Litigation Update: North Dakota, Wyoming, Kentucky, Alaska, Other States

North Dakota Parties Agree to Stay Suit

The nine North Dakota school districts that filed an adequacy lawsuit against the state reached an agreement with North Dakota Governor John Hoeven to stay the suit in exchange for increased school funding and an improved plan for funding schools statewide. The agreement, in Williston Public School District No. 1 v. State, also creates a North Dakota Commission on Education Improvement, which will advise the legislature on how to make the state’s funding system both adequate and equitable under the constitution. The lawsuit will be stayed until the close of the next (2007) legislative session; if by that time the legislature has approved recommendations of the Commission on Education Improvement and appropriated $60 million in new education funds for the immediately subsequent biennium, plaintiffs expect to withdraw the suit..

As reported in local papers, many are optimistic that the agreement will be an impetus for both sides to move towards an improved funding system without a drawn-out court battle. A cost study commissioned by the plaintiffs was released in 2003; it is unclear whether it will be consulted by the Commission on Education Improvement.

Wyoming Compliance Decision

A Wyoming judge has issued a ruling that declares some elements of the state’s school funding system unconstitutional. This ruling is the latest in a lawsuit in which more plaintiffs have joined and now include a majority of the state’s school districts, the Wyoming Education Association, and the Wyoming School Boards Association. The Wyoming legislature has responded diligently to previous rulings in the state’s long-running adequacy lawsuit, Campbell County School District v. State, and has just completed a mandated cost-study to revisit the state’s funding system. The latest compliance proceeding challenges components of that funding system and requests improved educational programming, including the notable demand for a state-funded preschool program. As reported in the Casper Star-Tribune, though both sides expect the decision to be appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, they are also optimistic that the state can use this most recent ruling as a blueprint for addressing some of the plaintiffs’ concerns in the 2006 legislative session.

Kentucky Motions for Summary Judgment, Delays

Both parties have met the deadlines for submission of summary judgment motions in Kentucky’s adequacy lawsuit, Young v. Williams. The case was filed in 2003 as two separate lawsuits, which were consolidated by the court in 2004. After defendants missed two deadlines for discovery of expert witnesses, and lead defendants David Williams and Jody Richards, the Senate President and Speaker of the House, refused to give depositions, the parties appeared before the court in October 2005. Expressing frustration with the slow pace of discovery, the judge set strict deadlines for parties’ summary judgment motions. The final defendants’ brief in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment is due on Friday, March 3; oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

The slow progress has proved difficult for the Council for Better Education, a plaintiff organization representing many school districts across the state. As the state drags its feet in complying with court directives, the Council’s limited budget has been stretched thin.

Alaska Defendant Denied Second Motion to Dismiss

On November 30, 2005, the Alaska Superior Court issued an order in the state’s school funding lawsuit, Moore v. State, denying the defendant state’s second motion to dismiss. The state had argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the state because of its sovereign immunity, that the plaintiffs failed to name all rightful defendants, and that several of the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case. The court rejected the state’s first two arguments in their entirety, but granted that the school districts named as plaintiffs lacked standing under their due process claim. However, the court then cited rulings by courts in other states that districts do have standing under the Education Clauses of state constitutions, and allowed the district plaintiffs to maintain that claim.

Facilities Compliance Proceedings in New Jersey; Legislative Activity in Arkansas, Texas, Montana; Missouri Amended Complaint Filed

The New Jersey Department of Education has issued a cost estimate of $5.3 billion for the more than 96 facilities construction projects required under an earlier court ruling in the long-running Abbot v. Burke case. The court recently ordered the Department to develop that estimate after the State Schools Construction Program ran out of money before they had completed construction in the state’s urban Abbott districts. Responsibility now lies with the legislature and governor to determine a system for funding the stalled projects.

Legislatures in Arkansas and Texas are waiting to hear from various funding and legislative committees before making changes to their states’ school funding systems, which have both been rejected by their state supreme courts. In Montana the governor has asked plaintiffs to discontinue the state’s adequacy lawsuit, arguing that historic increases to education funding were made last year; plaintiffs plan to file a status motion with the court this spring and, if necessary, ask the court to review the constitutionality of funding after the next (2007) legislative session.

The Committee for Educational Equality has filed a Second Amended Petition in Missouri’s school funding lawsuit, Committee for Educational Equality v. State. The amended petition amounts to a confirmation of the plaintiffs’ commitment to the lawsuit after the legislature and governor modified the school funding system during 2005. Plaintiffs hope the litigation will continue to exert pressure on lawmakers as they move through the 2006 legislative session.

Prepared by Nelly Ward, March 1, 2006