Minnesota has a problem. The problem is MONEY. We are facing huge deficits. School funding is a large part of the state budget. In many states, when the funding has been cut for public education, the teacher unions and the school districts sue and get court orders forcing the state to increase funding for education. The judges we elect to the Minnesota Supreme Court will most likely be facing this issue.

The courts in numerous states have taken over the funding of the public school system (Kansas, New York, North Carolina, Montana, Massachusetts, Texas, New Jersey, Missouri among others). Many states have a provision in their state constitution that establishes a public education system and guarantees a “suitable” or an “adequate” education. Other state constitutions discuss a “thorough and efficient" or “sound and basic” education. These are words that the courts fill with meaning. Citing this language, the teachers unions or other interested parties bring lawsuits arguing that the state is failing to provide a “suitable” education and that the answer to this is more money for the public schools.

In January 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court ordered the Kansas legislature to appropriate more money for the public schools (Montoy v. Kansas). Kansas was spending $8206 per pupil per year, but the judges said it wasn’t enough. The Court ordered the state must increase its spending an additional $850 per pupil to meet the Court’s idea of what is “suitable”.

In New York, the courts have been the focus of school funding for years. In 1982, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, held that the state constitution guarantees a students right to a “sound basic education.” (Levittown v. Nyquist) Since then, school districts which wanted additional governmental funding have been suing the state. On June 26, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued its order which gave the state of New York until July 30, 2004 to determine the cost of a sound education, fund those costs and establish an accountability system to ensure that the reforms actually provided an opportunity for a sound basic education. (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State) When the state failed to act by July 30, the case went back to the district court which appointed a panel of three special masters to make recommendations to the court which the court then adopted and made part of its order. The district court ordered the state of New York to spend an additional annual $5.6 billion for operating costs, plus an additional $9.2 billion over a five year period on infrastructure and facilities such as classrooms, libraries, etc. The state appealed again. During this time, the state did enact legislation increasing the funding for facilities by $9.2 billion, but did not comply with the annual operating funding order.

The litigation came to an end in 2006. In the court’s decision, the dissent asserts that the court has violated the separation of powers and that funding education is a legislative function. The majority opinion asserts that courts are "well suited to interpret and safeguard constitutional rights and review challenged acts of our coequal branches of government--not in order to make policy but in order to assure the protection of constitutional rights." CFE II v. State. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the 2003 decision, but reduced the ordered funding for the annual operating costs to the “constitutional floor” of an additional $1.93 billion. CFE II.

In other states, the courts have used the equal protection clause of the state constitutions to order the state to equalize the funding in schools between rich and poor school districts. Missouri is an example. In 1990, a group of school districts, students and taxpayers filed lawsuits claiming that the funding system of the state’s schools violated the equal protection clause and the education clause contained in the state constitution. At the trial court level, they won. (Committee for Educational Equity v. State.) In response, the legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, a bill increasing school funding and raising taxes. It was only a matter of time before this funding was also seen as inadequate.

The Minnesota Constitution Art. 13, Sec. 1 states, "The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state." If we elect a Governor or legislators who oppose increases in state funding for education, we should expect the teachers unions and school districts to do what they have done in state after state -- try to use the courts to force the state to increase school funding.