this instance should not lead to a different result than that reached by the United States Supreme Court.
A
Language
The first two criteria of Gunwall direct the court to consider the language of the state constitution and the parallel provision of the federal constitution. There is no question that the language of the federal and state establishment clauses is different. The First Amendment provides in relevant part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
Const. art. 1, § 11 provides:
No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment. . .
While the language of the state constitution appears to be more specific in prohibiting the State from appropriating funds for religious instruction, it is not necessarily any *383more or less restrictive in application to specific fact situations than the federal establishment clause.
The majority suggests a different result than that reached by the United States Supreme Court is mandated by the "far stricter" language of the state constitution. This characterization of the Washington establishment clause does not by itself support the conclusion that the state constitution must differ from the federal constitution on this particular issue. The doctrinaire rigidity with which the majority attempts to interpret Const. art. 1, § 11 is not justified by the document's purpose and history and has received well deserved criticism in the scholarly literature. See Conklin & Vache, The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the Washington Constitution — A Proposal to the Supreme Court, 8 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 411 (1985) (suggesting that the rigid ideological interpretation of Const. art. 1, § 11 reflected in some of this court's previous opinions owes more to anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic sentiment in the late 19th century than to any careful examination of its terms).
In certain cases where language differences have compelled it, this court has interpreted the state establishment clauses more strictly than federal courts interpreting the federal establishment clause. See State ex rel. Dearie v. Frazier, supra; State ex rel. Clithero v. Showalter, 159 Wash. 519, 293 P. 1000 (1930); Visser v. Nooksack Vly. Sch. Dist. 506, 33 Wn.2d 699, 207 P.2d 198 (1949). However, this court has also adopted the approach of the United States Supreme Court when that court has considered an identical issue under the federal establishment clause. Thus, in Perry v. School Dist. 81, 54 Wn.2d 886, 344 P.2d 1036 (1959), this court followed the approach of the United States Supreme Court in holding that a "release time" program allowing students in the public schools to be released for 1 hour per week to receive religious education did not violate Const. art. 1, § 11 so long as neither class time nor school facilities were used to promote the program. Perry, at 895-96 (following Illinois ex rel. McCollum *384V. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 92 L. Ed. 649, 68 S. Ct. 461 (1948) and Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 96 L. Ed. 954, 72 S. Ct. 679 (1952)). Differences in language between the state and federal establishment clauses do not support a different result in every case. The majority does not present a reasonable argument that such differences compel a contrary result in this case.
The state constitution is an expression of the people's will and depends for its validity on their ratification. See State ex rel. Albright v. Spokane, 64 Wn.2d 767, 770, 394 P.2d 231 (1964). The words used must be given their common ordinary meaning at the time the particular provision was adopted. State ex rel. O'Connell v. Slavin, 75 Wn.2d 554, 557, 452 P.2d 943 (1969). The "common and ordinary meaning" is the meaning the words had to the vast majority of ordinary voters. Utter, Freedom and Diversity in a Federal System: Perspectives on State Constitutions and the Washington Declaration of Rights, 7 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 491, 510 (1984). As the Wisconsin court stated, the words must be construed in the context of the "general run of voters to whom they were submitted". B.F. Sturtevant Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 186 Wis. 10, 19, 202 N.W. 324 (1925). The primary rule of state constitutional interpretation is that "the constitution is the expression of the people's will, adopted by them" and the intent to be determined is that of the people who ratified it. Albright, at 770. See also State ex rel. Linn v. Superior Court, 20 Wn.2d 138, 143, 146 P.2d 543 (1944).
Thus, the court must determine the "common and ordinary meaning" of the term "religious instruction” to those who drafted and ratified the state constitution. Consideration of this issue arises under the third Gunwall criterion.
B
Constitutional and Common Law History
Courts must often resort to extrinsic sources in order to determine the meaning of constitutional terms. State v. Brunn, 22 Wn.2d 120, 139, 154 P.2d 826, 157 A.L.R. 1049 *385(1945). In State ex rel. Mason Cy. Logging Co. v. Wiley, 177 Wash. 65, 74, 31 P.2d 539 (1934), this court declared that "the public history of the times should be consulted, and should have weight"' in giving meaning to the terms used. A variety of sources are available to assist this court in determining the meaning and purpose of the "religious instruction" clause of Const. art. 1, § 11. Two very useful sources are the Enabling Act, through which the federal government authorized the citizens of the Washington Territory to call a constitutional convention and proceed to statehood, and the Journal of the State Constitutional Convention, 1889 (B. Rosenow ed. 1962). In addition, this court has used contemporary newspapers' accounts of the state constitutional convention to supplement the official minutes since no verbatim record of the convention exists. Yelle v. Bishop, 55 Wn.2d 286, 293, 347 P.2d 1081 (1959).
