Court orders state to pay for schools

BOISE – Idaho school districts won their long-running lawsuit against the state Wednesday, as the Idaho Supreme Court firmly declared the state’s system for funding school construction unconstitutional.

Citing “overwhelming evidence in the record documenting serious facility and funding problems in the state’s public education system,” the Supreme Court ordered the state Legislature to make major changes.

“The current funding system is simply not sufficient to carry out the Legislature’s duty under the constitution,” Justice Linda Copple Trout wrote for the court.

The current system left Idaho schoolchildren in unsafe buildings like the old American Falls High School and the old Troy Junior-Senior High School for years on end, while districts struggled to pay for replacements, the court noted.

The justices said the answer could include such steps as reducing the two-thirds supermajority now needed to pass a school bond; funding school buildings from the state’s general fund budget; or tapping corporate income tax revenue. But it’s up to the Legislature to decide, the court said.

“We leave the policy decisions to that separate branch of government, subject to our continuing responsibility to ensure Idaho’s constitutional provisions are satisfied.”

The decision adds a hefty new challenge to the already bulging agenda state lawmakers will face when they convene their annual session in January.

Yet both sides praised the court’s decision on Wednesday. “I’m not surprised by the opinion at all – in fact, I think it was a very friendly opinion by the court,” said House Speaker Bruce Newcomb. “I think it gave everybody direction.”

Newcomb, R-Burley, said the justices ruled clearly that the Legislature has to do more to fund school construction. “It says the property taxes aren’t enough, aren’t sufficient, and we’ve known that for a long time,” he said.

Idaho historically has left the full cost of school construction to local property taxpayers, who must vote by a two-thirds supermajority to raise their own taxes in order to build or replace a school. State District Judge Deborah Bail ruled in 2001 that that system impermissibly left poor school districts unable to provide safe schools for their students.

Robert Huntley, the former Idaho Supreme Court justice who represented a group of school districts in the lawsuit, said, “The decision of the Idaho Supreme Court is a positive step forward for the benefit of all of the people of Idaho, especially Idaho’s school children and their families.”

He said the school districts, which banded together as Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity, will work with lawmakers and the governor to fix the system. “We expect to achieve a ‘win-win’ package of legislation to meet the mandate of constitutionality … as affirmed by the Idaho Supreme Court,” Huntley said.

The state has fought the lawsuit for a decade and a half, and has tried an array of legal maneuvers to make the lawsuit go away. All have failed, however, including four prior appeals to the Idaho Supreme Court.

State Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, who long has pushed for more construction aid for poor school districts, said, “It’s a bittersweet victory. It’s sweet in that those of us in areas that have struggled with funding school construction solely on property taxes have been proven to be right. … It’s bitter in that it’s unfortunate that we had to take it to the Supreme Court again. I think it’s an opportunity once again for the Legislature to step up to the plate and solve the problem.”

Newcomb agreed. “I think what they’re saying is, ‘You’ve got to come up with some programs,’ ” he said.

He noted that the court praised lawmakers for steps it took in recent years, including a temporary program to provide interest grants to help local districts replace seven of the state’s worst schoolhouses. That $10 million program, a joint venture with Zions Bank, ran out of funding in 2002 and wasn’t renewed, but Newcomb said concepts like it should be revisited.

After that program expired, lawmakers passed a phased-in program to start matching a small portion of school district bond expenses each year, but they didn’t fund it. Instead, they shifted money for that program from schools’ existing lottery funds, which had previously gone for building maintenance projects like new roofs.

In 2003, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, a Republican, and state schools Superintendent Marilyn Howard, a Democrat, formed a task force to come up with a plan to settle the school lawsuit. The group proposed lowering the supermajority and investing millions more in aid to school districts for maintenance and construction, along with other changes. The Legislature refused to consider the settlement, instead opting to continue to fight the lawsuit.

Huntley said Wednesday, “That proposed settlement might still be viable, but it required a … lot more money than they’ve been willing to appropriate.”

He said the state should invest about $37 million a year for the next 10 years into subsidizing school bonds and contributing toward building maintenance. “That would also reduce the burden on the property tax,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision was endorsed by a four-member majority, while Justice Jim Jones wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Jones wrote that the case should have looked beyond school building safety concerns to whether schoolhouses are “conducive to learning.”

Deputy Idaho Attorney General David High called the court’s decision “a good resolution to the case. It provides a good legal basis from which we can advise the Legislature.”

Said Newcomb: “We’re off dead center now.”

Keough said, “Now we get to figure out how to move forward. That’s exciting.”