Everson. Furthermore, allowing vouchers to be used with religious schooling advanced secular learning and institutions. Souter expresses that ignoring the ruling of Everson ignored the importance of neutrality and private choice. Moreover, disregarding Everson promoted a new way of thinking that held government aid as insignificant in constitutional grounds. He commented on the voucher money that was going to religious schools as a reflection of free choice by families: "The 96.6% reflects, instead the fact that too few nonreligious school desks are available and few, but religious schools can afford to accept more than a handful of voucher students.... For the overwhelming number of children in the voucher scheme, the only alternative to the public schools is religious." Souter strongly voiced his denunciation on the fact that the decision undermined the point of prohibiting religious establishments. He claimed that it was all to save religion from its own corruption, but participation in the program depended on adopting rules that might come in forms of religious discrimination. Private choice test Moderate Justices Kennedy and O'Connor and conservative Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas combined to form the majority. The Ohio program passed a five-part test that was developed by the Court in the case, the private choice test. It states that a voucher program, to be constitutional, must meet all five criteria: The program must have a valid secular purpose. Aid must go to parents, not schools. A broad class of beneficiaries must be covered. The program must be neutral with respect to religion. There must be adequate nonreligious options. The court ruled that the Ohio program met the test: The valid secular purpose of the program was "providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system." The vouchers were given to the parents. The "broad class" was all students enrolled in currently failing programs. Parents who received vouchers were not required to enroll in a religious-based school. There were other public schools in adjoining districts as well as nonreligious private schools in the Cleveland area that would accept the vouchers. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, stated, "The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits." In theory, there was no need for parents to use religious schools, and if the law did