Litigation Update: Kansas, Arkansas, Nebraska,
New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Maryland
Kansas Supreme Court Schedules Briefing and
Oral Argument
Facing an April 12 court-ordered deadline in the Montoy
v. State school funding adequacy case, the Kansas
legislature revised the state education finance statutes
in early April, and now awaits the Kansas Supreme Court’s
judgment on the changes. The day after the legislature
adjourned, plaintiffs, who consider the changes to be
“totally inadequate” according to a report
in the Lawrence Journal-World, filed a motion
in the Kansas Supreme Court.
The court quickly issued an order that set tight briefing
deadlines, scheduled oral argument for May 11 and, also,
pointed out that “the burden of proof has shifted
to the defendants to show that the Legislature’s
action has resulted in a suitable provision for the
financing of education.” “Suitable provision”
is a key phrase in the Kansas Constitution. After hearing
oral argument, the supreme court could decide to: (1)
hold hearings or appoint special masters to determine
if the changes bring the finance system into constitutional
compliance; or (2) rule on that question without further
proceedings.
Plaintiffs Win as Nebraska Supreme Court Denies
Intervention
In Nebraska’s Douglas County v. Johanns
school funding case, the state supreme court affirmed
the trial court’s ruling that denied a Motion
to Intervene filed by the Lincoln Public Schools (LPS).
The supreme court described LPS’s motion and complaint
as “chameleon-like” because it “alleges
that it has a direct legal interest in defending the
constitutionality of the school funding statutes and
that if the funding statutes are unconstitutional, it
seeks the same relief that OPS [Omaha Public Schools]
might receive.”
Plaintiffs had opposed the motion, and their attorneys
have indicated that intervention would have led to,
inter alia, significant additional costs to
all parties and lengthier proceedings. Ultimately, even
LPS will likely benefit from the court’s decision.
New York
Immediately after the State of New York filed an appeal
of the latest trial
court order in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity
(CFE) v. State case, plaintiffs were in court to
file a Motion to Vacate the Stay. The motion, if granted,
will lift the automatic stay that the state receives
in such appeals. The trial court order includes a 90-day
deadline for the state to remedy its unconstitutional
school funding system. Thus, the stay appears to contribute
to the state’s ongoing tactic of delay in this
case. In the alternative, plaintiffs seek an expedited
appeal.
These proceedings follow from the state’s failure
to meet the July 2004 deadline set by the state’s
highest court, the Court of Appeals, for enacting a
remedy in the CFE case. In August 2004, the
case returned to the trial court, where Justice Leland
DeGrasse appointed a panel of special masters (referees),
which held two-months of hearings and issued recommendations
that the court adopted in an order finalized in March
2005.
North Carolina
Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning continues
to hold hearings in that state’s adequacy suit,
Leandro v. State (also known as Hoke County
v. State). Judge Manning has asked the parties
to address urban schools issues and present arguments
about remedies. Meanwhile, the governor and state legislature
are proposing funding changes and an “education
lottery,” but have not yet finalized any of these
proposals or reached agreement on next year’s
budget. Judge Manning has not issued any rulings since
the North Carolina Supreme Court held
unanimously for plaintiffs in July 2004. In that
opinion, the supreme court concluded that students in
poor, rural counties were failing at alarming rates
and that it was necessary to "hold the State accountable"
for the many programs and services not provided to these
students. The court stated that, "The children
of North Carolina are our state's most valuable renewable
resource," and emphasized the duty of the state's
courts to act to prevent further harm to students.
Arkansas
Feeling that the legislative and executive branches
have reneged on their commitment to education, made
last year in response to the Lake View v. Huckabee
school funding suit, the Lake View intervenor
Rogers School District has filed a motion in the Arkansas
Supreme Court. The motion asks the court to recall its
mandate and issue an Order to Show Cause, accusing the
State of civil contempt for failure to comply with the
court’s orders in Lake View case. Rogers asserts
that the legislature failed to perform the annual assessment
of foundation funding and that its budget for the 2005-06
school year under funds education significantly.
Arguably the most contentious education issue in Arkansas
currently is the state’s threat to consolidate
many rural school districts, which it did last year
to the original plaintiff Lake View district.
Opinions Pending in Maryland and South Carolina;
Discovery Proceeding Elsewhere
The parties to South Carolina’s school funding
adequacy case, Abbeville v. State, anticipate
a decision from the trial court in June or July, after
concluding the trial in December 2004. Attorneys in
Maryland’s adequacy case, Bradford v. Maryland
State Board of Education, expect a decision soon
from the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state’s
highest court) on the appeal of the trial court’s
ruling that ordered a small amount of additional funding
for the Baltimore City School District to avoid program
cuts and teacher layoffs.
Discovery is proceeding in North Dakota, Missouri,
Nebraska, Kentucky, and other states with active school
funding litigations. Trials are scheduled to begin later
this year, in North Dakota’s Williston Public
School District v. State, and next year in some
cases. In Nebraska, two separate school funding litigations
are proceeding. In July, the trial court will hear oral
argument on a motion to dismiss in the case filed by
rural school districts, Nebraska Coalition for Educational
Equity and Adequacy (NCEEA) v. Johanns.
Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, April 20, 2005
|
