The Kansas Supreme Court is legislating today

[ednksu]

Guys I don't think this K-S-U thing is a schtick.....

[GCJayhawker]

LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES!

I know, right? It's just so quintessentially liberal: demand that we spend a crap ton more money but leave it to someone else to figure out how to pay for it.

I mean it is not like the KS constitution has a completely open for interpretation standard of the Legislature providing an adequate education.  It is also not like the Courts are set up to determine the constitutionality of legislation that the Legislature passes, including funding questions when they pertain directly to parts of the state constitution.

No, our constitution has exactly the vague provision you're talking about. And if the legislature slashed the education budget, that might indeed be unreasonable enough that the court would be justified to step in. But when the legislature is already devoting half the budget to education, that might be a good time for the court to exercise a little deference, particularly when it's the legislature, not the court, that is left picking up the pieces of a busted budget. Again, however, liberals do not care about such trivialities. By gum, they're gonna tell the legislature to spend more money and let those jerks figure out how to pay for it! It's not the courts job to balance a budget - only to say that more money must be spent!

I don't think the judicial system works the way you think it works. 

[steve dave]

of all the things to complain about the gov spending money on education would rank number 1 in the steve dave list of dumbest things to compain about the gov spending money on

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES!

I know, right? It's just so quintessentially liberal: demand that we spend a crap ton more money but leave it to someone else to figure out how to pay for it.

I mean it is not like the KS constitution has a completely open for interpretation standard of the Legislature providing an adequate education.  It is also not like the Courts are set up to determine the constitutionality of legislation that the Legislature passes, including funding questions when they pertain directly to parts of the state constitution.

No, our constitution has exactly the vague provision you're talking about. And if the legislature slashed the education budget, that might indeed be unreasonable enough that the court would be justified to step in. But when the legislature is already devoting half the budget to education, that might be a good time for the court to exercise a little deference, particularly when it's the legislature, not the court, that is left picking up the pieces of a busted budget. Again, however, liberals do not care about such trivialities. By gum, they're gonna tell the legislature to spend more money and let those jerks figure out how to pay for it! It's not the courts job to balance a budget - only to say that more money must be spent!

I don't think the judicial system works the way you think it works.

I do, and I ought to.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

of all the things to complain about the gov spending money on education would rank number 1 in the steve dave list of dumbest things to compain about the gov spending money on

I don't think anyone in this thread is complaining about the government spending money on education.

[steve dave]

of all the things to complain about the gov spending money on education would rank number 1 in the steve dave list of dumbest things to compain about the gov spending money on

I don't think anyone in this thread is complaining about the government spending money on education.

well that's good, because it would make those people look like enormous dumbasses

[ednksu]

of all the things to complain about the gov spending money on education would rank number 1 in the steve dave list of dumbest things to compain about the gov spending money on

I don't think anyone in this thread is complaining about the government spending money on education.

Than you obviously don't understand the issue.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Huh. The Court appears to have reversed and remanded to the district court to re-determine the adequacy of funding, but just started reading opinion. Here it is if anyone else is interested. http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140307/109335.pdf

[Dugout DickStone]

Too long, dnr.  Skipped to bottom

[Rage Against the McKee]

Brownback disagreed with the lower court's most recent ruling and has declared the Legislature, "not the courts, has the power of the purse and has, in fact, increased total state funding for schools every year during my administration." His calculus isn't limited to base state aid, but includes mandatory contributions to the retirement system.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Too long, dnr.  Skipped to bottom

Can't really do that with a legal opinion. Details are in the middle. I'm about 2/3rds through and it looks like I'm right - the Supreme Court says it wasn't clear in prior rulings as to the exact "adequacy" test to be applied. It now clarifies that test, set out in a Kentucky case called Rose, and remands (send back) to the district court to apply the correct test.

However, the Supreme Court has said at least one thing that is potentially very harmful to the plaintiffs' case:

In the panel's assessment, funds from all available resources, including grants and federal assistance, should be considered. The legislative history of Article 6 reveals the intent to provide a system of educational finance that is sufficiently flexible to be able to utilize such sources.

This is the state's argument, and indeed, if you consider all funding (federal, etc.), school funding has barely decreased at all (see my earlier post with the numbers). The plaintiffs had wanted to focus only the Kansas portion of the spending, which has been cut more signficiantly.

We appreciate the panel's concern about overreliance on unpredictable federal funding. But there was an obvious increase in federal monies during the years at issue in this litigation, and the legislature was constitutionally empowered to respond with adjustments in state spending.

Ouch. Not good for plaintiffs. Potentially very good news for Brownback.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kansas-high-court-rule-school-funding-suit-22812894

[Dugout DickStone]

You can absolutely skip to the end when you aren't being paid to read it and it doesn't effect a single business interest of you or your clients.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Looks like the court generally upheld the lower court's decisision on the seperate issue of whether spending reductions were equitably distributed among the school districts, but that's not as big of a deal (except for schools in Johnson County, I presume).

The key issue was adequacy of overall spending, which has been remanded to the lower court with instructions to re-determine using the correct test, plus guidance that overal spending is more relevant than just the state funds.

And the plaintiffs were denied their attorneys fee.

[Dugout DickStone]

Looks like the court generally upheld the lower court's decisision on the seperate issue of whether spending reductions were equitably distributed among the school districts, but that's not as big of a deal (except for schools in Johnson County, I presume).

