Committee for Educ. Equality v. State of Missouri, No. 04-323022 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Aug. 29, 2007)
A Missouri trial court has rejected a lawsuit challenging the state’s funding scheme for public education. The court rejected claims that the funding scheme is constitutionally inadequate and violates the equal protection and due process guarantees in the state and federal constitutions. In addition, the court rejected two other state constitutional claims based on the state’s failure to provide the state’s required share of the costs for state-mandated programs and the requirement for equal assessment practices. The Committee for Educational Equality (CEE), along with the Coalition to Fund Excellent Schools (CFES) and the City of St. Louis Board of Education, alleged the state’s education funding system violates: (1) the state constitutional requirement for adequacy in education funding; (2) the equal protection and due process guarantees of the federal and state constitutions; (3) Article X of the Missouri Constitution (the "Hancock Amendment") by failing to provide the state’s required share of the costs for state-mandated programs; and (4) a constitutional requirement for equal assessment practices. Before addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, the court rejected the state’s contention the issue of how public education is funded is a non-justiciable political question that should be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative branches of government. The claims were not asking the court decide whether a particular funding scheme is "better" as a matter of policy, the court found, but rather whether it satisfies the constitutional requires of providing free public schools as set forth in the state constitution.
Turning to the issue of whether the state’s current funding system satisfies the adequacy provisions contained in Article IX of the Missouri Constitution, the court addressed the plaintiffs’ argument that sections of Article IX "establish an obligatory constitutional measure of funding beyond the minimum twenty-five percent requirement in section 3(b)" of that Article. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ interpretation "simply ignores the existence and plain language of section 3(b)m," which sets a minimum of 25% and provides that any additional funding beyond that percentage is discretionary.
Regarding the equal protection and due process claims, the court noted that education is not a fundamental right under either the federal or the state constitution. As a result, the state’s funding system need only have a "rational basis," and the court found that the system furthers the legitimate state interest of encouraging local control with funding supplemented by state aid. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the state’s constitution’s equal protection provision requires equity of education expenditures. The state constitution does not support the plaintiffs’ contention that "there was intended to be a guarantee of absolute of equity, equality or adequacy in dollars spent or facilities from district to district," the court concluded, refusing to infer a constitutional obligation it found is not there.
The court next found that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence to establish a violation of the "Hancock Amendment" on unfunded mandates because, regardless of the merits of their argument, the relief they sought is unavailable under that provision. As for the assessment claim, the court found it failed on three grounds: (1) the plaintiff CFES lacked legal standing to bring the claim because it had not provided the court with statutory authorization that would allow it to seek judicial review of the claim; (2) CFES also lacked standing because it was not complaining about its own property assessments but rather the property assessments of others; and (3) the court lacks jurisdiction because CFES failed to join a necessary and indispensable party, the Missouri State Tax Commission.
However, on the issue of whether the state has satisfied its constitutional obligation under Article IX, section 3(b) of devoting 25% of state revenues to provide adequate elementary and secondary education, the court requested additional briefs and argument from the parties.
Committee for Educ. Equality v. State of Missouri, No. 04-323022 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Aug. 29, 2007)
[Editor’s Note: For background on the case, see below.]
NSBA School Law pages on CEE v. Missouri