Litigation Update: South Carolina, Missouri, and Arizona

South Carolina Attorneys Present Closing Arguments
On December 9, in closing arguments before Judge Thomas W. Cooper, Jr. of the Court of Common Pleas, attorneys for poor, rural school districts and students vied with an attorney representing the state in South Carolina’s school funding case.

After 101 days of trial in the 11-year-old Abbeville v. State case, plaintiffs urged Judge Cooper to declare the state education finance system unconstitutional and require defendants to develop and fund a new school funding system that adequately meets the educational needs of students in the plaintiff districts. As reported in The State newspaper, defendants argued that students in these poor districts are making the same steady progress as students in other parts of the state and urged the judge to reject plaintiffs’ allegations.

The trial court’s decision is expected next summer.

Interestingly, Judge Cooper is a former educator. Carl Epps and Steve Morrison, from Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, argued for plaintiffs and Bobby Stepp argued for defendants.

Missouri AG’s Motion for a Stay Countered by Plaintiffs
Missouri’s attorney general submitted a motion for a stay in the preparations for trial, in Committee for Excellent Education (CEE) v. State, the Missouri school funding case. Plaintiffs countered by asking the court to grant the stay only if the court also issued a preliminary order declaring the funding system unconstitutional.

On December 2, State Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan ruled that he would grant the state’s request if the state concedes that the system now in place violates the state constitution. Judge Callahan gave the state 15 days to decide whether it agrees that the system is unconstitutional, but a spokesperson for the attorney general indicated that the state would not make such a concession and planned to defend the current funding system.

Plaintiffs filed their equity and adequacy case in January of this year based on the Missouri constitution’s education article. Discovery has been ongoing. A few months ago, the attorney general tried to hire attorneys from a Georgia law firm to assist in the case, but only one of the attorneys satisfied Missouri’s residency requirement.

In November, the state asked for the stay of all proceedings until the end of the legislative session next May, in the expectation that the legislature will put a solution in place by that time. Judge Callahan held a hearing on the motion and issued his decision the same day.

Arizona Motion Seeks Adequacy for ELLs
On December 13, 2004, the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) filed a motion to expedite and a motion for injunctive relief in the long-standing federal case on behalf of English language learners, Flores v. Arizona. Plaintiffs won their claim that the state is failing to adequately fund programs for ELLs.

In 2002, the parties reached agreement on a Stipulation and the court ordered a costing-out study. Performed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the study revealed a major shortfall in funding for these students. As reported by Pat Kossan in The Arizona Republic, Tim Hogan, of ACLPI, said, “I want to make sure we don’t go through another legislative session without solving this problem.”

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, December 14, 2004