Increasing Number of Legal Actions Challenge Constitutionality
of Budget Cuts
As states continue to reduce school aid, plaintiffs
have turned to an array of legal arguments in the hope
of preserving educational resources. Advocates and school
districts in various parts of the country filed challenges
last month. In Arizona, a lawsuit contends that the
Legislature’s failure to implement annual inflationary
adjustments to school funding, as required by a 2000
ballot initiative, violates a constitutional voter protection
provision. In Illinois, the Chicago Teachers Union has
alleged that class size increases violate safety codes.
Plaintiffs in New Jersey have invoked the state Supreme
Court’s jurisdiction, claiming that the Governor’s
budget violates specific court orders.
Arizona
In June, five school districts, the Arizona Education
Association, the Arizona School Boards Association and
several voters filed a special action before the state
Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the
Legislature’s fiscal year 2011 budget, which did
not include inflationary adjustments to foundation school
funding levels. Petitioners in Cave
Creek Unified School District v. Martin argue
that the budget fails to fulfill the requirements of
Proposition 301, a 2000 ballot initiative that requires
the Legislature to annually increase funding by the
rate of inflation (or 2%, if it is lower), and consequently,
constitutes a violation of Article IV, Part I §I(6),
the voter protection clause of the state constitution,
which bars the Legislature from repealing laws passed
through referenda, or amending said laws “unless
[it] furthers the purposes of such measure and at least
three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature”,
or diverting funds set aside for these initiatives.
At issue in the case is an ambiguity in the language
of the statute, which stipulates that the State make
upward adjustments in “base level [support] or
other components [of education funding],” or both.
The Legislature claims that its actions meet constitutional
muster, as this year’s budget includes an increase
in transportation funding—one small component
of school aid. In their complaint, plaintiffs appeal
to both the history of the referendum and precedent
to argue that the budget bill constitutes an illegal
amendment of Proposition 301. They appeal to precedents
and other statutes where “or” and “and”
have been construed to mean the latter, and explain
that the Legislature’s use of “or”
as a disjunctive would produce irrational results. There
“can be little doubt,” the complaint explains,
that voters expected “that [the measure] would
increase education funding so as to offset the effects
of inflation.” By choosing to increase funding
for only one component, the Legislature “must
always…[decrease] funding for education in constant
dollars,” thus flouting the voters’ will.
The State, they argue, must maintain general funding
for education and aid for other components.
The Supreme Court will decide to accept or reject the
special action on September 21. Petitioners ask the
Court to prohibit respondents, State Treasurer Dean
Martin and the State of Arizona, from implementing the
budget, and request that the Court rewrite the budget.
If they prevail, districts could receive an additional
$61 million, compared to the considerably lower $5 million
increase they received under the State’s interpretation
of Proposition 301.
Arizona consistently lags behind the rest of the nation
in per-pupil school funding, ranking 49th according
to a report
released last month by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Illinois
The Chicago Teachers Union, on June 8th, filed a
lawsuit against Board of Education of the City of
Chicago in the Circuit Court of Cook County challenging
defendants’ decision to increase class sizes to
35 students per classroom apparently in response to
the fiscal crisis. Plaintiffs charge that the presence
of 35 students and 1 teacher in each classroom “pushes…rooms
past the safety threshold,” in violation of the
Municipal Code of Chicago, §13-56-310. The plaintiffs
seek an order from the Court prohibiting the Board from
increasing class size.
New Jersey
During his brief tenure in office, first-term New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie has repeatedly targeted education
funding in his effort to close revenue gaps and balance
the state’s budget. In February, he issued an
executive order freezing $475 million in school aid.
His order directed school districts to tap into surplus
accounts in order to offset the loss in state funding,
a move sharply
criticized by advocates of equity and adequacy.
More recently, Christie proposed a budget that would
reduce education funding by almost $1 billion. Last
month, the Education Law Center (ELC), on behalf of
the Abbott v. Burke litigants, filed
a motion requesting the state’s high court
to block implementation of the 2010-2011 budget, which
fails to fund schools at the levels required by the
2008 School Funding Reform Act (SFRA). In Abbott
XX, the high court declared that special funding
for the Abbott districts was no longer necessary
and upheld the constitutionality of the SFRA, arguing
that it provided for a “thorough and efficient
education for every child.” The Court warned,
however, that providing adequate aid was a “continuing
obligation,” and ordered the state to provide
full funding each year and conduct a review of the formula
after its third year of implementation. If “any
deficiencies of the constitutional dimension”
were to arise, it would remediate. ELC lawyers argue
that the state has violated the constitution as it has
failed to meet its funding obligations, and consequently,
foreclosed the possibility of a three-year review of
the formula’s “full implementation.”
Last spring, in an unrelated case, the Perth
Amboy School District argued that Christie’s
executive order violated the separation of powers doctrine.
The state appellate court upheld Christie’s action
on the grounds that the funding cut was within his powers
in a time of “fiscal emergency.”
|
