LANSING -- School voucher supporters said Tuesday that opponents have mounted a "$1 million taxpayer rip-off scheme" to use public money to fund their anti-voucher fight.

But voucher opponents said the pro-voucher forces were trying to win a battle they lost last week when Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Michael Harrison ruled that school districts and unions could use public money to speak out against the ballot proposal as long as the information they put out is factual.

Secretary of State Candice Miller had said earlier that schools and unions had to provide balanced information on the proposal if they planned to use public money to send notices to parents or prepare anti-voucher presentations.

The dispute continues the debate over the proposal, which will appear on the Nov. 7 ballot.

The proposal would require schools with low graduation rates to offer vouchers students could use in private schools. It also would clear the way for local elections or school board decisions to bring vouchers to any school district in the state and require testing for teachers in public schools and private schools that accept vouchers.

A spokesman with the pro-voucher group Kids First! Yes! said opponents have used at least $951,990 of public money meant for classrooms to fight the proposal.

"Parents and taxpayers in Michigan will be outraged to learn that bureaucrats all a "Opponents of Proposal I are engaged throughout the state in a full-scale rip-off of the taxpayers."

But Bob Kolt, spokesman for anti-voucher group ALL Kids First, said proponents were just pursuing arguments rejected last week by the court.

"They sued everybody; they lost," he said. "It's part of their ongoing strategy to suppress information. They didn't win in the court of law so they went to the court of public opinion."

Before the ruling, voucher proponents had filed complaints against more than 20 school districts accusing them of misusing public money to fight the proposal.

Attorneys for Huron Valley Schools in Highland and several unions successfully argued in court that their free speech on the school voucher proposal had been hurt by Miller’s interpretation.