High court gives ruling on special education

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that parents who demand better special education programs for their children have the burden of proof in their challenges.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the court, which ruled 6-to-2, said that when parents challenge a program, they have the burden, in an administrative hearing, to show the program is insufficient. If schools bring a complaint, the burden rests with them, O'Connor wrote.

The ruling amounted to a loss for a Maryland family that had contested a special education program designed for their son, who has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The case required the court to interpret the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which does not specifically say whether parents or schools have the burden of proof in disputes.

The Maryland family in the Supreme Court case had argued that when there are disagreements between schools and parents, education officials have better access to relevant facts and witnesses.

The Bush administration had backed the Montgomery County, Md., school district, which said that the extra requirement would be expensive for local schools.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had recused himself from the case, because lawyers from his old law firm represented the school district in suburban Washington.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer wrote separate dissents. ''School districts are charged with responsibility to offer to each disabled child an individualized education program suitable to the child's special needs. The proponent of the IEP, it seems to me, is properly called upon to demonstrate its adequacy," Ginsburg wrote.

O'Connor said the court was not ruling on a separate issue, whether states could set their own policies and put the burden on the school officials.

Also yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to review Florida's lifetime ban on voting rights for convicted felons.

It declined to hear a challenge to Florida's 19th-century ban, which applies to inmates and to those who have served their time and been released.

Felons are kept from voting in every state but Maine, Vermont, and Iowa, although restrictions vary.

The issue of voter eligibility garnered renewed attention after the 2000 presidential election, which was decided by fewer than 600 votes in Florida.

Lower courts have been fractured in similar voting cases. Minority and voting rights groups urged justices to hear the case.

In July, Governor Thomas J. Vilsack of Iowa issued an executive order automatically restoring voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences. Previously, Iowa felons had to apply individually for clemency, a costly and lengthy process.

Florida also has a process for felons to seek voting rights, but there is no guarantee of success.

The Supreme Court appeal was filed on behalf of more than 600,000 Florida felons.

Last year, justices left intact a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that allowed current and former inmates to challenge as racially discriminatory a Washington state law stripping them of the right to vote. The court also let stand a Second Circuit ruling in the opposite direction, in the case of a New York felon.