Arkansas Supreme Court Declares Funding System Unconstitutional

On December 15, 2005, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the state must comply with its own education funding laws, passed with the intent of ensuring a constitutionally adequate funding system:

To assure an adequate education for the school children of this state and a substantially equal educational opportunity, which the Arkansas Constitution demands, the procedures set forth in Act 57 and Act 108 must be complied with forthwith.

The court held that “the General Assembly failed to comply with [these laws] and, by doing so, retreated from its prior actions.” The General Assembly could not have adequately funded schools for the 2005-07 biennium, the court found, because it had made no effort “to determine what adequate funding should be,” as required by Act 57.

Regarding facilities funding, the court held that appropriations for facilities construction and repair “were grossly underfunded.” The court set a deadline of December 1, 2006 “to allow the necessary time to correct the constitutional deficiencies.”

The court also rejected the state's argument that the issue of school funding adequacy is a “non-justiciable” political question, a claim the state had raised and the court had analyzed in other decisions, included its earlier Lake View opinion.

Reactions

Because the court's deadline is December of 2006 and the next regular legislative session is scheduled to begin in January 2007, many people speculated that a special session of the legislature is required. However, as reported in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette , Governor Huckabee said, “I respect the court's decision, but they did not order us to have a special session. He indicated “several things that have to happen” to influence him to call a special session.

Plaintiffs' lead attorney, David Matthews, was pleased with the court's decision to “stay the course and insure the children of Arkansas are afforded the quality education our Constitution contemplates.” He felt the court “showed the proper balance of judicial responsibility . . . and the responsibility of the legislative and executive branches to achieve the goal of constitutional compliance.” He added that the decision “underscores the need for all branches of government to review the delivery of education services and . . . make adjustments when the state strays from the charted course.”

Special Masters

In June 2005, the court responded to plaintiffs' compliance motion by reappointing former supreme court justices Bradley Jesson and David Newbern to review the state's 2005 school funding actions. The masters' report, issued in October after extensive hearings at which legislators, other state officials, and district superintendents testified, concluded that the 2005 legislation “is difficult to defend.”

Their report called on state leaders to “regain the high ground” and “erase the stain of unconstitutionality from Arkansas's public schools.” They also pointed to unspent state surplus funds, to cost-of-living raises for all state agencies and for the legislators themselves but not for schools, and to school funding promises made in the preceding legislative session. In yesterday's opinion, the supreme court succinctly summarized the masters' findings, including a number of examples of actual funding cuts that will take effect in the 2006-07 school year despite increased costs, such as fuel for transportation.

Landmark 2002 Decision Led to Progress

This decision follows the court's November 2002 Lake View opinion, which found the then-current funding system unconstitutional. Having worked on possible solutions for over a year, the legislature enacted significant changes and increased funding in the winter of 2004.

That same winter, the court appointed the two special masters for the first time. After reviewing the state's actions, they issued a report praising the progress made but warned that “[t]here is no guarantee the plan . . . will be followed beyond the 2004-2005 appropriations.” They also described the task of bringing education to the constitutional level as difficult and “not for the short-winded.”

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, December 16, 2005