Advertisement

Archive for Monday, January 14, 2013

Statehouse Live: Republican leaders considering constitutional change to thwart school finance ruling

January 14, 2013

Advertisement

— Kansas Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, said Monday that Republican leaders are considering putting a constitutional amendment on the April 2 ballot aimed at thwarting a court-ordered increase in school funding.

Republican legislative leaders on Monday held a news conference criticizing the court ruling that found the Legislature has shirked its constitutional duty in funding schools. From left to right are State Sen. Steve Abrams, R-Arkansas City, and chairman of the Senate Education Committee; House Majority Leader Jene Vickrey, R-Louisburg; House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell; Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, who is standing at the podium; and House Speaker Pro Tem Peggy Mast, R-Emporia.

Republican legislative leaders on Monday held a news conference criticizing the court ruling that found the Legislature has shirked its constitutional duty in funding schools. From left to right are State Sen. Steve Abrams, R-Arkansas City, and chairman of the Senate Education Committee; House Majority Leader Jene Vickrey, R-Louisburg; House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell; Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, who is standing at the podium; and House Speaker Pro Tem Peggy Mast, R-Emporia.

The discussion is in response to last week's ruling by a three-judge panel that the Kansas Legislature has failed its constitutional duty to provide adequate school funding. The panel said the Legislature must fulfill its earlier promise to fund base state aid at $4,492 per pupil, which would require a $440 million increase. Base state aid is now at $3,838 per pupil.

The judges also criticized the state's arguments that it had to cut school funding during the recession but then cut taxes.

Republican legislative leaders have decried the decision.

"We clearly disagree with the courts," said Wagle on the first day of the 2013 legislative session. "We believe they have overstepped their boundaries. We believe they should not be appropriators and that that role should be clearly left in the hands of elected officials."

Attorney General Derek Schmidt has filed notice to appeal the ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court.

A constitutional change must be adopted by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate and be approved by a simple majority of voters in a statewide election.

To get any measure on the April ballot, the proposal would have to win approval in the Legislature in early February.

The education article of the Kansas Constitution commands legislators to "make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." The Supreme Court has said in rulings in 2005 and 2006 that lawmakers must finance an adequate education for every child, keep up with rising educational costs and ensure that schools continually improve.

Wagle said there have been discussions among Republicans on possible amendments that would either remove the "suitable provision" or more specifically spell out that the Legislature is in charge of school finance.

In addition, Republicans are considering a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Gov. Sam Brownback more power in selecting appellate judges.

House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, said he was open to proposals to changing the constitution. "When you amend the constitution, it's giving the public a chance to vote, and I'm always for letting them express their opinion at the ballot box," Merrick said.

But Karen Godfrey, president of the Kansas National Education Association, said the Legislature should restore cuts that have been made to schools over the past few years.

"We've had lots of indications that our education system needs new funding and I think it's time for us to face up to that and quit trying to work around it," Godfrey said.

But Republican legislative leaders said the increase required by the court ruling would result in a tax increase. They said they want schools to be held more acceptable and provide better outcomes.

"There's a lot of issues that need to be looked at. It's not just about money," said Senate Education Committee Chairman Steve Abrams, R-Arkansas City.

Comments

Laus_Deo 1 year, 9 months ago

Beats executive orders to thwart the constitution as Dobama(the D is silent) does.

4

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 9 months ago

Obama is only following precedent set by his predecessor, "the decider", Bush Co.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html

3

bad_dog 1 year, 9 months ago

You really need it spelled out?.

1

Darrell Lea 1 year, 9 months ago

"Dobama (the D is silent)"...

Gee, I must be out of the loop on my pop culture references. I totally don't get this. Is it a Homer Simpson thing?

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 9 months ago

It's a reference to a Quintan Taratino movie that just came out, "Django Unchained," and the D is silent as the character says in the movie.

0

chootspa 1 year, 9 months ago

Oh, that clarifies it. Who would have suspected Zombie Penders of racism?

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 9 months ago

Product of the public school system there Harmon. The article clearly states it takes 2/3 majority vote from elected, say again elected officials plus a simple majority from the electorate. How is that NOT checks and balances?

0

pittstatebb 1 year, 9 months ago

The checks and balances come into rulings based upon the constitution as written. This is what has currently happened. No matter what semantics you use, the court cannot appropriate money. They have said that a certain amount of money needs to be appropriated to make the law in question constitutional. They have not appropriated money.

