Laxalt asks judge to toss out lawsuit targeting school-choice measure

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt has asked a Carson City judge to dismiss a second 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 a motion to dismiss filed Thursday, the attorney general's office argued the Nevada Constitution requires the state to "encourage education" by "all suitable means."

That language does not limit the state to funding education only through public schools, Attorney General Adam Laxalt wrote, despite the lawsuit's claim that the new program will drain money away from Nevada's historically underfunded schools.

Education savings accounts, or ESAs, allow parents who pull their students out of a public school to spend about $5,000 in per-pupil state funding on private school tuition, tutoring, transportation and other education services.

The lawsuit, filed last month by a group of parents and the education reform group Educate Nevada Now, claims the program violates portions of the Nevada Constitution that prohibit the state from diverting funds "exclusively" meant for public schools to private schools and other private expenses. The lawsuit also argues the ESA program threatens to reduce funding for public schools to a less-than-sufficient level.

The parents who filed the lawsuit, titled Lopez v. Schwartz, also asked a Carson City District Court judge to temporarily halt the implementation of ESAs, which Laxalt opposed.

"These legal challenges misinterpret and seek to misapply Nevada's constitution, which broadly empowers our Legislature to 'encourage education' by 'all suitable means,'" Laxalt said in a statement released Friday. "My office will make every effort to ensure this important program is realized and prevent anti-choice groups from undermining the Legislature's plan to improve education for all Nevadans."

Laxalt's motion, written with the help of former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, argues the constitution offers state lawmakers broad and discretionary power to encourage education outside of the public school system. For example, the lawsuit notes, the state exempts private school and homeschool students from public school attendance requirements.

But the "all suitable means" provision cannot be taken out of context, said Sylvia Lazos, policy director for Educate Nevada Now.

"When you look at what the framers believed at the founding of our constitution...it's very extensive how important they felt public education was for the state and for the people of this state," Lazos said. "We do not agree that 'suitable' means anything that the Legislature wants to do.

"They're saying the Legislature can reducing funding by 90 percent and that would be constitutional," she added. "We strongly disagree."

The ESA program faces a separate legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which opposes the use of public funds at any religiously affiliated private school.

A judge in Clark County District Court will consider Laxalt's motion to dismiss the ACLU lawsuit on Dec. 10.

Contact Neal Morton at nmorton@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0279. Find him on Twitter: @nealtmorton