(1) The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.

(2) This section shall not apply to funds from federal sources provided to the state for the express purpose of distribution to non-public education.

History

Sources

1884 Montana Constitution (proposed)

XI. 9. Neither the Legislative Assembly, nor my county, city, town, or school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make, directly, any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, or make any grant of lands or other property, in aid of any church, or for any sectarian purpose, or to aid in the support of any school, academy, seminary, college, or university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect or denomination whatever.

1889 Montana Constitution

XI. 8. Neither the legislative assembly, nor any county, city, town, or school district, or other public corporations, shall ever make directly or indirectly, any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, or make any grant of lands or other property in aid of any church, or for any sectarian purpose, or to aid in the support of any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary, scientific institution, controlled in whole or in party by any church, sect or denomination whatever.

Other Sources

1889 Enabling Act

The 1889 Enabling Act, which created the state of Montana, required the state’s constitutional delegates to adopt language creating a public school system that was not under the control of sectarian influences.Ch. 180, 25 Stat. 676 (February 22, 1889).

Text

The provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of said States, and free from sectarian control.Ch. 180, 25 Stat. 676 (February 22, 1889).

Drafting

Delegate Proposals

Two proposals were introduced by the delegates addressing this section. The first proposal sought to retain the existing language. The second proposal amended the provision by exempting federal funds from restriction.

Delegate Proposal No. 41 (Leuthold): Neither the legislative assembly, nor any county, city, town, or school district, or other public corporations, shall ever make directly or indirectly, any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, or make any grant of lands or other property in aid of any church, or for any sectarian purpose, or to aid in the support of any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary, scientific institution, controlled in whole or in party by any church, sect or denomination whatever.

Delegate Proposal No. 164 (Harbaugh): Neither the legislative assembly, nor any county, city, town, or school district, or other public corporations, shall ever make directly or indirectly, any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, or make any grant of lands or other property in aid of any church, or for any sectarian purpose, or to aid in the support of any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary, scientific institution, controlled in whole or in party by any church, sect or denomination whatever. This section shall not apply to federal funds administered by the state for the purposes of nonpublic education.

Committee Proposals

The Education and Public Lands Committee was unable to agree on the final language for the proposed section. As a result, two different committee proposals were introduced for debate. The heart of the conflict dealt with two key changes to the existing provision: (1) omitting the prohibition on indirect aid; and (2) adding language that permits the state to distribute funds from federal sources.Montana Constitutional Convention, Vol. II, Education and Public Lands Committee, Minority Proposal at 744.

Majority Proposal

Delegate Burkhardt, speaking on behalf of the majority proposal, expressed a desire to retain the wording from Article XI, section 8, which would continue to “strongly prohibit direct or indirect aid from any public fund of the state to any sectarian educational institution or for any sectarian purpose.” Id., Vol. VI, Verbatim Transcript at 2008 (Mar. 11, 1972).

Delegate Burkhardt cited four reasons for retaining the existing provision: (1) support for a "strong public school system" rooted in the principle of the separation of church and state; (2) education is a state function, which includes the ability to impose restrictions beyond those of the federal government; (3) changing the current provision could "endanger passage of the entire Constitution"; and (4) threats imposed by the government when it get involved with religious matters.Id. at 2009.

Delegates supporting the majority proposal also declined to add a clause excluding federal funds administered by the state. The majority committee felt this change was not needed because the current provisions did not currently affect federal funds. The committee felt that any problems with federal funds could adequately be addressed by the existing section.Id., Vol. II, Majority Proposal at 730.

Text

Neither the legislative assembly, nor any county, city, town, or school district, or other public corporations, shall ever make directly or indirectly, any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or monies whatever, or make any grant of lands or other property in aid of any church, or for any sectarian purpose, or to aid in the support of any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary, scientific institution, controlled in whole or in party by any church, sect or denomination whatever.

Minority Proposal

Introduced by Delegate Harbaugh, the minority proposal sought to delete the words “or indirectly” from the provision, and add an additional sentence to allow federal funds to be used by non-public schools.Id., Vol. VI, Verbatim Transcript at 2010. This proposal stated that these changes were necessary to equalize educational opportunity and to avoid the rigidness imposed by the provision's current language.Id., Vol. II, Minority Proposal at 744-745.

Text

Neither the legislative assembly, nor any county, city, town, or school district, or other public corporations, shall ever make directly any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or monies whatever, or make any grant of lands or other property in aid of any church, or for any sectarian purpose, or to aid in the support of any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary, scientific institution, controlled in whole or in party by any church, sect or denomination whatever. This section shall not apply to federal funds administered by the state for the purposes of non-public education.

Floor Debate

Following the introduction of the two proposals, the debate amongst the delegates centered on the changes proposed in the minority proposal. See Id., Vol. VI, Verbatim Transcript at 2010-2011. Delegate Harbaugh stating that "the primary thrust of the [Minority Proposal] would be to ensure that any federal funds that were made available to nonpublic parochial schools in the future would not be denied."Id. at 2011. Delegate Loendorf ended this debate after he introduced a substitute amendment that compromised between the two versions. Id. at 2013. This version retained the 1889 provision's use of "indirectly," but added the federal funds clause proposed by the minority of the committee. Id. This version would ultimately be passed by the committee. Id. at 2024-2025.

There was also discussion among the delegates about the provision's infamous history of being associated with the Blaine Amendment, a failed national constitutional amendment that was seen by some as anti-Catholic.Id. at 2010. Delegate Schiltz called the provision "a badge of bigotry," and advocated for its appeal.Id. at 2012. Interestingly, Delegate Schiltz, who criticized the provision's infamous past, eventually voted for Delegate Loendorf's compromise proposal.Id. at 2024-2025.

Adoption

After a roll call vote of 53 delegates voting aye, and 40 delegates voting no (7 absent), Delegate Loendorf's compromise proposal was passed by the committee on March 11, 1972.Id. at 2031.

Ratification

Interpretation

Commentary