WE'LL BE WATCHING THIS CASE AS IT PROGRESSES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SUPPORTERS OF WISCONSIN'S TAXPAYER FUNDED SCHOOL CHOICE AND INDEPENDENT CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS WANT THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO REJECT THE LAWSUIT, SAYING ENDING THE PROGRAM WOULD CREATE CHAOS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS FAMILIES WITH STUDENTS CURRENTLY ENROLLED.

WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND LIBERTY ATTORNEY, RICK ESENBERG, IS ON THE CASE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE ADVOCATES.

HE JOINS US FROM T H TH MILWAUKE.

THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE PETITIONERS WON THEIR CASE AND THE PROGRAM FOLDED, TRANSFERRING PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS BACK IS THIS.

>> WELL, IT WOULD BE CHAOS FOR CHILDREN IN THE PROGRAM.

FIRST OF ALL, THEY WOULD BE DENIED AN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY AND THEIR PARENTS HAVE CHOSEN.

THERE WOULD BE A MASSIVE INFLUX OF STUDENTS INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHO ARE NOT CURRENTLY SET UP TO RECEIVE THEM, AND THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY A DECISION AGAINST THE PROGRAM IN THIS CASW WE FINANCE OUR SCHOOLS, IT WOULD CALL INTO QUESTION EQUALIZATION AID, IT WOULD CALL INTO QUESTION A WHOLE VARIETY OF NONEDUCATIONAL PUBLIC PROGRAMS.

IT WOULD BE REALLY A DISASTER FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T BELIEVE OUR COURT'S GOING TO DO.

>> SO IN YOUR COURT FILING, YOU TOOK GREAT EXCEPTION TO THE CLAIM THAT CHOICE PROGRAMS WERE INTENDED TO HURT AND ARE HURTING PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

WHY?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, WE LIVE IN A VERY POLARIZED TIME RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER THAT, WHEN SCHOOL CHOICE WAS INITIALLY ENACTED ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO, IT WAS A BIPARTISAN PROGRAM.

BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS REALIZED, FIRST IN MILWAUKEE, THAT SCHOOLS WERE NOT SERVING ALL STUDENTS WELL, AND THAT EQUITY AND EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS WOULD BE SERVED BY LETTING LOWER INCOME FAMILIES HAVE THE SAME CHOICE THAT WEALTHIER FAMILIES HAVE.

AND SO THIS REALLY WAS AN EFFORT TO HELP KIDS.

WE OFTEN HEAR ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SCHOOL CHOICE SOMEHOW BEING A PROFIT -- PROFIT-MAKING INTERPRIDES -- ENTERPRISE, AND IT'S REALLY NOT.

THESE ARE NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS.

MOST OF THEM A RE RELIGIOUSLY-BASED, AND NOBODY'S MAKING MONEY.

THIS REALLY IS, I THINK, INTENDED TO GIVE KIDS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY OTHERWISE WOULDN'T HAVE.

IT'S NOT TO DESTROY THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

CHOICE ADVOCATES REALIZE MOST KIDS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT SECTOR WARS.

IT'S JUST A RECOGNITION THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIVERSE, HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIFFERENT, AND SOME PEOPLE, SOME KIDS WILL BENEFIT FROM THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT CHOICE PROVIDES FOR THEM.

>> STILL, PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS ARE INCREASINGLY BEING DIVERTED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

HOW DOES THAT NOT HURT THE PUBLICS?

>> WELL, THEY'RE NOT BEING DIVERTED.

THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS IS NOT TO BENEFIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS AN INSTITUTION; IT'S TO EDUCATE CHILDREN.

AND THERE ARE LOTS OF SOCIAL SERVICES THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES THAT MAY SOMETIMES BE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND MAY SOMETIMES BE PROVIDED BY, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE VENDORS, HOSPITALS, ADOPTION AGENCIES.

THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF THEM.

AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN A SCHOOL, WHEN A KID WHO IS BEING EDUCATED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT, GOES TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL, THE TAX MONEY THAT IS USED TO EDUCATE HER GOES WITH HER, AND SO THERE'S NO DIVERSION.

THERE'S JUST CHOICE.

>> SO WITH LESS THAN A HALF A MINUTE LEFT, HOW WORRIED WERE YOU THAT THE GOVERNOR EVERS' ADMINISTRATION AGREED WITH ROBIN VOS THAT THIS CASE SHOULD START NOT IN THE HIGH COURT BUT IN CIRCUIT COURT?

>> YOU KNOW, I GIVE GOVERNOR EVERS AND GENERAL KAUL CREDIT FOR THIS.

I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT PROPONENTS OF THE CHOICE PROGRAM BUT THEY DID THE RIGHT THING LEGALLY.

THIS IS AN INAPPROPR IATE CASE FOR AN ORIGINAL ACTION AND THEY MADE THE RIGHT CALL.