Now you could argue that by giving a dollar amount they have overstepped their reach. However, what would happen if they didn't give a dollar amount. How many times should be go through this cycle of lawsuit, ruling, change law, lawsuit, ruling, change law . . . Is it not better for the court to simply say, this is what you will have to do before we see this law as constitutional.

2

Mike1949 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, republicans don't care for constitutions! Either Federal nor State Constitutions! Harmon, where have you been? This has been going on for many years! We are in competition with some of the southern states for the worst education institutions world wide. Time for all Kansans to hang their heads in SHAME!

5

Niemoller 1 year, 9 months ago

Let our children down one more time and I may personally start a protest.

7

chootspa 1 year, 9 months ago

Money is merely one of the ways this state is letting them down.

6

Hawkanator 1 year, 9 months ago

That's their plan. The less educated the electorate is the more likely they are to vote for republicans.

21

chootspa 1 year, 9 months ago

Well if one was thinking, one may consider an economy to have more factors than just education level.

9

Shelley Bock 1 year, 9 months ago

Laus Deo, this is the stupidest of comments. Public education has been the mainstay of America for generations and made the US different from the rest of the world. "...a generation of government education" has not been a new fade or scheme. I suspect that your "non-public" education is failing you again, as it has in the past.

(Sorry about being so direct in my criticism, but couldn't stand this anymore without a response.)

12

tomatogrower 1 year, 9 months ago

A generation of government education???? Here let me fix that - generations, with an s. Government education has helped many break the cycle of poverty. Government education has intervened early with a child who has learning disabilities, so they can become functional adults, something private schools don't have to do. They only have to take the smartest, the problem free, and the richest. Of course they are more successful. Government education educates every child.

6

Steve Bunch 1 year, 9 months ago

Its (possessive), not it's (contraction). I learned that in a "government" school. Go figure.

7

verity 1 year, 9 months ago

You are trying to equate changing the U.S. Senate filibuster rules with a change in our state constitution? Yes, the situations are exactly the same.

4

Shelley Bock 1 year, 9 months ago

Senate rules on filibuster are simply rules that the Senate agrees upon prior to the commencement of business. Sort of like the "official" rules of baseball at the beginning of the season. It establishes how Senate business will be conducted and isn't found in the Constitution.

A Constitutional amendment is much. much more significant in that it establishes the foundation of laws and governmental business in the entire State. Not easily changed, I suspect that the battle will be in the popular election which needs only a majority while the measure must pass each legislative body by a 2/3 vote.

Seems like the mass of people will have to take charge and demonstrate to the legislature that this amendment is not appropriate.

If the proposed amendment is defeated and the Supreme Court affirms the lower Court decision, what are the means of enforcement? None seems to exist in the State Constitution. I don't know what powers the Supreme Court would have to force the legislature to allocate more funding for public education. Time will tell.

2

pittstatebb 1 year, 9 months ago

The court can order the closure of the schools. They threatened this the last time around.

1

Shelley Bock 1 year, 9 months ago

My impression, which could be wrong, was that threatened closure was based on inequities between the various school districts and how they received state aid and / or were able to generate funds based on the wealth of their district tax base. The most recent decision appears to be a decision based on state failure to fund the entire school system.

Closure to prevent disparity between districts would make some sense. To close all schools because the legislature doesn't fund it wouldn't make much sense, but would drive home the idea that extra funding was necessary.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

I agree. Hold the Speaker in contempt, fine him the equivalent 100% of his salary for about a week. If he doesn't comply with the court's orders, throw his butt in jail. For each day thereafter that the Legislature fails to comply with the court's orders, throw the next ranking member in jail.

1

tomatogrower 1 year, 9 months ago

Most Americans want a change in filibuster rules. If they want to filibuster, let them stand up there and do it. Oh, but they might miss one of the fund raising parties. We can't ask them to actually work, can we?

5

DScully 1 year, 9 months ago

Oh really? What Sam the sham and his minions want is to take the funding back to 1993 levels. Could you live on wages that you made back in '93? The ignorance of those who agree with the SB is astounding indeed! How sad for Kansas that we have such backwards thinking idiots in Ks government!!!

3

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 9 months ago

"We believe they have overstepped their boundaries."

Courts rule on the cases filed with them. That's their job. If there weren't a constitutional requirement that the legislature adequately fund public education, the courts could not, and would not, have ruled the way they did.

