Topeka ? A standoff emerged Sunday as conservative Republicans vowed not a penny more for schools until the House approves a constitutional amendment that would prohibit the Kansas Supreme Court from ordering lawmakers to increase school funding.

The maneuvering occurred on Day 5 of the special legislative session called by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius after the state Supreme Court told lawmakers to increase school funding by $143 million, setting Friday as the deadline.

Tensions continued to rise Sunday and political rhetoric grew more strident as the day ended with little accomplished. Today, the Senate returns and will open up discussion on a proposed 8.3 percent state budget cut to fund an increase for schools.

Instead of complying with the court order, a number of Republicans have said the court overstepped its authority.

A proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit the court from telling the Legislature how to spend tax dollars was approved in the Senate.

But the attempt was rejected Sunday in the House.

Although favored 70-53, that was 14 votes short of the two-thirds majority – 84 votes – required to approve a constitutional amendment in the 125-member House. Sixty-nine Republicans and one Democrat voted in favor and 40 Democrats and 13 Republicans voted against it.

After the vote, conservatives said they wouldn’t discuss school funding until a constitutional amendment is passed and put on the ballot in August.

“I don’t see this special session being about education funding,” state Rep. Bonnie Huy, R-Wichita, said. “I see this session being about the separation of powers.

“Until we get a constitutional amendment, I do not intend to vote for any education bill.”

Rep. Julie Menghini, D-Pittsburg, gives a thumbs-down to indicate her vote during a round of voting on changing the Kansas Constitution. The Legislature's special session on school funding continued until late Sunday night.

State Rep. Steve Brunk, R-Wichita, added: “Eighty-four votes on a constitutional amendment would free up a lot of votes.”

But state Rep. Stephanie Sharp, R-Lenexa, said, “I would want signed affidavits before I would believe them.”

Her comment and those of others showed the deepening division between conservative and moderate Republicans.

As the evening wore on, state Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia, offered an education plan that would implement the 2001 consultants’ study that called for an approximately $1 billion increase in school funding.

The proposal was seen as a move by conservatives to get a legislative vote rejecting the study. But some Republicans were not amused.

“All this is, is publicity. All we’re doing is playing games,” state Rep. Jo Ann Pottorff, R-Wichita, said.

Mast’s plan was rejected.

Republicans also offered an $86 million plan that would have increased funding to the Lawrence school district by $1.4 million. It also would have allowed 17 school districts, including Lawrence, to increase local property taxes for teacher salaries. The 17 districts are mostly in northeast Kansas and the Wichita suburbs where housing expenses are more than 25 percent higher than the statewide average home value. A similar proposal was rejected by the state Supreme Court in its June 3 order.

The $86 million proposal also contained a number of provisions aimed at limiting schools from lobbying, making it more difficult for schools to sue the state for adequate funding and reducing the authority of the courts in settling the disputes.

The bill was rejected.

“Obviously we are a very divided caucus,” House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, said.

But he blamed Democrats for not helping pass the constitutional amendment.

Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley, of Topeka, was on hand for some of the day’s activities and dubbed the session “Mays malaise.”

House Democratic Leader Dennis McKinney of Greensburg said the House’s focus should be on complying with the court and coming up with the funds for schools. Then the Legislature should return in its next session in January to consider the amendment.

“Amending the constitution before our anger is tempered is not a good idea,” McKinney said.