Download PDF

A 1993 Missouri trial court ruling forced the largest tax increase is Missouri history, $310 million at the time, in order to give more money to Missouri schools.1 Not content with that victory, a decade later the self-proclaimed Committee for Educational Equity (CEE) was back in court looking for more taxpayer dollars. Backed by a number of school districts and teachers unions, the CEE has pledged that “this time it will pursue the issue all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court seeking to define the Missouri General Assembly’s responsibility to Missouri’s children.”2

The CEE will get its chance to appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, because it was handed a loss at the trial court level. The CEE began the litigation on behalf of its member rural school districts in 2004, asking for extensive injunctive relief, including such a sweeping remedy as:

Interim injunctive relief and a permanent injunction which enjoins the Commissioner of Administration, the State Treasurer and the State of Missouri from certifying for payment, paying or otherwise disbursing funds controlled by the State for purposes other than the payment of sinking fund and interest on state indebtedness until such time as funds in amounts which are constitutionally adequate and equitable have been appropriated and are available for disbursement for the support of free public education in Missouri.3

Such an injunction would likely have crippled the Missouri government services, including public safety and health care, until the Legislature complied with another injunction putting forth a new school funding formula. And whereas the 1993 case focused on “equity” between school districts, the 2004 case focused on “adequacy,” and the plaintiffs’ experts asked for $1 billion more in taxpayer spending.4

After the CEE began the lawsuit, a number of suburban districts, known collectively as the Coalition to Fund Excellent Schools, and the Board of Education of St. Louis intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs. The St. Louis BOE brought a particular new angle by arguing that equal funding between districts is illegitimate, because students in urban schools cost more to educate because of the issues they face.5 In a highly unusual development, several private taxpayers stepped forward and committed significant personal resources to intervene on behalf of the State.6 They believed that the lawsuit posed significant danger to the prosperity of Missouri and the wallets of taxpaying citizens, and the court found the danger significant enough to grant their motion for intervention.7

After extensive discovery and depositions, the case finally went to trial in 2007. Each side presented several expert witnesses.8 By the end of the trial court litigation, the school districts had spent $3.2 million in taxpayer funds to prosecute the suit, while the state spent $1.4 million in taxpayer dollars to defend. The private citizen intervenors contributed another $700,000 of their own money to the defense.9

Judge Richard G. Callahan, who is elected by the voters of Cole County, issued two decisions in the case, one on August 29, 200710 and one on October 17, 2007.11 After rejecting a political question defense, Judge Callahan engaged in a textualist analysis of the constitutional provision at issue. He found that “may,” the word used in the Missouri Constitution, has an optional meaning, and is not the “must” that plaintiffs would prefer. After finishing his analysis of the Missouri Education Clause, Judge Callahan quickly dispatched the equal protection claims under the Missouri and federal constitutions. Finally, the court ruled against one of the plaintiff-intervenors on a tax assessment equality claim.

Judge Callahan’s ruling rejecting all of their claims offered the CEE the opportunity to appeal the matter to the Missouri Supreme Court, their desired destination (the heart of the 1993 lawsuit was never confronted by the Missouri Supreme Court, so there is no firm precedent on education financing). The CEE filed a Notice of Appeal with the circuit court on December 17, 2007,12 and news reports say the appeal will focus particularly on the adequacy and equity claims.13 Given the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent record,14 Missouri taxpayers should be concerned that the Court may order a billion dollars or more in new spending on public schools, which can likely only be found through cuts to other government programs or higher taxes.15

 

Endnotes

1 Drew Bratcher, Bartlett Is At It Again, Missouri Digital News, September 24, 2003, available at http://www.mdn.org/2003/STORIES/BARTLETT.HTM.

2 Tyler Laney (chairman of the Board of Directors of CEE), Note from Missouri Committee for Educational Equality, Rural Policy Matters, April 2004, available at http://www.ruraledu.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=beJMIZOCIrH&b=1063881&content_id=%7B3F61C7EF-328A-4D84-BB599261BF64E9D5%7D&notoc=1.

3 Second amended complaint of Committee for Educational Equality, available at http://www.schoolchoiceformissouri.org/trial/pdf/CEE%202nd%20amended%20petition.pdf.

4 Matthew Franck, This Judge Sits in the Hot Seat, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 8, 2007, available at http://www.schoolchoiceformissouri.org/trial/pdf/judge%20on%20hot%20seat.pdf

5 “‘The issue isn’t one of spending as much as it is one of cost,’ says city school attorney Ken Brostron, noting that issues inner city children face are often more costly to address in order for students to reach their potential.” National Association of School Boards, “Legal Clips,” January 2007, available at http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?CID=451&DID=39880.

6 Children’s Educational Alliance of Missouri, available at http://www.schoolchoiceformissouri.org/trial/citizens.html.

7 Motion to Intervene, available at http://www.schoolchoiceformissouri.org/trial/pdf/motion%20to%20intervene.pdf.

8 Testimony available online at http://www.schoolchoiceformissouri.org/trial/trial_selected_plaintiffs.html (plaintiffs) and http://www.schoolchoiceformissouri.org/trial/trial_selected_defense.html (defendants).

9 Costly Battle, Southeast Missourian, October 14, 2007, available at http://medialab.semissourian.com/story/1284170.html.

10 Available at http://www.schoolchoiceformissouri.org/trial/pdf/School%20Decision.pdf.

11 Available at http://www.schoolchoiceformissouri.org/trial/pdf/Final_School%20Decision.pdf.

12 Jerry Ginger, Superintendent Newsletter, Rolla Public Schools, January 2008, available at http://rolla.k12.mo.us/district/administration/superintendent/january_2008_newsletter/.

13 Gene Hanson, Education Group to Take Funding Fight to Missouri Supreme Court, The Kearney Courier, November 21, 2007, available at http://www.kccommunitynews.com/articles/2007/11/26/kearney_courier/schools/b.kc.edu.court.appeal.txt.

14 William G. Eckhardt & John Hilton, “The Consequences of Judicial Selection: A Review of the Missouri Supreme Court, 19922007,” The Federalist Society, August 2007, available at http://www. fed-soc.org/doclib/20070801_FedSocMissouriWhitePaper.pdf.

15 See generally Chris Atkins, “Appropriation by Litigation: Estimating the Cost of Judicial Mandates for State and Local Education Spending,” Tax Foundation, July 2007, available at http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp55.pdf

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].