Opinion ID: 1843606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: C. Other States

Text: Judge Reese also cited a number of cases from other states in support of his orders. Of course, such cases are not binding upon this Court, but I do consider them to be quite instructive. Judge Reese cited the following: Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 209 (Ky.1989); Seattle School District No. 1 of King County v. State, 90 Wash.2d 476, 585 P.2d 71, 87 (1978); Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State, 236 Mont. 44, 769 P.2d 684, 685 (1989), opinion amended by Helena Elementary School Dist. No. 1 v. State, 236 Mont. 44, 784 P.2d 412 (1990); DuPree v. Alma School District No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90, 94 (1983); Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273 (1973); and Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584, 96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971). The main opinion cites four of these cases and also cites the following additional cases: Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn.1993); Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.1989); McDaniel v. Thomas, 248 Ga. 632, 285 S.E.2d 156 (1981); Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v. Nyquist, 57 N.Y.2d 27, 439 N.E.2d 359, 453 N.Y.S.2d 643 (1982), appeal dismissed, 459 U.S. 1138, 103 S.Ct. 775, 74 L.Ed.2d 986 (1983); Board of Education of the City School District of Cincinnati v. Walter, 58 Ohio St.2d 368, 390 N.E.2d 813 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1015, 100 S.Ct. 665, 62 L.Ed.2d 644 (1980); State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. v. Manchin, 179 W.Va. 235, 366 S.E.2d 743 (1988); McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Educ., 415 Mass. 545, 615 N.E.2d 516 (1993); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40 (R.I.1995); Kukor v. Grover, 148 Wis.2d 469, 436 N.W.2d 568 (1989); Washakie County School Dist. No. 1 v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824, 101 S.Ct. 86, 66 L.Ed.2d 28 (1980); and Campbell County School Dist. v. State, 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995). Because of the emphasis the main opinion places on these last two cases Washakie County and Campbell County I will discuss them first. While those two cases provide some support for the remedy order, most decisions of other states do not. See City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, discussed supra; and see also Kukor v. Grover, discussed supra. The main opinion calls the Washakie case particularly instructive. In Washakie, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Wyoming's method of funding public schools was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court entered a declaratory judgment only and remanded the case to the trial court, which it directed to retain jurisdiction until a constitutional body of legislation to solve the funding problem was enacted. The court made it clear that it was not seeking to set policy or to direct the legislature. We have pointed up various potential solutions in this opinion only for the purpose of opening up areas of exploration for the legislature and not to specify any particular course. 606 P.2d at 337. Thus, this case does not support the policy-directing remedy order Judge Reese issued. Following the 1980 Washakie decision, the Wyoming legislature enacted an interim method of funding to address funding inequities until the matter could be studied fully and it could develop a permanent solution. However, no permanent legislation was ever enacted. Therefore, another action, Campbell County School Dist., supra, was filed. The complaint in that action alleged that the temporary solution itself had become unconstitutional. The trial court agreed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the existing structure for financing public schools in Wyoming was unconstitutional. The Wyoming Supreme Court stated: The sense of Washakie was to require the legislature to examine the entire education system, including its funding, and reform it in order to provide an `equal opportunity for a quality education.' 907 P.2d at 1263. The court asserted that where the legislature has failed to act when faced with constitutional violations, the court's duty to protect individual rights includes compelling legislative action required by the constitution. 907 P.2d at 1264. However, the court refused to dictate the actions the legislature must take to remedy the educational system; it merely commanded the legislature to act and ordered compliance by July 1, 1997. The Wyoming Supreme Court did allow the trial court to retain jurisdiction until conforming legislation is enacted and implemented. The Kentucky Supreme Court in Rose, supra, declared Kentucky's common school finance system unconstitutional and further declared that the General Assembly had not produced an efficient system of public schools throughout the state as required by the Kentucky constitution. Thus, the General Assembly was required to establish an efficient school system throughout the state. The court rejected a contention that the trial court's decision had violated the separation of powers doctrine: It is clear that the specifics of the legislation will be left up to the wisdom of the General Assembly. Clearly, no `legislating' is present in the decision of the trial court, and more importantly, as we have previously said, there is none present in the decision of this Court. We do not agree with appellants. However, we agree with appellants that the decision of the trial [judge] to require the appellants to report to him on their progress is a clear incursion, by the judiciary, [into] the functions of the legislature. The implications of such an open-ended judgment are very clear. The trial court retains jurisdiction and supervision of the General Assembly's effort to provide a constitutional system of common schools. Under such an order, the General Assembly, in theory if not in practice, would literally have to confer, report, and comply with the judge's view of the