A legal memo to the Nevada Legislature detailing what the Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Lopez v. Schwartz means to the future of Nevada's controversial voucher bill.
Educate Nevada Now is a reliable resource for information about Nevada’s ESA voucher program. Learn more about the issues surrounding voucher programs in Nevada and around the country through national and local reports, studies, research, and analysis.
On December 6, 2016, Treasurer Dan Schwartz motions the Eighth Judicial District Court to change its final judgment in Lopez v. Schwartz, which declared SB 302, the ESA voucher bill, unconstitutional in its entirety.
On December 5, 2016, Plaintiffs in Lopez v. Schwartz send a letter to Attorney General Adam Laxalt demanding the Treasurer halt implementation of SB 302, the ESA voucher bill that had been declared unconstitutional by the Nevada Supreme Court.
On November 18, 2016, Judge James Wilson of the Eighth Judicial District Court, pursuant the Nevada Supreme Court's decision, issues a permanent injunction halting the ESA voucher program due to its unconstitutional funding scheme.
The Nevada Supreme Court permanently blocks the voucher program, declaring the use of public school dollars to fund vouchers unconstitutional.
A 2015 study by MIT Department of Economics and the National Bureau of Economic Research measuring the effectiveness of the Louisiana voucher program, finding students that participated in the program performed substantially worse than comparable students who stayed in public schools.
The 2016 edition by the Education Law Center and Rutgers report that evaluates whether state finance system across the nation provide for equality of educational opportunity, giving Nevada an “F” score in both funding distribution and effort.
This report summarizes the Professional Judgment (PJ) Study conducted by Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates (APA) for the Lincy Institute at University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). The Institute commissioned the PJ study as part of a review of Nevada’s school funding system. The review called for studies like this one to update the 2006 Nevada education funding adequacy study.
A 2012 American Institute of Research study commissioned by the Legislature to determine the best way to reform Nevada’s antiquated funding system.
A 2006 study commissioned by the Legislature, conducted by APA to determine the amount of funding needed for Nevada children to succeed and how to update the Nevada Plan in a way that encouraged equity and adequacy in funding.
Who in Nevada has already applied for Education Savings Accounts? You’ll want to see these surprising facts from our research.
Nevada’s school vouchers do not cover tuition at most private schools in the state. Families will be forced to reach into their own pockets – even with ESAs.
Proponents of this unconstitutional voucher program claim Nevada’s public schools will somehow have more money if SB 302 is implemented. Here’s why their math doesn’t add up.
On May 25, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court denies the Treasurer’s motion to expedite the oral argument and hearing date. The Court schedules the oral argument for July 8, 2016.
On May 20, 2016, the Treasurer files a motion with Nevada Supreme Court requesting an expedited oral argument date of June 6 or 7 and decision by July 8. The motion also notifies the Court of a district court’s dismissal of the ACLU’s case challenging the voucher program.
On Friday, April 29, 2016, the Attorney General files reply to parents’ arguments, on behalf of the Treasurer. The brief argues that the voucher program is constitutional, and therefore, the parents’ injunction should be lifted.
On April 21, 2016, three civil rights organizations file a brief at the Nevada Supreme Court in support of the parents' injunction. The briefs highlight the impact the Nevada voucher program could have on low income and English Language Learner student populations.
On April 6, 2016, plaintiffs in Duncan v. State, another case challenging the voucher law, filed an amicus brief at the Nevada Supreme Court in support of the parents' preliminary injunction that has halted the program.
Filed April 5, 2016 at the Nevada Supreme Court in support of the injunction that halted SB 302, the school voucher program.
On March 25, 2016, public school parents file a response to the Treasurer's appeal of the preliminary injunction at the Nevada Supreme Court.
March 4, 2016 - Attorney General Laxalt decided to appeal Judge Wilson’s order to stop the implementation of SB302, and appealed before the Nevada Supreme Court, asking the Court to reverse Judge Wilson’s order to enjoin the application of SB302 law.
March 2, 2016, Judge James Wilson denies the Treasurer's initial request for a surety of $238,900, stating the Treasurer provided no evidence for the high surety amount.
February 12, 2016 - The Nevada Supreme Court grants Treasurer's unopposed motion to expedite the case, meaning this preliminary injunction appeal will be decided more quickly than a typical appeal.
February 3, 2016, Parents respond to the Treasurer's request for $238,900 in security, stating the amount is unsupported and that the Judge should use his discretion to issue a nominal bond instead.
Jan. 11, 2016 - Judge James Wilson grants the parents’ motion for preliminary injunction, stating the public school parents have “clearly shown SB 302 violates the Article 11, Section 6.1 and 6.2 of the Nevada Constitution.” These sections prohibit the diversion of funds specifically set aside for public education, and prohibits reducing these funds below the level deemed sufficient by the Legislature. Since SB 302 violates the Nevada Constitution, the judge also found that parents would necessarily be irreparably harmed if the program were to go into effect, in accordance with settled case law.
Dec. 30, 2015 - Judge James Wilson denies intervention to clients of pro-voucher advocates, Institute for Justice. The judge finds the proposed intervenors added no new legal arguments to the case, and their interests were adequately represented by the Attorney General, who is defending SB 302.
Dec 24, 2015, Judge Wilson denies Defendants countermotion to dismiss the parents' lawsuit. The judge determines the parents alleged sufficient facts for the case to continue.
The National Association of School Boards, representing public officials elected to Nevada’s school boards, filed a “friend of the court” brief before Judge Wilson supporting the parent who brought the lawsuit against SB302 vouchers, because of the great harm that these vouchers would inflict on public school education.
On November 23, 2015, the Nevada State Education Association and National Education Association filed an Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
The NSBA and NASB, through their counsel, filed a motion petitioning the court for permission to submit a brief in support of the Parents' lawsuit challenging the State’s new voucher law – Senate Bill 302.
In court papers filed on November 24, 2015, parents suing to block Nevada’s voucher law responded to the Attorney General and his backing of the State’s sweeping voucher program that will result in the diversion of critical funding earmarked solely for the education of children in the public schools.
On November 5, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt asked a Carson City judge to dismiss the Parents' lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's new education savings accounts, widely considered to be the most aggressive school-choice program in the country. In the motion to dismiss, the attorney general's office argued the Nevada Constitution requires the state to "encourage education" by "all suitable means."
Six parents who are suing the State of Nevada over the new voucher law Senate Bill 302 (SB302) filed a preliminary injunction motion to prevent the loss of millions in funding to their children’s public schools.
On September 9, 2015, five parents whose children attend Nevada public schools filed a lawsuit challenging the State’s new voucher law – Senate Bill 302. The lawsuit claims that the voucher law violates the Nevada Constitution’s explicit ban on using public school funding for private schools. The lawsuit also seeks to permanently block the State Treasurer from implementing the voucher program.