Let us direct you to this post from the Washington Research Council regarding the amicus filing from the state’s four former Attorneys General: Slade Gorton, Kenneth Eikenberry, Christine Gregoire, and Robert M. McKenna.
The WRC points out,
The former AGs specify that they are not saying anything on the merits or validity of charter schools; instead, they are “deeply concerned about the potential unintended consequences of the reasoning in the Majority’s opinion.”
Neatly dissecting the court’s logic, the AGs write that there’s no way the majority decision can be limited to charter schools. Other important education programs are implicated. They cite, for example, state-tribal education compacts and the program for highly capable students to attend the University of Washington.
Amici are deeply concerned that the rationale of the Majority’s opinion may be used to disrupt many facets of the state’s public education system that have grown up outside the common school model. And their concern does not end there. Once the general fund has been contaminated by commingling the general fund with common school funds, a good argument can be made that no expenditures from the general fund may be made except for the common schools.
That last bit is an obviously absurd outcome, but one flowing directly from the court’s reasoning according to the former Attorneys General.
Shifting to the editorial pages, the Columbian weighs in today with an editorial on charter schools. The editorial board disagrees with an argument made the 10 lawmakers calling on the court to reconsider because the ruling intrudes on legislative territory. But the editorial writers go on to say,
…the court indeed should reconsider the decision that overturned Initiative 1240, which was approved by voters in 2012 to allow for the creation of charter schools in the state.
There are plenty of reasons for the justices to change the ruling. Whether they will is anyone’s guess.
