Silak Lectures On ‘Safe Schools’ Cases Supreme Court Justice Faces Eismann In May 23 Election

Before a small audience dotted with “Silak” and “Eismann” placards, state Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak analyzed controversial state lawsuits involving school funding during a lecture Tuesday.

“It’s an issue that affects the entire fabric of our society,” Silak said.

The seven-year veteran of the high court is in an increasingly political campaign against District Court Judge Daniel Eismann, who removed himself from a school-funding case last year after his decision was overturned by the Supreme Court.

The nonpartisan election will be decided in the May 23 primary.

When the school funding case was remanded to Eismann, he refused to hear it and accused the Supreme Court of attempting to rewrite Idaho’s constitution. Eismann had ruled that the constitution does not require the Legislature to provide funding for school buildings.

Four of Eismann’s supporters attended the lecture, held in The Idaho Spokesman-Review’s conference room. About 20 people attended.

The purpose of Silak’s visit was to offer a history of school funding cases in the state, including the one currently being considered by District Court Judge Deborah Bail, who was assigned the case after Eismann.

Dubbed the “safe schools” case, the lawsuit was filed against the state by numerous districts in an attempt to determine whether a “thorough” system of education includes providing safe schools that are conducive to learning.

“Thoroughness” is at issue because the state’s constitution requires the Legislature to “establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”

Past cases brought before the courts have focused on the word “uniform,” saying that because some areas have greater property tax values, funding for education is not uniform statewide. But past courts have decided that “uniform” applies to curriculum, not to how schools are funded, Silak said.

The forum was held at the request of local educators, including Judy Meyer, past president of the state board of education; Bill Nixon, a member of North Idaho College’s board of trustees; and Dave Teater, a former assistant superintendent with the Coeur d’Alene School District.

Silak said trials concerning school funding have become more directed since they surfaced in the 1970s. The current trial, she said, focuses solely on school buildings.

“The issue has become whether the Legislature has provided a system for funding safe schools conducive to learning,” she said, adding that regardless of Bail’s decision, it probably will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The discussion took a political turn when local attorney Scott Reed asked which judges handled the school funding cases.

Silak said Gerald Schroeder, who is now a Supreme Court justice, and Eismann handled the cases. She explained that Eismann recused himself from a case and issued an order disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision.

“Is that normal?” Reed asked.

“It is not done very often,” Silak responded. “I don’t recall another instance of this happening.”

Then another Eismann supporter, Don Morgan, asked Silak two questions about whether the state constitution provides protection to children in parochial schools and what Silak’s involvement is with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Silak said she could not comment on those issues because they might come before the court.

The Supreme Court justice has been labeled a judicial activist by her opponents, primarily because of a 3-2 majority opinion Silak wrote last year upholding federal water rights in Idaho wilderness areas.

Silak said she rejects the charge leveled by opponents. She said it is the high court’s job to interpret the state constitution.

“When people bring cases to us, we can’t just duck the issues,” she said.

Contacted later about his school funding decision, Eismann said that when the justices interpreted the word “thorough” as requiring the Legislature to establish and maintain safe buildings, they changed the constitution. That is a violation of their oath of office, he said, because the constitution cannot be changed without a vote of the people.

“That’s why we have the three branches of government, because there’s supposed to be a balance of power,” he said. “What happens every time a court reinterprets the constitution, it is basically depriving the people of their right to govern themselves in that area of public policy.”