legislation proposed to comply with the order. The legislation would be that of the joint efforts of the General Assembly and the trial court, with the latter having the final word. This is, without doubt, the type of action that was eschewed when the framers of the four constitutions of this state placed the separation of powers doctrine in the organic law of this state. Rose, 790 S.W.2d at 214. Rose does not support Judge Reese's decision. Rose does offer support for requiring the legislature to create an efficient and equitable education system because the wording of § 183 of the Kentucky constitution specifically required that an efficient education be provided for children. Rose, however, does not support a remedy order that requires specific legislation. Yet, the Remedy Order in our case requires the creation of a Foundation Fund and sets education policy and school curriculum. It goes so far as to delve into the matter of toilet paper. Further, Judge Reese retained jurisdiction in the case and required the policy-makers to report to the circuit court. Thus, Judge Reese's order exceeds the standard for judicial action set forth in Rose. The main opinion ratifies the open-ended type of order issued by Judge Reese and eschewed by the court in Rose. In Seattle School District No. 1, supra, the Washington Supreme Court held that the state's reliance on special excess levy funding for providing for the education of children was unconstitutional because the state did not follow the wording of the state constitution, which used the term ample provision. The court entered a declaratory judgment for the plaintiffs, requiring the legislature to make ample provision for the education of resident children. The court did not direct the legislature to pass specific legislation or to set up a fund to support education, as Judge Reese ordered. In fact, the Washington Supreme Court modified the trial court's judgment, which had sought to retain jurisdiction over the case. The trial court retained jurisdiction to ensure that the legislature did its job properly. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court refused to specify what relief would be appropriate if the legislature failed to act. The most the court would say was that after a judicial determination therein, the legislature must subsequently act within the confines of the judicial interpretation. 90 Wash.2d at 505, 585 P.2d at 88. However, the Seattle order was a declaratory judgment only. It did not reach as far as Judge Reese's order reaches. Thus, the Seattle case does not support Judge Reese's broad order. The Supreme Court of Montana, in Helena Elementary School District No. 1, supra, held that the state system of funding public schools violated the state constitutional guarantee of equal educational opportunity. The court entered a declaratory judgment but specifically declined to spell out the percentages which are required on the part of the State to be spent in funding education. 236 Mont. at 55, 769 P.2d at 691. The court stated that control of state education funds was primarily the province of the legislature. The court also declined to establish accreditation standards. 236 Mont. at 55, 769 P.2d at 691. Thus, Helena does not support Judge Reese's order, which went far beyond a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court of Arkansas, in DuPree v. Alma School District No. 30, supra, held that the financing system for Arkansas public schools was unconstitutional because of the great disparity in funding among the school districts. The decision was declaratory only. The trial court did not attempt to implement a remedy, and the Arkansas Supreme Court noted that the legislature had the task of developing a solution. Moreover, in a concurrence, Justice Hickman stated, It is my respectful judgment that this court has no intention of intervening in a legislative or executive matter. Nor do we intend to supervise [the legislature's] work. 279 Ark. at 353, 651 S.W.2d at 97 (Hickman, J., concurring). The DuPree decision thus does not support Judge Reese's broad judicial intervention. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in Robinson v. Cahill, supra, held that the New Jersey system of financing public education, which relied mainly on local taxation, violated the New Jersey state constitutional mandate for equal educational opportunity. In a subsequent remedy phase, Robinson v. Cahill, 69 N.J. 133, 351 A.2d 713 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 913, 96 S.Ct. 217, 46 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the Supreme Court of New Jersey limited the implementation of court-ordered remedies to a provisional remedy for the 1976-77 school year only, because of its reluctance to become involved in the legislative process. Judge Reese's order, on the other hand, is without any prescribed limits. Thus, Judge Reese's order steps too far into the legislative realm, something the Robinson court consciously avoided. As my discussion of the New Jersey situation demonstrates, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court was not successful in its attempt to avoid being swallowed up by the process of supervising New Jersey's education system. Judge Reese cited only the original Serrano decision, 5 Cal.3d 584, 96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971) ( Serrano I ), which held that the facts alleged in the complaint were sufficient to support a claim that the financing scheme for California schools was unconstitutional. The court in Serrano I also noted that if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, then the system must be held to be unconstitutional. The Serrano I court then stated that the trial court, if it subsequently found the system to be unconstitutional, could enforce the judgment and the ensuing transitional period as courts have done in the school desegregation cases and in the legislative reapportionment cases. However, in Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728, 135 Cal.Rptr. 345, 557 P.2d 929, cert. denied, 432 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 2951, 53 L.Ed.2d 1079 (1977) ( Serrano II ), the Supreme Court of California held that the state's public school financing system, which relied on local property taxes, invidiously discriminated against the poor and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court granted declaratory judgment relief only. Moreover, unlike the court in Serrano I, the Serrano II court asserted that its decision was not to be construed to require adoption of any particular system of school finance. 