Consideration of these various historical sources demonstrates that the sole purpose of the "religious instruction" clause of Const. art. 1, § 11 was to prevent public schools from giving sectarian religious instruction and to prevent the use of public funds to support private parochial schools.22 See State ex rel. Dearie v. Frazier, 102 Wash. 369, 381, 173 P. 35 (1918); School Dist. 20 v. Bryan, 51 Wash. 498, 99 P. 28 (1909). See Utter & Larson, Church and State on the Frontier: The History of the Establishment Clauses in the Washington State Constitution, 15 Hastings Const. L.Q. 451 (1988). There is no evidence of any intent by those who drafted and ratified our state constitution to prohibit the use of public money for the purposes proposed by Mr. Witters. The State's denial of aid to Mr. Witters based on misperceived mandate of Const. art. 1, § 11 was improper.
*386The federal Enabling Act of 1889 which authorized the Washington Constitutional Convention contained a significant limitation in the area of religious freedom. The Enabling Act required that the state constitution include a provision for the "establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be open to all the children . . . and free from sectarian control." Enabling Act, ch. 180, § 4, 25 Stat. 676 (approved Feb. 22, 1889), reprinted in Revised Code of Washington, vol. 0 at 20 (1987). This provision reflected a widespread concern about the contemporary practice of Bible reading and other sectarian religious instruction in the public primary and secondary schools. See D. Boles, The Bible, Religion, and the Public Schools 35 (1961); Utter & Larson, 15 Hastings Const. L.Q. at 458-67. Such practices were particularly offensive to the recent waves of Catholic and Jewish immigrants who objected to their children receiving compulsory instruction in the majority Protestant faith. See B. Parkany, "Religious Instruction" in the Washington Constitution (1965) (thesis available in the Washington State Library); D. Boles, supra.
The general consensus in Washington and the rest of the country was that public schools should not give sectarian religious instruction, and that private schools should not be supported by public funds. See B. Parkany, pt. 2, at 14; D. Boles, at 23-27, 33. This attitude was reflected in many state constitutions, including Washington's, that were written in the last half of the 19th century. D. Boles, at 33-34.
The Washington Constitutional Convention met in Olympia on July 4, 1889. That the Convention was concerned with forced religious instruction in public primary and secondary schools and public aid to parochial schools is supported by a number of circumstances surrounding the adoption of the "religious instruction" clause itself. On July 17, 1889, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Tacoma Morning Globe both printed the Bill of Rights Committee's first draft of Const. art. 1, § 11. At that point, this provision *387contained no reference to "religious instruction." B. Parkany, pt. 1, at 6.
Two days later, on July 19, the Portland Oregonian, which was one of the most widely read newspapers in Washington Territory, ran an editorial concerning "religious instruction" in public schools. The editorial used the phrase "religious instruction" six times, and concluded with a strong stand:
In order that liberty of conscience may remain inviolate . . . there must be an absolute separation of church and state, religion and public schools . . . [I]t is necessary to keep the public schools free from religious influences, from theological disputes and sectarian teachings.
. . . Religious instruction in the public school means a gradual retrogression to the union of church and state, and this union means a tyrannical government and a corrupt priesthood. . . . [I]f liberty of conscience is valued at all, keep religion away from public schools.
The Oregonian, July 19, 1889, at 4, col. 2. On the same date, a Spokane newspaper also used the phrase "religious instruction" in an article summarizing the views of eminent clergymen on both sides of the debate. Spokane Falls (Daily) Review, July 19, 1889, at 3.
On July 25, a few days after the flurry of newspaper editorials, articles and letters to the editor on religious instruction in the public primary and secondary schools, the Bill of Rights Committee submitted its amended report to the Convention. The new draft, which was later adopted by the Republican-dominated Convention without debate, read in pertinent part as follows:
Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual . . . No public money or property shall be appropriated for, or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment. . . .
*388Journal of the Washington State Constitutional Convention, 1889, at 500 (B. Rosenow ed. 1962); B. Parkany, pt. 1, at 1.
