The briefs are piling up at the state Supreme Court. Earlier this month, the state Attorney General responded to the eight questions asked by the court. We thought the key questions were:
1) What will it cost to fund basic education? The AG answered,
The current estimated cost to the state to fully fund the program of basic education identified by ESHB 2261 and the implementation program established by SHB 2776 is approximately $19.7 billion for the 2017-19 biennium.
2) what will it cost to provide “market-rate” staff salaries? The AG answered,
The estimated cost to the State to fully fund salaries needed for school districts to recruit and retain staff to implement the State’s statutory program of basic education is not yet known. … various working groups have provided a range of estimates, but none of those estimates included all the information necessary to determine the State’s cost for compensation.
3) How will the state pay for increased cost? The AG answered,
This is a decision for the 2017 Legislature and cannot be answered at this time. The Legislature committed in E2SSB 6195, § 4 to take legislative action by the end of the 2017 session to fully fund the State’s statutory program of basic education and end school district dependence on local levies to implement that program.
On that last point, they provided a list of options that had been discussed, but with no recommendation because there is no consensus.
The AG also reiterated,
Because the State has satisfied the requirements in the Court’s January 2014 Order, there is no basis for continuing to hold the State in contempt and levying a daily sanction. The Court should dissolve the contempt order and terminate the daily sanction.
The brief is worth reading in its entirety. We found much of it compelling, but wondered: Would it please the court?
We’ll find out shortly. But we now know (no surprise here) the state’s response pleases neither the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who have filed their briefs in response. Here they are: SPI, Plaintiff.
Again, for those interested in following the issue closely, the briefs should be read in their entirety.
After going through the history of the decision and disagreeing strongly with most of the state’s arguments, the plaintiffs say the court has but two options. The first:
One: Issue a contempt sanctions order that gives the State’s 2017 regular session two options:
(a) choose to fully comply with the court orders and declaratory judgments issued in this case, or
(b) choose to have the State’s unconstitutionally funded school statutes struck down as unconstitutional, effective the first day of the 2017-2018 school year.
The second:
Two: Issue a contempt sanctions order that gives the State’s 2017 regular session two options:
(a) choose to fully comply with the court orders and declaratory judgments issued in this case, or
(b) choose to have all tax exemption statutes enacted by the legislature (instead of amply funding K-12 schools) struck down as unconstitutional, effective the first day of the 2017-2018 school year.
If the Legislature does not “fully comply” the schools must be closed or all tax exemptions passed by the legislature must be repealed. It’s not at all clear what that second option means, given that the definition of a tax exemption is not nearly as easy to pin down as the plaintiffs seem to think.
Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn issues a press release along with his amicus brief. In it he says,
The Court asked for the information because it is considering whether to lift the $100,000-a-day fine on the Legislature. I strongly urge the Court not to do so. In fact, in June I urge the Court to increase the severity of the sanctions…
Just as important, I also strongly urge the court to rule on this matter quickly, before election day. The two gubernatorial candidates recently held their first debate and failed to substantively discuss education funding.
The court will hear oral arguments September 7.
