Loading...
Market
What will be the public opinion on the South Carolina Supreme Court ruling by end of 2024?
1
South Carolina Supreme Court•State Constitution•Education Scholarship Trust Fund•ESTF•Hill•Act•South Carolina•Candace Eidson
Resolution / Starting Odds
Majority support the ruling • 25%
Majority oppose the ruling • 25%
Public opinion evenly split • 25%
Majority indifferent to the ruling • 25%
Public opinion polls conducted by reputable organizations
Story
South Carolina Supreme Court Rules Education Scholarship Trust Fund Unconstitutional, Impacting 2,880 Children
Sep 11, 2024, 03:54 PM
The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that taxpayer-funded scholarships, which allow recipients to pay tuition and fees at private schools, are unconstitutional under the State Constitution. This ruling affects the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF), also known as 2023 Act No. 8 (S.39). As a result, 2,880 low- and moderate-income children who were approved for ESTF scholarships will no longer be able to exercise their right to choose their educational institution, a choice already enjoyed by wealthier families. Justice Hill stated that portions of the Act violate South Carolina's constitutional prohibition against the use of public funds for the direct benefit of private educational institutions. The decision has sparked criticism from various quarters, with some arguing that it undermines school choice and the will of state legislators and their constituents. The case, Candace Eidson v. SC Dept. of Education, has significant implications as the school year has already started across the state.
View original story
Similar markets
Majority support • 25%
Majority oppose • 25%
Evenly split • 25%
No clear majority • 25%
Predominantly positive • 33%
Predominantly negative • 33%
Mixed reactions • 34%
Majority support • 33%
Majority oppose • 33%
Mostly neutral/undecided • 34%
Majority support the ruling • 25%
Majority oppose the ruling • 25%
Evenly divided opinion • 25%
No major poll conducted • 25%
Mostly support • 33%
Mostly oppose • 33%
Indifferent/No opinion • 33%
Mostly Positive • 25%
Mostly Negative • 25%
Mixed • 25%
Indifferent • 25%
Majority support the ruling • 25%
Majority oppose the ruling • 25%
Public opinion split • 25%
Insufficient data • 25%
Majority support the ruling • 25%
Majority oppose the ruling • 25%
Public opinion is evenly split • 25%
Other/No significant opinion • 25%
Increased awareness and caution among consumers • 25%
No significant change in consumer behavior • 25%
Increase in lawsuits related to food labeling • 25%
Restaurants voluntarily changing menu descriptions • 25%
Majority support the ruling • 25%
Majority oppose the ruling • 25%
Majority indifferent to the ruling • 25%
No clear majority opinion • 25%
Large protests • 25%
Minor protests • 25%
No protests • 25%
Other response • 25%
Mostly positive • 25%
Mostly negative • 25%
Mixed • 25%
Indifferent • 25%