The circumstantial evidence is strong that the phrase "religious instruction" that had been added by the Bill of Rights Committee was borrowed from the various newspaper articles published between the first and last drafts of its report. The frequent use of this phrase in the popular press and in the context of discussions relating to religious instruction in the public primary and secondary schools provides uncontradicted evidence as to the "common and ordinary meaning" of the phrase among those who drafted and ratified the constitution in 1889.
This court addressed the intent of the framers in drafting Const. art. 1, § 11 in State ex rel. Dearie v. Frazier, 102 Wash. 369, 173 P. 35 (1918). Although the validity of much of that opinion was undermined in Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v. Board of Regents, 72 Wn.2d 912, 436 P.2d 189 (1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 960 (1968), no subsequent case has challenged the accuracy of the Dearie court's statement that
it is a matter within the common knowledge of those who followed the discussion attending the framing of our [state] constitution that it was the purpose of the men of that time to avoid all of the evils of religious controversies, the diversion of school funds to denominational schools and institutions, and the litigation that had occurred in other states. . . . The question then was— and the people who adopted the constitution were so advised — whether we should adopt a constitution which provided in terms that no religious instruction should ever be a part, directly or indirectly, of the curriculum of our schools.
(Italics mine.) Dearie, at 381.
The early Attorney Generals' opinions also demonstrate that Const. art. 1, § 11 oriented toward prohibiting certain kinds of devotional sectarian instruction in public primary and secondary schools. See, e.g., AGO, Sept. 19, 1891 (Bible reading, prayers and devotional religious exercises in public *389schools prohibited by Const. art. 1, § 11); AGO, Dec. 20, 1909 (unconstitutional to open public school day with prayer); AGO, Mar. 24, 1916 (unconstitutional to give public high school credit for optional Bible study).
This evidence is considerable and leads to only one conclusion: the historic purpose of the "religious instruction" clause of Const. art. 1, § 11 was to prevent public aid to parochial schools and to prohibit religious instruction in public primary and secondary schools. Neither of these concerns is implicated here. Although historical analysis is not necessarily dispositive in a question of state constitutional interpretation, see State v. Reece, 110 Wn.2d 766, 779, 757 P.2d 947 (1988), the majority does not suggest that current values and conditions conflict with the historical intent of this provision.
C
Preexisting State Law and Differences in Structure
Neither of the fourth or fifth Gunwall criteria appear to be applicable in this case. I have uncovered no record of preexisting state law pertaining to the "religious instruction" phrase of Const. art. 1, § 11 that would enhance our understanding of its meaning and purpose. Differences in state and federal constitutional structure do not appear relevant in interpreting this provision.
D
Particular State or Local Concern
Gunwall also advises the court to examine whether the matter is of particular state or local interest. State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 67. Neither the history of Const. art. 1, §11 nor the vocational training program at issue in this case reflect any particular state interest. As discussed above, the language of Const. art. 1, § 11 reflected a national consensus in the late 19th century to restrict sectarian religious instruction in the public schools and to prohibit public funding of sectarian institutions. This is the *390context in which the phrased "religious instruction" was used by the local popular press of 1889.
Nor is there a particular state or local interest in the administration of the vocational training program for the blind. Eighty percent of the public funds used in this program derive from the federal government pursuant to an act of Congress. The state's interest is comparatively small.
Applying the Gunwall criteria to interpret Const. art. 1, § 11, I can only conclude that public funding of religious instruction, as that term was commonly understood by those who ratified our state constitution, is not involved in this case. Therefore, there is no basis for reaching a result contrary to the one reached by the United States Supreme Court under the federal establishment clause.
V
I would hold that the granting of vocational rehabilitation assistance to Mr. Witters would not violate Const. art. 1, § 11. First, Mr. Witters is clearly entitled to receive at least that portion of vocational rehabilitation money representing federal funds. Second, the State has presented no evidence to support the majority's conclusion that all of Mr. Witters' vocational training involves "religious instruction". Third, the proper level of analysis is that of the funding program itself rather than the use of the funds by a qualified individual recipient. So long as the choice of which institution to attend for vocational training is that of the individual, the State's role in appropriating the funds is insufficient to come within the constraints of Const. art. 1, § 11.
Dolliver and Dore, JJ., concur with Utter, J.

I have previously set forth the relevant history of Const. art. I, § 11. See Witters v. Commission for the Blind, 102 Wn.2d at 643-49 (Utter, J., dissenting). I note that none of the conclusions from my earlier discussion are disputed by the majority in the present opinion.