Court Asked To Let Schools Continue To Sue State State Officials Claim Increased Funding, New Laws Invalidate Lawsuit Over Inadequacy Of Idaho’s Schools

A former state Supreme Court justice told the high court on Monday that a school district challenge to the adequacy of state aid for education was improperly dismissed and the districts should be allowed to press the case.

But the deputy attorney general representing the state maintained that major legislative changes in 1994 covering financing, distribution and legal requirements for education essentially void the longstanding challenge.

Members of the court, however, repeatedly interrupted both lawyers with questions, and several indicated that it appeared the state’s claim that legislative changes negated the suit was proof that the state should win the case - not that the case should not be argued to start with.

And Gov. Phil Batt argued that his decision last week to withhold $13.3 million from the existing state aid package because of the state’s economic slowdown should not be used to bolster the district’s claim. If not restored by lawmakers, the holdback will only trigger a $13.3 million property tax increase so the withheld state money is replaced with local cash.

Robert Huntley, who served on the high court for seven years in the 1980s, said the school districts he represents believe that - changes or not - the system is still not adequately financed to meet constitutional mandates and their claim that even more cash must be pumped into the public school system to make it constitutional remains unresolved.

“That’s all I want to do,” Huntley said. “I want to try my case - win it or lose it.”

And Deputy Attorney General Michael Gilmore conceded the school districts had the right to challenge the state’s school aid commitment. He just argued that they would have to do it in a new lawsuit that at least recognizes the changes lawmakers made in 1994.

“What we contend is that their case describes the old system that no longer exists,” Gilmore said.

The high court took the case under advisement, and it appeared that the justices were divided on whether to let the matter proceed.

Dozens of districts sued the state in 1990, about half claiming that the state was not equitably distributing the hundreds of millions of dollars a year in aid statewide and the other half claiming the aid being provided was insufficient for them to provide the constitutionally mandated uniform and thorough education.

The equity issue was dismissed on grounds that the system had already been reviewed and held to be constitutional. The other claims were ordered for trial with the Legislature given a year in which to act so a court ruling would not be required. In ordering a trial, the court said among the key areas of concern were school buildings.

In that year, lawmakers increased state aid to schools an unprecedented $92.5 million to $620.5 million, dramatically changed the distribution formula and then developed a legal definition for a thorough education while repealing all old rules applying to public schools. But it took no action on what was acknowledged as unmet school building needs totaling more than $700 million.

Then District Judge Gerald Schroeder dismissed the suit after that on grounds that those changes voided it.

Chief Justice Charles McDevitt seemed unconvinced that Schroeder was wrong when he said it was probably impossible to raise enough tax money to meet the school districts’ demands. And he pointed out that Huntley had never introduced any evidence that school districts are spending all their money only on the educational basics required under the constitutional mandate.

And McDevitt pointed out that under Idaho’s system there is shared responsibility for educational funding between districts and the state, which places the responsibility for school construction squarely in the laps of local patrons.

But Huntley argued that the overall responsibility for schools lies with the state under the constitution and if local districts fail to carry out the duties given them by the state, that does not permit the state to abandon its overall responsibility.