18 Cal.3d at 750, 135 Cal.Rptr. 345, 557 P.2d at 940. Therefore, because of the subsequent Serrano II decision, Serrano I does not support Judge Reese's broad implementation orders. The Tennessee Supreme Court, in Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, supra, reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals and upholding the trial court's judgment, held that the disparities in the educational opportunities provided by the state's public school system caused the system to violate the constitutional mandate that the General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public schools guaranteeing to all children of school age the opportunity to obtain an education. 851 S.W.2d at 140. The court also stated: The means whereby the result is accomplished is, within constitutional limits, a legislative prerogative. Consequently, the trial court's holding that the appropriate remedy should be fashioned by the General Assembly is affirmed. 851 S.W.2d at 156. The court entered a declaratory judgment only and refrained from going any further. The Tennessee court subsequently approved a plan proposed by the state legislature to incrementally meet constitutional requirements, and specifically left it to the legislature to decide the source of the funds necessary to implement the plan. Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, 894 S.W.2d 734 (Tenn.1995). Thus, the Tennessee Small School Systems cases do not support Judge Reese's broad order. The Texas Supreme Court, in Edgewood Independent School District, supra (hereinafter Edgewood I ), held that the state school financing system violated a state constitutional provision requiring the maintenance of an efficient system of education. The court granted declaratory relief only. The court stated: Although we have ruled the school financing system to be unconstitutional, we do not now instruct the legislature as to the specifics of the legislation it should enact; nor do we order it to raise taxes. The legislature has primary responsibility to decide how best to achieve an efficient system. We decide only the nature of the constitutional mandate and whether that mandate has been met. Edgewood I, 777 S.W.2d at 399. Later, in a companion case, Carrollton-Farmers Independent School District v. Edgewood Independent School District, 826 S.W.2d 489, 522-23 (Tex.1992), the court set a June 1993 deadline for the Texas Legislature to comply with Edgewood I. The Texas Legislature then passed education financing reform; however, the reform required voter approval, and the voters did not approve it. The court did nothing in response. In Edgewood Independent School Dist. v. Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717 (Tex.1995) ( Edgewood III ), the Texas Supreme Court again addressed the constitutionality of the funding of the Texas public schools and upheld the manner of funding, even though it had changed little from the time of the Edgewood I decision in 1989. The Texas Supreme Court held: This Court's role under our Constitution's separation of powers provision should be one of restraint. We do not dictate to the Legislature how to discharge its duty. As prominent as this Court's role has been in recent years in this important issue, it is subsidiary to the constitutionally conferred role of the Legislature. The people of Texas have themselves set the standard for their schools. Our responsibility is to decide whether that standard has been satisfied, not to judge the wisdom of the policy choices of the Legislature, or to impose a different policy of our own choosing. 917 S.W.2d at 726. Thus, Edgewood I and its progeny highlight the hazards of judicially mandated equity in school funding. It was a political decision for the voters of Texas to make, and, I would argue, it is a political decision for the Alabama Legislature, the Governor, and the voters of Alabama to make. In McDaniel v. Thomas, supra, the Georgia Supreme Court held that Georgia's method for funding public schools did not violate the state's equal protection clause because a constitution is designed to set the minimum protections afforded to society. The court acknowledged that the current system was flawed, but said it was the task of the legislature to implement a new system. Moreover, in discussing whether the court could address the constitutionality of the funding of public schools, the court stated: Neither the trial court nor this court has been called upon to decide whether, as a policy matter, a particular financing scheme is `better' than another. We have been asked to determine whether the existing method of financing public education in this state meets constitutional requirements. McDaniel v. Thomas, 248 Ga. at 633, 285 S.E.2d at 157. Judge Reese's liability and remedy orders go beyond merely determining whether the educational system meets constitutional requirements; those orders attempt to settle many policy questions. In Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v. Nyquist, supra, the Court of Appeals of New York upheld New York's method for funding public schools, against a constitutional challenge. In addressing the role courts play in the funding of schools, the Court of Appeals stated: The determination of the amounts, sources, and objectives of expenditures of public moneys for educational purposes, especially at the State level, presents issues of enormous practical and political complexity, and resolution appropriately is largely left to the interplay of the interests and forces directly involved and indirectly affected, in the arenas of legislative and executive activity. This is the very