Litigation Update: Arizona, Arkansas, and Idaho

In the past month, an Arizona appellate court upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a challenge to the state’s school funding system, and the Arkansas Supreme Court extended its jurisdiction over the Lake View school funding case for an additional six months. The Arizona plaintiffs will appeal. In a third case, a recent trial court judgment in Idaho added to the confusion surrounding the state’s long-running facilities funding case, ISEEO v. State.

Summary Judgment in Arizona Will Be Appealed

A divided Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in November that the state defendants were entitled to summary judgment in Crane Elementary School District v. State, where plaintiffs claimed that the school financing system deprived low-income, “at-risk” students of their constitutional right to a “meaningful opportunity... to receive a basic education.” The court’s ruling upholds the system against plaintiffs’ claims.

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs argued that the significantly lower scores of at-risk students on the AIMS test – Arizona’s high school exit exam – indicated a violation of those students’ constitutional right to an adequate education. According to Arizona Lawyers for the Public Interest attorney Tim Hogan, who filed the lawsuit in 2001, low-income students at the eighth-grade level have a passing rate on the exam less than half that of their higher-income peers. Plaintiffs asked the court to (1) rule that the state’s school finance system was illegally arbitrary because it was unrelated to the actual costs of educating students, (2) order the state to adopt standards of “adequate school operation” and determine the costs meeting those standards, and (3) to remand for trial on whether the state was providing the resources necessary “to provide at-risk students a meaningful opportunity to achieve the state’s academic standards.”

The trial court in the case dismissed it as non-justiciable in November 2003. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision on justiciability but still ruled against the plaintiffs. The opinion of the appellate court, written by Judge Philip Hall, stated that since the state is entitled to “a strong presumption that [the finance system] is constitutional,” the court could not order the state to undertake the cost-based approach to school funding requested by the plaintiffs.

In addition, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims based on AIMS data and granted the state summary judgment. The constitutionality of the finance system, the court ruled, is based on whether it provides “a meaningful opportunity for all students to receive a basic education,” not on the “attain[ment of] a particular achievement level.” Drawing on the 1994 school facilities financing case Roosevelt Elementary School District v. Bishop, the court ruled that the language in the constitution (saying that the state must provide for the “establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system”) only requires that the state “provide sufficient funds to educate children on substantially equal terms.” Interpreting this as meaning that the legislature is not required to “overcome disparities that it had no role in creating,” the court ruled that disparities in test scores alone could not provide sufficient evidence of disparities in educational opportunity and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.

Judge Donn Kessler dissented, writing that since the state has set the AIMS test as the standard of an “adequate education,” it is constitutionally required to provide “sufficient programs and funding to give ‘at-risk’ students an equal opportunity to pass the AIMS test.” Even though the state may not have created the disparities between the test scores of low-income and higher-income children, it is still required to give all students enough resources and funding so as to have an equal opportunity to pass the exam. The AIMS test data, Judge Kessler argued, is “sufficient evidence” to preclude summary judgment and to require a trial on whether the disparities in test scores are causally linked to the state’s funding system. Plaintiffs plan to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Extension of Jurisdiction in Arkansas

On December 1, the Arkansas Supreme Court decided to extend for six months its jurisdiction in Lake View School District v. Huckabee, saying that the court “[has] not been provided with the necessary information to make an informed decision.” The court had originally set December 1, 2006 as the deadline for state compliance with its December 2005 ruling that the legislature was in violation of the state constitution and had to increase funding for public schools.

In April 2006, the state legislature met in special session to approve more than $132 million in additional education funding. In November, attorneys for the plaintiff school districts filed a motion asking the to court retain jurisdiction of the case until it can rule on whether the legislature’s actions have addressed the issues raised in the 2005 ruling. Though the court said it had no desire to “monitor” the actions of the legislature, it nonetheless ruled that “nothing has been provided…concerning the action taken or how that action addressed this court’s constitutional concerns,” and agreed to keep the case open. The court ordered the state to provide documents and reports regarding the updated school funding system within 30 days, reappointed the two Special Masters in the case to review the information, and said it would rule in six months on whether the state was in constitutional compliance.

In his dissent, Chief Justice Jim Hannah argued, “the expectation [of documents and reports] expressed in the majority opinion will likely come as quite a surprise to the State Defendants.” According to the Arkansas News Bureau, state Attorney General Mike Beebe agreed, claiming that the court had not previously requested any of the information for which it was now asking. In addition, Governor Mike Huckabee harshly criticized the decision to retain jurisdiction, accusing the justices of “usurping the constitutionally stated limitations and separations of powers.”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys were pleased with the ruling. David Matthews, attorney for the Rogers School District, told the Arkansas News Bureau that the ruling was “not a reflection on the Legislature or the governor; it’s simply a recognition that there are facts that need to be gathered before the court’s going to know whether or not their commitment – their order – has been met.”

Confusion in Idaho

On November 30, Idaho Fourth District Judge Deborah Bail ruled that she has no jurisdiction over the state’s long-running case challenging the constitutionality of the state’s system of funding school facilities. Judge Bail’s ruling is the latest in a series of events that have many lawyers in the state confused as to the status of the lawsuit.

In December 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled in its fifth decision in ISEEO v. State that the “the current [school] funding system is simply not sufficient to carry out the Legislature’s duty under the constitution.” Leaving the details of how to remedy the constitutional violation to the Legislature, the Court said it “will retain jurisdiction to consider future legislative efforts to comply with the constitutional mandate.”

The Legislature responded in the spring by passing a $25 million increase in school facilities spending, a measure criticized by the plaintiffs as inadequate. One week later, the Idaho Supreme Court Clerk informed attorneys for both sides that the case was closed and had been since January 2006. Robert Huntley, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Idaho Statesman that he wanted the Supreme Court to send the case back to Judge Bail, in order to let her decide if the new law had remedied the constitutional violations. Simply closing the case, Huntley said, is “an abdication of responsibility” and “a cop-out to avoid confrontation with the legislature.” Huntley claims the court is violating the state constitution’s guarantee to “a speedy remedy” as well as the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of due process.

Judge Bail allowed a hearing on the issue in October, but she said in her November 30 ruling that while she is puzzled by the Supreme Court’s ambiguity, the Supreme Court still has jurisdiction over the case.

Also pending in Idaho is a lawsuit regarding whether Judge Bail had the authority to appoint a “special master” in ISEEO v. State and to charge the state for the cost of the special master’s review of school facilities. The case was argued before the Idaho Supreme Court on September 8, and, according to Education Week, the court has indicated that its decision in this case may clarify the situation.

Prepared by Matthew Samberg, December 12, 2006