On June 21, this newspaper ran a story about the still-pending school finance case and the fact that the court may well find that state funding of public K-12 education is inadequate and violates the Kansas Constitution. The theme of the article was that the uncertainty surrounding how the court will decide is, in fact, a “wild card” still unknown and still threatening the financial stability of Kansas.

There was nothing in this that was particularly new or surprising since the budget and tax bills finally passed by the Legislature this month and signed by Gov. Brownback provide a very small financial “cushion” that must protect the state against any and all unexpected revenue shortfalls or increased expenses. A court decision finding that the state is constitutionally bound to increase K-12 spending would undoubtedly use up all of the planned reserve and require either substantial new revenues or sweeping cuts to all other state-funded activities.

What I did find rather surprising — at least to the extent that a legislative leader would actually say it — was the quoted statement by Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce that he did not believe that a court decision “whatever it was … will move anybody into action.” If, by this statement, Sen. Bruce meant that the Legislature (and the executive branch?) would not act to correct whatever inadequacies the court might determine had to be corrected in order to bring K-12 funding into constitutional compliance, then his statement is radical in import and incredibly significant both politically and legally.

If Sen. Bruce was saying that the Legislature, in his opinion, is not inclined to comply with a final order of a duly constituted Kansas court, then the senator is suggesting nothing less than that Kansas may well face a constitutional crisis of unprecedented proportions and a potential breakdown in the fundamental structure of Kansas government: the separation of powers and judicial review.

Normally, I would be inclined to say that no Kansas legislator would ever suggest that such a dispute between the legislative and judicial branches might occur or that the Legislature might, in fact, refuse to comply with a lawful final order of a Kansas court. However, the animosity between the Kansas judiciary and the Legislature during the past several years and all that has happened up to this point, such as the change in the means of selecting judges for the Kansas Court of Appeals, this year’s judicial budget with its threat of “defunding,” and the often harsh words spoken by some Kansas legislators about the Kansas judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, gives me pause.

If Sen. Bruce and other legislators are, in fact, contemplating potential non-compliance with whatever the court may order in the school finance cases, I hope that they will seek dispassionate legal counsel before they take action — or fail to take action — and consider the consequences that might result from this.