essence of our governmental and political polity. It would normally be inappropriate, therefore, for the courts to intrude upon such decision-making (see Matter of Board of Educ. v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 535, 538, 394 N.Y.S.2d 148, 362 N.E.2d 948; Matter of Anderson v. Krupsak, 40 N.Y.2d 397, 402-403, 386 N.Y.S.2d 859, 353 N.E.2d 822; New York Public Interest Research Group v. Steingut, 40 N.Y.2d 250, 257, 386 N.Y.S.2d 646, 353 N.E.2d 558; cf. James v. Board of Educ. 42 N.Y.2d 357, 397 N.Y.S.2d 934, 366 N.E.2d 1291). With full recognition and respect, however, for the distribution of powers in educational matters among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, it is nevertheless the responsibility of the courts to adjudicate contentions that actions taken by the Legislature and the executive fail to conform to the mandates of the Constitutions which constrain the activities of all three branches. That because of limited capabilities and competences the courts might encounter great difficulty in fashioning and then enforcing particularized remedies appropriate to repair unconstitutional action on the part of the Legislature or the executive is neither to be ignored on the one hand nor on the other to dictate judicial abstention in every case. In the discharge of our judicial responsibility in this case, recognizing the existence of the very real disparities of financial support as found by the lower courts, we nonetheless conclude that such disparities do not establish that there has been a violation of either [the] Federal or [the] State Constitution. 57 N.Y.2d at 38-39, 439 N.E.2d at 363-64, 453 N.Y.S.2d at 648 (footnote omitted). The Court of Appeals of New York clearly stated that a court should abstain from implementing remedies and only rarely should address the constitutionality of the method of funding schools. Thus, this case gives no support to Judge Reese's broad liability and remedy orders. In Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of Cincinnati v. Walter, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the method for funding public schools in Ohio was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Ohio stated that the trial court could decide in the declaratory judgment action whether the method for funding public schools in Ohio was constitutional. That court noted that, as announced in Marbury v. Madison , it is the court's duty to review the constitutionality of legislation, provided, however, that the court's scope is limited to review of the statute. In this present case, Judge Reese is limited to reviewing the constitutionality of the legislation; his order went beyond what is constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. v. Manchin, supra, addressed the issue whether a statutory provision designed to achieve salary equity among teachers was constitutional based on an earlier determination in Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979), that education was a fundamental right. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in Manchin conceded that it is the job of the legislature to take corrective action. Although Judge Reese cites Manchin, the Pauley decision appears to be more applicable to this case in that it addresses the fundamental right to an education. The Pauley court held that the trial court had incorrectly dismissed the case, stating that the current system of educational funding did not meet the state constitutional guarantees of a thorough and efficient system of education; the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for the trial court to determine if the minimum standards were being met. Therefore, these cases do not support Judge Reese's broad remedy order. In McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Educ., supra, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that Massachusetts's system of funding public schools was unconstitutional. The court granted declaratory relief only. Today's main opinion of this Court quotes footnote 92 from McDuffy: We have concluded the current state of affairs falls short of the constitutional mandate. We shall presume at this time that the Commonwealth will fulfil its responsibility with respect to defining the specifics and the appropriate means to provide the constitutionally-required education. McDuffy, 415 Mass. at 619 n. 92, 615 N.E.2d at 554 n. 92. The main opinion cites McDuffy for the proposition that the judiciary has the power to fashion specific remedies if action by the other branches of government is ineffective, where deference is made to the legislature with a caveat. 713 So.2d at 881. However, in footnote 92, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in discussing the actions of state courts that have declared state educational systems unconstitutional, stated: Ultimately, however, these courts left the task of defining the specifics of their State's educational systems to their legislative ... bodies. McDuffy, 415 Mass. at 619 n. 92, 615 N.E.2d at 554, n. 92. The note then discussed the Seattle and Edgewood cases and concluded: As did these courts, we have declared today the nature of the Commonwealth's duty to educate its children. We have concluded the current state of affairs falls short of the constitutional mandate. We shall presume at this time that the Commonwealth will fulfil its responsibility with respect to defining the specifics and the appropriate means to provide the constitutionally-required education. McDuffy, 415 Mass. at 619 n. 92, 615 N.E.2d at 554 n. 92. Thus, footnote 92 indicates that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts followed the lead of other courts and decided not to intrude into policy questions. Moreover, that court concluded: [T]hus we leave it to the magistrates [officials of the executive branch, e.g., the governor] and the Legislatures to define the precise nature of the task which they face in fulfilling their constitutional duty to educate our children today, and in the future. 415 Mass. at 620 n. 16, 615 N.E.2d at 555 n. 16. The opinion gives no support for the orders of Judge Reese.