So the only recourse the legislature has is to go to voters and ask them to destroy public education, something they've been trying to do by withholding adequate funding.

Will they really have the guts to try to make the case that Kansas would be better off if public schools were destroyed?

11

question4u 1 year, 9 months ago

The Sudan doesn't have to provide "suitable provision" for the education of its citizens, so why should Kansas? After all, the Sudanese are running a whole country efficiently, not just a state.

The Sudan once had separation of power between the president, the legislature, and the judiciary, but now there's no need for all that bureaucracy. Power is in the hands of one leader and one party, as it should be. The Sudan is a great model now that Kansans don't want to follow a form of government based on American ideals. All that Kansans will have to do is vote against a constitutional protection meant to prevent abuse of power and the state won't be encumbered by concerns about the availability of equal education for all.

The sooner the state is free to cut education funding to unprecedented levels, the sooner the prosperity is going to coming rolling in. The Sudan has been a magnet for international corporations for years now, and their landscapes aren't any more picturesque than those here. The secret of their surge to the forefront of the world economy can only be their lack of investment in public schools. After all, the Sudanese are the ones who proved that funding has nothing to do with the quality of education.

9

Lane Signal 1 year, 9 months ago

I thought it was Missouri that proved funding has nothing to do with quality of education.

0

Larry Sturm 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes spend more money on a frivilous election than a school funding increase.

6

Tracy Rogers 1 year, 9 months ago

Hey Susan.....if the court would have ruled that current funding was enough would you still be trying to change the Constitution?

5

Larry Sturm 1 year, 9 months ago

Do any of these people have kids or grandkids in public school (WHAT ARE THEY THINKING)

1

cowboy 1 year, 9 months ago

LJW
where did your article go to ?

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 9 months ago

The class has gone rogue. The classroom's gone silent. The wealth of knowledge has grown lax in the face paint of lies. Only the tools of fools work, now.

We are lost in the foam spun under their wheels of pageant, dedicated to our elected and High Schooled Kings and Queens...that of Get, Got and only God's Goods in the Groveling of the scorned, denigrated and trampled. Those we wouldn't recognize in the glass over our blessed shoulders and focused eyes of private vision.

Let us now pave the way to wealth and the enslavement of the foolish children we've taught to follow the fox and coyote.

1

LegendaryBeast 1 year, 9 months ago

"In addition, Republicans are considering a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Gov. Sam Brownback more power in selecting appellate judges". Good God! The King of Brownbackistan already has enough power to destroy our state! Don't give him the ability to put his cronies into the only position that can stop his mad schemes!

5

oldexbeat 1 year, 9 months ago

probably will appoint himself somehow to Kansas Sumprem Court -- now that he won't be president or Vice President with that dumb a$$ governor in Texas. I mean, will he run for Senator again rather than let Dr. Timmy Huelskamp ("I'm the smartest person in Fowler, Kansas...") take Roberts' seat ? Just saying.

1

William Weissbeck 1 year, 9 months ago

That Citizen's United decision is a real "bit#@*" to the GOP now that they've discovered that crazies like Huelskamp can raise tons of money from every whack job fringe group to challenge "respectable" Republicans.

3

Joe Hyde 1 year, 9 months ago

Am I getting this right? Republican conservatives want a statewide referendum seeking public support for the legislature and/or Governor Brownback to:

A) continue, knowingly and with aforethought, violating an existing Kansas Supreme Court order;

B) keep deliberately underfunding public schools in defiance of a Kansas 3-judge followup ruling, and;

C) shield, now and in perpetuity, all Kansas legislators and governors from prosecution on contempt of court charges, whether individually or in large groups, by dissolving forever the the state judiciary's authority in deciding the legality of legislative actions.

Wow, that would really be some kind of constitutional amendment.

2

Shelley Bock 1 year, 9 months ago

  1. It hasn't been approved by the Kansas Supreme Court as of yet so is only a lower court order which is now being appealed.

  2. If this proposed Constitutional amendment is approved, it would restrict the Supreme Court from hearing the subject matter, school finance constitutionality. The legislature can establish what the court system hears. I suppose the alternative would be to proceed in Federal court for redress. Would the plaintiffs be willing to go that route and would the Federal court accept jurisdiction, which have to challenge the state on federal grounds or denial of rights flowing from the Kansas Constitution?

