Archive for Monday, October 7, 2013

School finance case to have political consequences, experts say

October 7, 2013


There will be a lot more at stake than just money for public schools on Tuesday when the Kansas Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a constitutional lawsuit challenging the state's school finance system.

According to political experts in Kansas, the case also could have far-reaching political consequences for the Kansas Legislature, Gov. Sam Brownback, and the Supreme Court itself.

"I think you're heading for a constitutional showdown," said Kansas University political science professor Burdett Loomis. "This is a rerun of what we did in 2005 and 2006."

That was when the Court ruled in an earlier case, Montoy vs. Kansas, that the Legislature had violated its constitutional duty to make “suitable provision” for financing public schools. It ordered lawmakers to increase school funding by hundreds of millions of dollars a year, based on studies that it said reflected the actual cost of providing educational services in the state.

That led to a lengthy special session in the summer of 2005, when conservative Republicans who controlled the House at first refused to pass a bill to comply with the Court's order. They argued that the Court had overstepped its bounds and that only the Legislature can decide how much money to appropriate.

At one point, the Court threatened to block the distribution of any money to local schools, which effectively would have shut down the state school system, until the Legislature complied with the order. Eventually, a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans overrode the conservative leadership and passed a bill that included the court-ordered funding.

Later, in the wake of the Great Recession, Kansas suffered a financial crisis beginning in 2008, prompting the state to make huge budget cuts across the board, including public school funding, virtually wiping out all of the increases that had resulted from the Montoy decision.

As a result, many of the same plaintiffs in the Montoy case filed the latest case, Gannon vs. Kansas. In January, a special three-judge panel that presided over the trial of that case ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered another massive increase in school spending.

But Loomis said the political landscape today is different than it was in 2005.

“Although the Legislature was reluctant, there were majorities and a governor (Democrat Kathleen Sebelius) who was pushing for it, so it worked out,” Loomis said. “This time you have a governor who is opposed, and a Legislature which is, if anything, more opposed.”

In addition, he noted that Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, rather than proposing to restore school funding as the economy recovers, has made it his top priority to focus on large tax cuts.

“It's really very similar to what you're seeing at the national level,” Loomis said, referring the budget stalemate that has forced a partial shutdown of the federal government. “And you also have this antagonism toward government in general, antagonism toward the schools and antagonism toward the Court.”

Chapman Rackaway, a political science professor at Fort Hays State University, agreed that if the pro-funding plaintiffs win again at the Supreme Court, it will likely result in another constitutional showdown between the Court and the Legislature.

And, like Loomis, he predicted that an unfavorable ruling for the state could lead to renewed calls for constitutional amendments that could take away the Court's authority to review school funding levels, or even change the way Supreme Court justices are appointed.

But Rackaway said he thinks it's more likely that Brownback and the Legislature will find some sort of compromise, possibly by shifting more of the burden for funding schools back to local districts.

Oral arguments at the Court are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

The Court will offer live streaming video of the proceedings from its website.

Education news
Have a story idea?
Contact Journal-World education reporter Elliot Hughes:


Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 7 months ago

The court is no longer in charge of school finance litigation, the legislature is.

As part of the legislature resolving the 2005/06 crisis, the legislature put into place a special system of legal appeals to ensure that control over school finance was clearly with the legislature, not the courts.

It is a unique legal system that is currently being followed by the plaintiffs.

So if legislators and the Governor are upset with the outcome, they should direct their ire toward the previous legislature and Governor, not the courts.

Dave Trabert 4 years, 7 months ago

If that were true, there wouldn't have been a District Court trial last year or a Supreme Court appeal this year. Courts are still in charge of school finance litigation.

chootspa 4 years, 7 months ago

They're in charge of determining if our legislators are meeting their constitutional duties to suitably fund education in this state.

jafs 4 years, 7 months ago

As they well should be, given our system and how it's supposed to work.

chootspa 4 years, 7 months ago

Exactly. Thank goodness the Kochs aren't in charge of doing that... yet.

KSManimal 4 years, 7 months ago

Woah! Stop the presses. Dave Trabert said something truthful


WilburM 4 years, 7 months ago

While I've almost never agree with Dave T. on substance, he's got it right in this instance. And the quotes from legislative leaders in this piece are staggering.

Thinking_Out_Loud 4 years, 7 months ago

You know, I've said several times that posters here are entirely too hard an Mr. Trabert. Too often we forget that civil discourse allows for others to have different points of view, or even different interpretations of the same information available to us all. There is room for all of us to have our say. However, we have become so polarized that we forget that when we disagree with someone, that that person him- or herself is not bad. We forget that just because we disagree with them on one thing...or even on most things...that person is not (will not be!) wrong on all things.

Civil discourse demands that we lighten up on Mr. Trabert on a personal level. We should be easy on people, but hard on issues.

tomatogrower 4 years, 7 months ago

Hopefully the courts can force these tea party lazy bums to do their real jobs, instead of the job that the Koch's hired them to do. They do not serve the people of Kansas; although that's who they are suppose to serve.

question4u 4 years, 7 months ago

The concern of the legal system is justice. The concern of Brownback and the majority of the Kansas Legislature is elimination of state taxes – so far for the wealthy only.

Justice and the Brownback agenda clearly don't coincide, so the legal system will have to be taken out of the picture. This is standard third-world practice. A legal system that protects the rights of those without power and influence is an American ideal and is simply not consistent with the Brownback vision for Kansas – and you'd get more justice (and wisdom) from a potato than from the Kansas Legislature.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 7 months ago

It was not a district court trial last year; it was a special three-judge panel.

A special three-judge panel that was ruling on the case based on specific guidelines set forth by the legislature. A special three-judge panel that did not receive the case until the legislature was given the opportunity to review the grievances and respond, which is a legal procedure unique to school finance..

The entire process is unique to school finance, set up specifically by the legislature to specifically avoid further legal action and influence by "activist" judges. The idea was that if the legislature was so lax in following its own actions in 2006, then the courts would be 100% within their rights to step in and in fact would have no other choice.

The plaintiffs and the courts are merely following the guidance of the legislature.

Peter Hancock 4 years, 7 months ago

The Memorandum Opinion and Entry of Judgment issued on Jan. 11 begins with the words, "In the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas ..." It was the Shawnee County court because that court has original jurisdiction in many cases in which the state is a defendant. But yes, it was a three-judge panel appointed pursuant to legislation passed after Montoy. You can view the district court opinion here:

Commenting has been disabled for this item.