{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019004524886877826, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027149321266968325, 'mean_word_length': 5.583333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Vouchers after Zelman

Celebrating their victory in Zelman v Simmons-Harris,I upporters of school vouchers declared the case to be today's equivalent of Brown v Board of Education.2 Zelman upheld the constitutionality of Ohio's program providing vouchers that Cleveland parents could use to supplement their own payments of tuition in private schools, including religiously affiliated schools, against a challenge that the program violated the Constitution's prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion."3 The invocation of Brown resonated deeply. Just as Brown was the capstone of an extended process of litigation organized by an ideological interest group (the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) in the course of which the Supreme Court whittled away at the constitutional defenses of segregation, so Zelman resulted from a similarly extended process of litigation, in which ideological interest groups played a similar role.4 The supporters of vouchers were concerned with a different dimension of the analogy, though. For them, Zelman promised quality educa-