  3. If this amendment were to be voted on in April, could the State Supreme Court accelerate the appeal and order briefs and appearances immediately so that the Court's decision would be prior to an April election? That then would be the law and the amendment would only look prospectively. No next time, but this case would still be around. Legislature could find playing games with the Constitution is playing with fire.

1

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Since they're not funding the system at levels established to be constitutional by the KS SC a while back, I'd say they're still in violation of that ruling.

It's a bizarre idea. If the state constitution mandates a certain amount of funding (suitable), then it's the job of the KS SC to ensure they're following that. Removing the SC's ability to hear a case involving that removes their appropriate and important role in our system.

They really should just change the constitution and remove the term "suitable" from the school funding section - then they can provide whatever level they like without any issues.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Hey, if the majority of KS vote to approve such a change,...

It makes more sense than trying to dilute the role of the judiciary, in my view.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes.

But there's a difference between setting rules that a court is necessary in order to define and interpret, then trying to stop the court from getting involved, and simply not setting rules like that.

If the legislature wants to remove that sort of ambiguity from the constitution, and can get the appropriate votes as necessary, that's well within their rights. But, it's not within their rights, in my view, to try to cut the SC out of the loop when it has a legitimate role to play.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

No - I mean the rules set forth by the legislature, that they provide "suitable" funding for education. That's a hugely ambiguous term, one which needs interpretation.

Without that qualifier, there wouldn't be any need for court involvement, unless the legislature failed to provide any funding at all.

Amending the constitution, both at the state and federal levels, is perfectly within the bounds of our system, and was intended to be possible. On the other hand, I don't believe that cutting one out of the 3 branches would be.

0

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 9 months ago

The blind mandate of funding needs to have legislative oversight so they can test if the needs of the schools are being met. Three judges should not have that authority. Clearly the amendment was poorly written from the beginning and needs to be fixed to redirect the judgment portion of funding to the legislature and the people. From what I see, the move to technical learning, has a large cost in paying for massive bandwidth, rather than education with e-rate.

0

Shelley Bock 1 year, 9 months ago

The Kansas Constitution calls for a non-specified level of funding. Thus, the Court is empowered to assess it. The Plaintiffs used legislative studies to demonstrate the inadequacies of funding. The Defense brought in outside economists and failed to prove their case. Three judges were appointed to hear this matter rather than to leave it to only one. Even then, it was clearly a win for the student side.

How is something like this enforced if not clarified in the Constitution? I think that those in power at the time (Republican party types, I believe), wanted it as a standard to achieve, not something that would have to be litigated. They sure didn't anticipate the unwillingness of the Republican conservatives to follow their responsibilities.

2

Stuart Sweeney 1 year, 9 months ago

It is interesting these boneheads don't want to adquately fund our school. They would rather thwart a ruling than try to live up to their obligations!

4

usesomesense 1 year, 9 months ago

While I'm fiscally conservative and have on more than one occasion while talking to my kids about stuff they've learned in public schools cringed at some of the things they've learned I fully realize that not investing in education is an investment in long term failure. Perhaps it should be a prerequisite that all members of our government watch the movie "Idiocracy" and be required to pass a test to make sure they understood the movie before they are allowed to start voting on policies. It seems to me if they want to keep cutting funding for education they should just go ahead and have graduation after 8th grade, drop the drinking age, marrying age, full unrestricted driving age and work restrictions to 14 (and allow marrying your first cousin - maybe even your brother or sister while they're at it) - or they could just hitch a ride with Mr. Peabody in his 'Way Back' machine (along with Sherman) and see how well that has worked in history. Which is coming first here - the chicken or the egg? The assertion seems to be that public education has failed and the practice seems to be trying to ensure that it will.
True quality educators can make significantly more money NOT educating, but doing. Historically those types effectively took a pay cut to do what they love - educating. Unfortunately they still have their own bills to pay and will end up in the private sector.

5

Steve Bunch 1 year, 9 months ago

Don't forget to irrigate with GatorAde, too.

1

Lane Signal 1 year, 9 months ago

I think what Brownie and his dream team are trying to do here goes beyond low teacher salaries. I grant your point that many teachers choose to do something they love and make significantly less than they could in other jobs, but I think these cuts are taking things further. Teachers already make low pay, even before these more recent cuts. These cuts take away funds to maintain schools, buy materials and ensure the safety and health of our children. These cuts push more responsibility down to local governments to fund schools. Teachers working for peanuts was already baked into the model before these cuts were pushed. He's running out of adults to sacrifice on the alter of lowering taxes on the wealthy, so, Brownie is now sacrificing children.

