Constitutional Amendment Proposed in Kansas

The House Committee on Education in Kansas is seriously considering a constitutional amendment that would remove the Kansas Supreme Court from disputes over funding public education. The amendment would require a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate before going to a statewide ballot vote. Currently, Art. 6, sec. 6 of the Kansas Constitution reads: “The Legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” The amendment, HCR 5010, would change the provision to read: “The Legislature shall provide the equitable distribution of public school funds in a manner and amount as may be determined by the Legislature.”

According to attorney John Robb who litigated the Montoy case, the amendment, and the new conservative shift in state government, should be taken seriously. Says Robb, “In Kansas you’ve got to look at who is proposing it and is the person proposing it have any wherewithal, and the people proposing that one are big guns…We’re talking really radical stuff here.” Robb and other education advocates are paying close attention to the legislative developments on this issue.

Robb has filed a new litigation, Gannon v. State of Kansas,  on behalf of  Schools For Fair Funding, U.S.D. 259 Wichita, U.S.D. 500 Kansas City, U.S.D. 308 Hutchinson, U.S.D. 443 Dodge City and 32 representative Kansas students to challenge the state’s failure to follow through on the funding promised in response the state Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Montoy. A bill that the State Senate enacted last week and sent on to the House would reduce appropriations for Kansas schools by another 6% on top of 9.5% in recent cuts. The $755 million in new money slated to be appropriated as a result of the Montoy case would be reduced by about $455 million.

Meanwhile, in Shawnee Mission v. State, in which a wealthy district is challenging a state cap on local property taxes, U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrom last week asked plaintiffs’ attorneys to draft an injunction that “would not trigger a complete meltdown of the Kansas school funding system.” Alan Rupe, an attorney for parents elsewhere in the state who oppose lifting the cap and an attorney for Gannon v. State,  said the state formula can not be taken apart piecemeal, and attempting to sever one element from the rest would disrupt funding across the state. Rupe and Robb filed a Motion to Intervene on behalf of Schools for Fair Funding and the 32 student plaintiffs of Gannon.