Court Opinion

ID: 9668210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:05:44.20744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:43.542084
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
dissenting in part.
I agree in part with Justice Sandstrom’s analysis of the issues and application of the law. Although both the trial court’s opinion and the majority opinion conclude that a per-pupil-payment equality is not necessary in order that the statutory scheme pass constitutional muster, the evidence upon which they rely and their analysis of why the present scheme is unconstitutional discuss the issues on essentially a per pupil basis. In the same manner, the trial court and the majority opinion acknowledge the legitimacy of the factor of economy of scale, i.e., that the costs for educating students do not rise proportionally to the increase in the number of students, but do not apply that factor to the comparison of “rich” and “poor” districts and give no more than lip service to the factor in their reliance on per pupil comparison and per pupil analysis to reach their result. Without more, I cannot conclude that the evidence supports more than a finding of inequity — an inequity which has not yet reached constitutional proportions. A comparison of the very worst with the very best of 269 school districts cannot be the basis for finding unconstitutional disparity among all districts.
The challenge in this case closely resembles the challenge in Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299 (Minn.1993), where a majority of the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded the Minnesota scheme for funding education complied with the requirement that the legislature establish a general and uniform system of public schools.1 There are, however, two dramatic factual differences between this case and Skeen. In Skeen, the per-pupil-payment from the State was $2,953 (increased to $3,050 for 1992 and subsequent *276years). Here, as the majority notes, the State payment was $1,608 for the second year of the 1991-1993 biennium. However, the parties tell us, this case is not about the amount of money allocated for schools, but rather how the money is distributed.
The second difference and, if the plaintiffs’ argument is not that the Legislature has failed to fund the schools, the more significant difference, is that in Minnesota the fully equalized State funding rate was near 93% while North Dakota was at 52.8%. Although it is tempting to use this disparity as a reason for rejecting the Minnesota analysis, I agree with Justice Sandstrom that the evidence does not indicate a present inability on the part of the plaintiffs to provide an adequate education.
Despite my agreement in part with Justice Sandstrom’s opinion, I write separately to emphasize the most obvious teaching of Justice Neumann’s opinion, and that of the trial court, i.e., that the present system is fraught with funding inequities which I believe have not yet transgressed the rational-basis standard of review but which appear to me to be on a collision course with even that deferential standard.
As the opinion of Justice Sandstrom concludes, the education clause of our Constitution “does not require uniformity in education funding, only that the state ensure a basic level of education” and, according to Todd v. Board of Education, 54 N.D. 235, 241, 209 N.W. 369, 371 (1926), “this requirement is satisfied by provision for the creation of school districts and for a uniform system of schools in those districts.” Nevertheless, when the State requires a minimum curriculum as it seemingly must to achieve minimal “uniformity,” while at the same time it imposes a maximum mill levy, [see NDCC § 57-15-14]; regulates the assessment of taxable property [Article X, § 4, N.D. Constitution, Chapter 57-02, NDCC]; provides for assessment at the State level of certain property [Article X, § 4, N.D. Constitution]; exempts certain property from taxation [Article X, § 5, N.D. Constitution, see, e.g., NDCC § 57-02-08]; and exempts property from local taxation by means of “in lieu” taxes paid to the State [e.g., Chapter 57-51, NDCC (oil and gas gross production tax) and Chapter 57-51.1, NDCC (oil extraction tax) ], it is apparent that the school districts established to meet the requirement of Article VIII, N.D. Constitution, are far from unfettered in their ability to raise the necessary funds to implement the required minimum curriculum which is said to satisfy the “uniformity” requirement.
Regardless of the precise words used by the Legislature, the enactment of the State School Aid, “foundation program,” is a recognition that school districts are, under existing statutes, unable to raise the funds locally to provide an adequate education for the students in those districts. The “deduct” specified by section 15-40.1-06, NDCC, is recognition that the inability to locally raise necessary funds to educate students is not uniform, that the inability is greater in some districts than others, due, perhaps in part or even in total, to the previously described constitutional and legislative restrictions imposed on school districts. Because the “deduct” does not approach a pragmatic “school district equalization factor” as the title of section 15-40.1-06, NDCC suggests, it seems inevitable that the restrictions on the ability of school districts to locally raise necessary funds for education (read for minimum curriculum), when coupled with the failure of the “deduct” to “equalize” that inability through greater State revenue for those districts having insufficient local tax resources, will eventually require a conclusion that the scheme is unconstitutional at least as applied to the students in those districts. Although Justice Sandstrom concludes in his opinion that the parents and students have not, in this case, proven they have been denied a minimum curriculum taught by qualified teachers or that, by objective testing they have been denied a minimum uniform education, that proof may well be evident in the future under the present scheme.

. The Minnesota Constitution may appear even more specific in that it requires the Legislature to provide sufficient financing to secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the State. See Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299 at 301 (Minn.1993). The North Dakota Constitution, Article VIII, §§ 1, 2, 3, and 4, contains no such specific requirement as to financing. However, it is obvious that the Legislature must provide for the funding of education. See State ex rel. Walker v. Link, 232 N.W.2d 823, 826 (N.D.1975) ["Neither the Legislature nor the people can, without a constitutional amendment, refuse to fund a constitutionally mandated function.”]