6

William Weissbeck 1 year, 9 months ago

Hey, it's not like when we wrote in the Constitution that we would provide a free public education that we meant it. I mean it's not like a Federal Second Amendment right. Now that's something that's really important to a civilized society. Now there is the argument that even the US Supreme Court cannot overturn congressional action. Thomas Jefferson said that the proper remedy to a bad law was to vote out of office the guys who passed it. Of course the "Red State Brigade of AG's" didn't think that way in filing suit against "Obamacare."

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

"the parents of half the kids could care less about their student's performance".

I agree with reducing class sizes. I agree with increased pay for teachers. I agree with trying everything we can, even if it's just a hope that things will get better. These kids are our kids and they are our future. That said, schools can only do so much. Your last sentence is more true than I would like to admit, more true than any of us would like to admit. Ninety nine percent of the failure of schools can be linked back to that last sentence, in my opinion.

2

Steve Bunch 1 year, 9 months ago

The only class size being reduced is that of the middle class.

4

Steve Bunch 1 year, 9 months ago

Reducing class size. Pay attention.

0

msezdsit 1 year, 9 months ago

Anything to attack those pesky kids. The dumber they are the easier they are to manipulate.

1

beeline 1 year, 9 months ago

The legislators disagree with the court, but want to change the law because they know what the legislature has been doing is wrong. The legislators will probably vote to change the constitution, but we get a chance to vote also on this issue. It will be simple majority for our vote. Let's see how the majority of individual Kansans feel about education funding. Start to think about how you will vote.

1

tomatogrower 1 year, 9 months ago

They should be mandated to fund the schools according to their own study that was done. That's even more than the courts mandated. They pay some crony for a study, thinking that it will say what they want it to say, then when the study says they are woefully underfunding schools they just ignore it or try and change the wording, so they don't have to to do what is their responsibility. Despicable creeps is the only word I can come up with to describe these people and not have my post removed, it's not what is going through my head right now.

3

William Weissbeck 1 year, 9 months ago

It works so long as the Blue Valley schools pay for those in Dodge City, Salina and Topeka. Funding schools with primarily property taxes made sense in the horse and buggy days. Not so much anymore. Plus, you can't "starve" the schools to the point that local parents end up paying for the "extras." Again, the Blue Valley parents have a much greater ability to pay for buses and band. The balancing act is looking to the top tier public schools to determine what is "basic and necessary" including programs funded by other sources and using that as a guide to fund the rest of the schools.

2

chootspa 1 year, 9 months ago

Or we could repeal the changes in our income tax code.

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 1 year, 9 months ago

Ah yes, old slippery Sue is at it again. If you remember, this is the jerk that attempted to torpedo classes she disapproved of at KU with defunding those curriculua.

She has a never ending desire to impose her Sharia-style religious flubdubbery on all citizens so that they will toe the facist republican line. She is champing at the bit to have her religious fraud taught in all the public schools, along with flim-flam Sam and his fellow wingnuts.

This should be fair warning to the voters when they approve idiots like Wagle for public office.

6

Jean Robart 1 year, 9 months ago

This is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels and in so many ways, that it is a necessity that if it is placed on the ballot as an amendment to the state constitution, it MUST BE DEFEATED. And before I am accused of being a liberal, i am a registered Independent who normally votes for conservative candidates. I regret voting for Brownback---now that he is showing his true colors. Why is it so difficult for people in a position of leadership to listen to the voice of the constituents and govern the way they, the public, have vocally expressed?

1

Jean Robart 1 year, 9 months ago

sorry for the convoluted assessment. I just realized it was done in a really long sentence which came out of a series of stuff running through my convoluted brain.

0

fan4kufootball 1 year, 9 months ago

The State of KS does not require public funding of Kindergarten . Does the amount per pupil include those student?

0

Patricia Davis 1 year, 9 months ago

For all of the Kansans who are allergic to voting Democrat, see what your continued support for a Republican party that is not your parent's Republican party has gotten you. It will get worse...until we finally get the balls to take back our government and shove these Tea Bagger Christian wing nuts to the curb. Until then, hope you enjoy those mega property tax increases coming our way.

3

Steve Bunch 1 year, 9 months ago

I think the point is that "thwarting" is probably not in Wagle's vocabulary.

