‘Activist judge’ didn’t ask for schools case

? His order sent shock waves across the state last week: Cut off money for schools June 30 because the state law authorizing those funds is unconstitutional.

Senate President Dave Kerr called him an “activist judge” whose edict would not survive judicial review.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline said the judge’s order would take away decision-making authority from the governor, lawmakers and local school boards.

So how did Judge Terry Bullock find himself in this position?

“Just lucky,” he said. “I didn’t ask for it.”

Nor did he shy away from it. For the second time in his judicial career, the constitutionality of Kansas’ school-funding law was challenged in his courtroom.

In 1991, he convened a meeting of the state’s leaders, telling them he was going to throw out the school-funding law if they didn’t act. They did, rewriting the law in 1992, a move upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court two years later.

This time, he initially dismissed the latest challenge, was told by the Supreme Court to take another look, and ultimately found the law in “blatant violation” of the state and federal constitutions.

“If he’s activist, it’s because of the nature of the cases he ends up getting,” said Ed Williams, a Topeka lawyer who worked in the same law firm with him before Bullock was appointed to the Shawnee County District Court in 1976.

Williams said the bench is where Bullock belongs.

“He has the ability to get to the bottom line as quick as anybody I’ve ever seen,” Williams said.

Bullock issued his order three days after lawmakers left Topeka without adding any new money for schools or redirecting the way funds are distributed.

He had tentatively ruled in December that funding was inadequate and unfair, with too little resources aimed at those who need it most — poor, minority, bilingual and disabled students. He gave lawmakers and the governor until July 1 to address the issues raised in the suit.

Bullock rejects the label that has been applied to him.

“I’m not activist,” he said last week after issuing the order. “An activist judge would have written the school-finance law, or appointed a commissioner to take over the schools.

“I’m a very conservative judge. I said, ‘You boys do it, and girls.’ That’s the opposite of an activist judge.”

Because of the inaction on the part of the Legislature, he wrote in his order that the “correct step is not for the court to take charge of the school system,” but rather to “void” the unconstitutional law.

Kline contends the order delves deeply into issues that should be decided in the political process, not the courts. Bullock’s order included a list of musts and must-nots. Among the musts: a system based on actual costs and sufficient resources to close the achievement gap between those who do well in school and those who don’t.

The must-nots: wealth-based local-option budgets, weighting factors that favor some geographic regions over others or any revenue source that requires voter approval.

The list, Kline said, “would arguably take all the policy-making authority away from local school boards, away from the governor, away from the Legislature, and all they’re left with is paying a bill.”

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius shied away from the activist label, even though in his order Bullock appeared to dislike her school-funding plan as much as any that lawmakers proposed.

“I think he is a judge who cares passionately about this issue,” Sebelius said.

“And I think he clearly is frustrated.”

A Topeka lawyer who has appeared before Bullock dozens of times said he has never questioned the judge’s motives.

“He’s ruled against me on things that, by golly, I knew he was wrong. And sometimes I was right and sometimes I was wrong,” Pedro Irigonegaray said. “But regardless, he’ll do what he thinks is right.”