Court Opinion

ID: 9691217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:16:55.893174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:13.139458
License: Public Domain

Carol Dalby, Special Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. There are two issues which preclude this court from recalling its mandate and appointing masters to review the work of our elected legislature. The first is jurisdiction, and the second is separation of powers. There is not a person involved in this case who wants to see another generation of Arkansas school children grow up, graduate, and we as a state fail to provide them with the education and tools they will need to compete and thrive in an ever increasing competitive and global market. It is inconceivable that any Arkansan would want our children to lag further and further behind because of an inability to provide a general, suitable, and efficient education. This is the very reason it is so enticing to heed the siren’s song and reenter this case; however, the very laws and rules of this court to which we must adhere should restrain the call for judicial activism. I have no doubt that had the legislature ignored Lake View School District No 25 v. Huckabee, et al., 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002) (Lake View III) and/or Lake View School District No 25 v. Huckabee, et al, 358 Ark. 137, 189 S.W.3d 1 (2004), and refused to enact a new system for funding public schools, this court would have jurisdiction. This court made it abundantly clear in its June 18, 2004, opinion that: We will not waiver in our commitment to the goal of an adequate and substantially equal education for all Arkansas students; nor will we waiver from the constitutional requirement that our State is to “ever maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools.” Make no mistake, this court will exercise the power and authority of the judiciary at any time to assure that the students of our state will not fall short of the goal set forth by this court. The legislature acted. The various parties may disagree with what was done, but the proper challenges to the recent changes and reforms to education in Arkansas must first be heard in the circuit court. The jurisdiction of this court is appellate only with noted exceptions. Ark. Const, amend. 80. There is no appellate jurisdiction in this case because there is no order from a lower court to review. Ward Sch. Bus Mfg., Inc. v. Fowler, 261 Ark 100, 547 SW 2d 394 (1977). The second issue which precludes this court from reentering this case is the time honored bedrock of our form of government and that is separation of powers. Our government is separated into three departments: the legislative department, the executive department, and the judicial department. Ark. Const, art. 4, § 1. Further, Article 4, § 2 of our constitution provides: No person or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted. This court has not been given, nor has it ever had the authority to maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools. Ark. Const, art. 4, § 1. That authority rests with the legislature. For this court to assume even an inkling of legislative authority weakens our judiciary and draws us into the Serbonian Bog from which we may never emerge. Like it or not, education and its reform in Arkansas rests with the legislature. If the people of Arkansas are not satisfied with what the elected representatives have crafted, then the people have the power to facilitate change. This court has courageously sounded the call for change. This court has acted with boldness and determination, but this court cannot and must not act beyond its constitutionally given powers. Hannah, C.J., and Gunter, J., join.