Tuesday, October 29, 2013

DOJ Opposes Parents' Motion to Intervene in Louisiana Desegregation/Voucher Case

Just when you thought the battle over Lousiana's voucher program was fading into the background, Governor Jindal has something new to lash out about.  A group of parents, or rather the Conservative Goldwater Institute on behalf of parents, sought to intervene in the desegregation case. DOJ opposes their motion to intervene, primarily arguing that they have no interest at stake in the case because DOJ is not seeking to take their vouchers away but to monitor the program as it moves forward.  DOJ also notes that it represents the public at large and, thus, it can adequately represent the interests of these parents.  Govenor Jindal reacted vehemently to the motion, saying “The Obama Administration is attempting to tell parents to sit down and shut up. It’s never going to happen. Despite whatever evolving legal argument the Obama Administration comes up with, the voices of thousands of parents will not be silenced.”  

My suspicion is that Jindal helped orchestrate this intervention in the first instance because it would give him another wedge to drive in this case.  To his defense, orchestrated interventions by the underdog are not that uncommon (query whether governors fit the role of underdog). But the obvious danger with interventions in this type of case is their likelihood of muddying the water. The legal issues in this case do not turn on what voucher families want or need, nor do they have legally vested rights in the vouchers.  Rather, the issues in this case turn solely on desegregation law.  Thus, whether Jindal likes it or not, these families do not have a clear role in this case; they simply care about its outcome more than most.  But, of course, that is par for the course in desegregation cases, as they directly and indirectly affect so many students.  In fact, scholars have analyzed the likely role that third parties' interests have played in shaping major desegregation cases like Milliken v. Bradley.  Per this reasoning, even if these intervenors do not make it into the case, their interest will likely weigh heavily on its outcome, which is why I noted in my first post weeks ago that the longer Jindal could delay this case the better for him.  More parents would have applied for vouchers and the pressure to not impede their expectations would mount.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/education_law/2013/10/doj-opposes-parents-motion-to-intervene-in-louisiana-desegregationvoucher-case.html

Charters and Vouchers, Racial Integration and Diversity | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment