## Facts

- The Colorado General Assembly enacted HB 03-1160 establishing the Colorado Opportunity Contract Pilot Program (COCPP), a voucher program for certain students assigned to low-performing public schools.
- Eligible students generally included low-income children qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch.
- If a participating nonpublic school accepted an eligible student, the student’s school district was required to enter an “opportunity contract” with the parent and issue payments (by checks endorsed over to the nonpublic school) up to statutory caps tied to district per-pupil revenues and the school’s costs.
- The program assigned substantial administrative and oversight responsibilities to the State (through the Department of Education), including program implementation rules and compliance mechanisms.
- Multiple plaintiffs, including the state PTA and other organizations and individuals, sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the COCPP violated several provisions of the Colorado Constitution.
- The Denver District Court granted judgment on the pleadings for plaintiffs, held the COCPP unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under Colo. Const. art. IX, § 15 (local control), and enjoined implementation.
- The Governor, the State, and intervening parents appealed directly to the Colorado Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the COCPP violated Colo. Const. art. IX, § 15 by divesting local boards of education of constitutionally vested control over instruction for district students and reallocating that control to the State and nonpublic schools.
2. Whether voucher-funded instruction occurring in nonpublic schools nonetheless constituted “instruction in the public schools of each school district” for purposes of the local control clause.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the trial court.
- The court held the COCPP unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under Colo. Const. art. IX, § 15.
- The court concluded that, because the program required districts to fund and count participating students while lacking meaningful authority over the instructional program delivered, the statute intruded on local boards’ exclusive control of instruction.
- The court declined to decide other constitutional challenges (including claims under the state’s no-aid/sectarian aid provision) because the local-control violation was dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- Colo. Const. art. IX, § 15 vests exclusive control of instruction in each school district in the locally elected board of education; the legislature may set general frameworks but may not usurp that constitutionally committed authority.
- For local-control purposes, instruction can fall within a district’s “public school” responsibility when the district is statutorily obligated to pay for and account for the education of resident students, even if instruction is delivered at nonpublic facilities.
- A statute violates the local-control clause when it compels districts to fund instructional services while leaving local boards without effective authority to determine, direct, or control the instruction provided to district students.
- Colorado courts presume statutes constitutional and invalidate them only when unconstitutionality is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court struck down the COCPP voucher pilot program because it required districts to fund and administer private-school instruction for district students while transferring substantial control over that instruction away from local boards, contrary to the exclusive local control mandate of Colo. Const. art. IX, § 15.


Owens v. Colo. Cong. of Parents, Teachers & Students, 92 P.3d 933 (Colo. 2004)