TOPEKA — Republicans and Democrats debate the attorney general’s request to end the Kansas Supreme Court’s oversight of the case that led to an order requiring the Legislature to fix constitutional violations in K-12 public school funding. joined the controversy.
After years of legal wrangling, Supreme Court justices took steps in 2019 to maintain jurisdiction in Gannon v. Kansas Education Funding. The maneuver was intended to expedite the Supreme Court’s response if Congress balked at completing a relief plan that included annual funding increases through 2023.
The state Legislature approved a series of bills consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title VI, and Gov. Laura Kelly signed them into law.
Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach last week asked the Supreme Court to end its administration of the case. He said the Supreme Court held that the state met constitutional expectations for fair funding outlined in the justices’ 2018 opinion and addressed in a follow-up opinion in 2019. They argued that Gannon should be shut down.
“because 2022-2023 The school year ended in June 30, 2023, and everything planned Funding was successfully completed in stages… this court It should now issue that authority and release jurisdiction on this appeal,” Kobach’s motion states.
‘It doesn’t make sense’
Brianna Johnson, the governor’s press secretary, said Kelly opposed the attorney general’s attempt to “authorize the Legislature to defund public schools.”
“Governor Kelly’s progress in fully funding schools for the fifth year in a row and ensuring students across the state have access to a quality education comes as Kansas student test scores are rising.” There’s no point in ruining everything,” Johnson said.
Rep. John Carmichael, a Wichita Democrat and former lawyer, said there is great risk in the Supreme Court lifting its grip on Mr. Gannon. He said the Legislature has a criminal record that undermines compliance with constitutional provisions regarding funding for K-12 schools.
“The Kansas Supreme Court is well aware of the Legislature’s practice of following orders only for the minimum length of time necessary,” Carmichael said. “Historically, that’s why we had the Gannon case. Congress immediately cut school funding as soon as it was removed from court oversight.”
Carmichael theorized that Kobach’s goal is to ensure that a Republican-led Congress can “significantly underfund” public schools in the future.
If the Supreme Court ends the case, he said, it could be easier for the House and Senate to remove state funding from public schools and redirect it to home and private schools in the form of vouchers. Stated.
“They are fully funded.”
Sen. Kelly Warren, a Leawood Republican and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the state Supreme Court needs to consider the details of what it would mean to formally recuse Mr. Gannon. He said a consideration is Congress’ stated commitment to fully fund K-12 public education in a manner that respects the Supreme Court’s opinion.
“According to the Supreme Court, they are fully funded and it seems to me that the issue is resolved,” she said.
Warren said another piece of the puzzle is the separation of powers between the judicial, legislative and executive branches of state government. She said Congress should control spending on public schools.
“That’s our constitutional obligation and that’s where it should remain,” said Warren, an attorney and 2020 candidate for state attorney general.
The legal dispute over school funding in Kansas hinged on a 1966 amendment to the Kansas Constitution. The amendment required Congress to provide for “intellectual, educational, vocational, and scientific improvements through the establishment and maintenance of public schools, educational institutions, and related activities.”
Under Article VI, Section 6 of the Constitution, Congress was obligated to provide adequate funding for all public school students in Kansas.
Montoi passes to Gannon.
In 1999, a lawsuit was filed in Shawnee County District Court challenging the constitutionality of Kansas’ school financing system. The district court found no constitutional violation in Montoy v. State and dismissed the case. An appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in a 2003 opinion that the case should not have been summarily thrown out. The Supreme Court stated that the adequacy of school finance is not a fixed issue and needs to be monitored.
In response, the district court declared that Congress ignored the educational interests of students. The legislature and executive branch were given an opportunity to correct the constitutional deficiencies in state funding, but the district court found that lawmakers did not try hard enough.
In 2005, the Supreme Court in Montoy said school funding formulas provide inadequate aid to school districts for minority, at-risk, and special education students. Although Congress adopted a series of funding reforms, the Supreme Court’s subsequent opinion in Montoy stated that these increases fell short. A special session of Congress doubled funding for K-12 education. The Supreme Court accepted Congress’ amendment, but continued to oversee the case.
The 2006 Legislature made significant changes to the state’s school financing formula. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress was still complying with previous K-12 funding orders and removed Monteau.
Before the school district coalition filed the Gannon lawsuit in 2010, state funding for schools was cut during the national recession.
In a 2012 lawsuit, Gannon’s plaintiffs argued that the state was avoiding fair and sufficient funding for public education. The three-judge panel agreed. On appeal, the Supreme Court said that while the funding mechanism met the Constitution’s equity provisions, lower courts had used the wrong standard to consider appropriateness.
In response, a district court panel once again concluded that the state’s funding approach violated constitutional adequacy requirements, a position the Supreme Court upheld. The Gannon case went back and forth from trial to appeals court, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that Congress’ multi-year funding plan was constitutional. However, the judge retained jurisdiction over Gannon.