1

sciencegeek 1 year, 9 months ago

How dare the judiciary rule against the wingnuts! Don't they understand that these are "the chosen ones"? NO ONE has the power to tell them what they can or should do!

If you don't like the outcome, change the rules. What a five-year-old would call "cheating".

5

valgrlku 1 year, 9 months ago

I recall having a conversation in a graduate-level education class here at KU about a decade ago where we discussed these same Kansas education funding issues (read: it is not a new predicament in this state). I vaguely recall the professor putting much of the blame for lack of state funding on the considerable decrease in property tax in the 1990s (car tags, etc.).

Does anyone have numbers or additional information as to whether that assertion holds true? I know that when I bought a new car (under $11k) in 1991, the taxes/registration were MUCH higher than when I bought one in 2003 (a $21k vehicle). It seems pretty logical that we can't keep lowering taxes and expect to fund basic structural necessities, although it would appear many Republicans feel the opposite is true.

1

DScully 1 year, 9 months ago

Keep them stupid, that's Sam's motto.

1

mcontrary 1 year, 9 months ago

Just the true characters of the legislators showing, greed for themselves and generosity for no one who needs it. As a commenter ahead of this message said, keep 'em stupid. Anyone who supports their agenda must be stupid if they haven't yet figured out that the people being disenfranchised are them, the same idiots taken in by these self-serving, greedy little minds. No taxes, no services is a grand agenda only for those at the top, not the rest of us who have little to tax, poor to no healthcare, and now, no education. Keep up the good work Brownie!

2

bevy 1 year, 9 months ago

Let's hope if these maroons do manage to get this thing on the ballot, that voters will TURN OUT and VOTE NO! Maybe this is the shakeup that's needed to get people off their butts and out to the polling places. Just be sure to bring your ID...

0

lawslady 1 year, 9 months ago

Note Hepburn's comment. Even if a majority of Kansas voters approved a Constitutional amendment (to the KS constitution, not the US one), it can only impact things that happen in the future, going forward. Such a change would not be able to undo the past. If the final court of appeal to hear this school finance case decides the state violated the constitution that was in effect at the time the offenses are alleged, and orders $ paid as a result, the new amendment (no matter what it says) cannot take away the vested rights that accrued under the older version of the law. Someone needs to get this information across to the law makers if they think that they can fix what was broken in the past by changing the rules going forward.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 9 months ago

I'd be surprised if they try for the constitutional amendment. To pass it, they'd have to be very specific that their intent is to effectively dismantle the public school system, and most small communities around the state strongly identify with their schools-- probably as much as they identify as Republicans.

I suspect what they'll do instead is to change the way judges are appointed so that the courts become highly politicized. That would be a much safer hedge against all kinds of rulings of this type, which was ruled on based on the merits of the case, not the political/ideological goals of the politicians who want to ignore the pesky constitution, which is what they really want.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Maybe so.

But, as long as plaintiffs can appeal to the KS SC, they'll have another remedy available if they lose at lower levels.

0

Duffman 1 year, 9 months ago

Riddle me this .... why did these brain jobs wait till now...? Kick backs ....not to mention lawyer fees.. got spent around over the last year and this one word could have been removed last year right? I mean, could this not have been done last year ...Case closed..Money saved, and it is Our Money....why?

On a side note I think they should all be held in contempt.

This is how they operate? Rewriting what we all agree is at least a decent concept...WOW

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 9 months ago

Republican leadership and many sheep are against public education. They likely want school vouchers which pulls tax dollars from public school money. Therefore reducing funding for public education helps fund the vouchers.

Vouchers is means by which to fund private schools with tax dollars. I believe this could be "money laundering for corp welfare" . I'm sure this Brownback team wants to funnel money into the fundamentalist private school business.

Why on earth Kansas thought Brownback was an old school fiscal conservative socially responsible republican shows that too many have not been paying attention. In fact the entire republican delegation in DC as we speak is more of Brownback....... those that get the big special interest campaign dollars.

Although Tom Holland is a conservative democrat he would have been a much better fit for Kansas. Absolutely.

0

Bike_lover 1 year, 9 months ago

Humm, this is a good idea because low taxes will attract industry and increase jobs?

Industry that's attracted to poor quality schools isn't likely to bring good jobs. It's "would you like fries with that?" jobs for Kansas children!

Or, is this a way for the homeschooling set to avoid educating all those "other" kids?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.