The key issue was adequacy of overall spending, which has been remanded to the lower court with instructions to re-determine using the correct test, plus guidance that overal spending is more relevant than just the state funds.

And the plaintiffs were denied their attorneys fee.

Te atty's fees was the part I read.  Going to be a rough hit to the PPP at Hite

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kansas-high-court-rule-school-funding-suit-22812894

ABC is wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule that "the state's current public school funding levels are unconstitutional." It ruled that the distribution of reduction in cuts was inequitable, but could be corrected by the legislature. As for the more important issue re adequacy of overall spending, it remanded this issue to the district court, and actually provided some language that is quite helpful to the state (see above).

More media malpractice is trying to hastily report a legal decision.

[GCJayhawker]

But those damn courts were supposed to be legislating today, you lied to me K-S-U.  YOU LIIIIAAAAAARRRRRRR

[Rage Against the McKee]

In the panel's assessment, funds from all available resources, including grants and federal assistance, should be considered. The legislative history of Article 6 reveals the intent to provide a system of educational finance that is sufficiently flexible to be able to utilize such sources.

This is the state's argument, and indeed, if you consider all funding (federal, etc.), school funding has barely decreased at all (see my earlier post with the numbers). The plaintiffs had wanted to focus only the Kansas portion of the spending, which has been cut more signficiantly.

We appreciate the panel's concern about overreliance on unpredictable federal funding. But there was an obvious increase in federal monies during the years at issue in this litigation, and the legislature was constitutionally empowered to respond with adjustments in state spending.

Ouch. Not good for plaintiffs. Potentially very good news for Brownback.

Taking that stance seems bad for education in general. Why would a community ever pass a school bond if the state is going to count it toward overall education funding and respond with a cut to funds? It would be counterproductive. Plus, aren't most of those federal dollars used for noneducational programs like breakfast and lunch?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The KC Star gets it partly right, and partly wrong.

TOPEKA — The Kansas Supreme Court said in a unanimous opinion Friday that the state’s current public school funding levels are unconstitutional. WRONG. The Court did not rule on adequacy of funding levels.     

It ordered a lower court to review evidence to determine how much to funnel into the formula that splits state aid among local school districts. And it gave the Kansas Legislature until July to rewrite that formula, finding the existing finance rules are inequitable. Correct.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to district court for more review to “promptly” determine what the adequate amount of funding should be, but didn’t set a deadline for a hearing. Correct.

The court declared certain school funding laws fail to provide equity in public education as required by the Kansas Constitution and returned the case to Shawnee County District Court to enforce the court’s holdings. Correct.

The court further ordered the three-judge panel that presided over the trial of the case to reconsider whether school funding laws provide adequacy in public education — as also required by the constitution. Correct - and this is the most important point.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

But those damn courts were supposed to be legislating today, you lied to me K-S-U.  YOU LIIIIAAAAAARRRRRRR

They're still legislating, dumbass. The Court denied the state's argument that this was a "non-justiciable controversy" and should be left to the legislature. But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.

[Dugout DickStone]

A bunch of students in Burlington don't get iPads like they would if they lived in the Shawnee mission district.  A Wichita law firm has to try and collect a million dollar legal bill from said school districts

That's my head note

[steve dave]

But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.

congrats conservatives

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Good for the New York Times - they generally got it right. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/kansas-school-spending-ruling.html?_r=0

Mixed Kansas School Spending Ruling Averts Constitutional Showdown
By JOHN ELIGONMARCH 7, 2014

Kansas’s highest court declined on Friday to order lawmakers to increase statewide spending on or public schools by a set amount, and sent the case back to a lower court for reconsideration.

The decision averted for now the possibility of a constitutional showdown with the state’s conservative-led Legislature, which has vowed to defy court orders to increase funding.

But the state Supreme Court did order lawmakers to make constitutionally mandated payments to less wealthy school districts that it had been withholding. The justices said that the state had failed to provide equity in education.

Many conservative lawmakers had said they would not obey a ruling directing them to give more money to the schools, saying it was their job, not the court’s, to determine how to spend state funds.

The court rejected the contention that it lacked the authority to make decisions on school funding, saying that it has the duty to determine whether legislative acts comply with the constitution. “The judiciary is not at liberty to surrender, ignore, or waive this duty,” the decision said.

State leaders were still determining on Friday morning what to make of the ruling. “This is a complex decision that requires thoughtful review,” Gov. Sam Brownback said in a statement. “I will have a briefing with the attorney general and will hold a press conference later today. I will work with leadership in the Kansas Senate and House to determine a path forward that honors our tradition of providing a quality education to every child and that keeps our schools open, our teachers teaching and our students learning.”

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.

congrats conservatives

And to any other Kansans who aren't keen on paying higher taxes (ok, mostly conservatives).

[GCJayhawker]

But those damn courts were supposed to be legislating today, you lied to me K-S-U.  YOU LIIIIAAAAAARRRRRRR

They're still legislating, dumbass. The Court denied the state's argument that this was a "non-justiciable controversy" and should be left to the legislature. But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.

Every decision a court makes on a piece of legislation is the court "legislating".  I guess if by "legislating" you mean the courts doing their constitutional duty, than yes they are "legislating".