Idaho Supreme Court Declares State Funding System Unconstitutional and Retains Jurisdiction

On December 21, 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the state district court's conclusion that “the current [school] funding system is simply not sufficient to carry out the Legislature's duty under the constitution,” in Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity (ISEEO) v. State (ISEEO V). The court based its opinion on what it described as “the overwhelming evidence in the record documenting serious facility and funding problems in the state's public education system,” including the state's own school facilities needs assessments. The “evidence not only supports, but compels the district court's conclusion,” the court found.

Call for Legislative Action

The court did not set a deadline but “will retain jurisdiction to consider future legislative efforts to comply with the constitutional mandate. . . .” Although the court stated that the remedy “must be fashioned by the Legislature and not this Court,” it provided several examples of remedies adopted by other states to “demonstrate that there are options available to assist school districts. . . .” “We leave the policy decisions to [the Legislature],” the court said, “subject to our continuing responsibility to ensure Idaho's constitutional provisions are satisfied.”

The lone dissent in this 4-1 decision recommended that the supreme court appoint a special master or masters to analyze the situation in more detail so the court “could tailor an order that sets a precise roadmap with identified tasks and deadlines.” The dissent pointed to the Arkansas Supreme Court's recent use of masters in that state's school funding case.

Reactions

As reported in The Idaho Statesman, legislators, including House Speaker Bruce Newcomb and Senate Education Committee Chair John Goedde, reacted positively to the decision and seemed optimistic about enacting a remedy. Plaintiffs' attorney Robert Huntley said that he thinks “the Legislature should pay for 30 percent of school bonds passed by voters and half the tab for maintaining school buildings,” according to The Statesman. That would amount to about $33 to 38 million per year.

History of Delay

The ISEEO plaintiffs filed their case in 1990, under the state constitution's education article, which states that:

The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.

In 1993, the state supreme court denied the state's motion to dismiss the case. Subsequently, through a series of procedural phases, the case has been narrowed to the issue of the legislature's “duty to provide a means for school districts to fund facilities that offer a safe environment conducive to learning.”

In 2001, after a trial that documented dilapidated and unsafe school buildings, the district court held that the state system for financing school facilities is unconstitutional. The court cited the fact that the funding system relies exclusively on local property taxes for school construction and renovation even though many districts lack adequate funding capacity.

Instead of enacting a remedy, the legislature enacted a law that would have ended the lawsuit. Predictably, the courts found that law unconstitutional. See the ISEEO IV decision. But, that legislative strategy delayed a decision on an appeal of the trial court's 2001 decision on the merits until now.

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, December 28, 2005