The Washington State Supreme Court posted a notice on its website today, that it will likely release tomorrow morning its long awaited opinion in McCleary v. State, a lawsuit demanding the state live up to its “paramount duty” to fund basic education.
It’s a ruling that, if it goes against the state, could make the budget battle in the coming session all the more difficult. Or, perhaps ironically, easier, as lawmakers slash social services and other programs in an effort to comply with the court’s order. (Or, Republicans could break their vow not to raise taxes under any circumstance, but we all know that’s not going to happen.)
Litigation cycles can easily be made to outlive business cycles. When it comes to long term priorities litigation makes sense, but in this case it’s a waste of time.
Goldy, let’s move to the imaginary world where the Washington State Supreme Court actually enforces that part of the state constitution. I want to go there with you.
Consider this for a moment purely as a matter of constitutional law. Suppose you lived in a state with a constitution that said “it is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for X”. X is not quantitatively well-specified by the language of the constitution. Furthermore, X and is something that you personally oppose, say “private arms” or “free-flowing, toll-free highways”. What principal could you enunciate that would allow you to turn that clause into a particular minimum dollar amount of funding for X?
@3 You are just bein silly ain’tcha? Coming up with standards for things like this is common. The whole branch of law and government call Administrative Law is founded upon just this kind of process. But in this case the legislature and executive have desperately avoided defining a standard because it creates additional constraints in the dance of avoiding finding additional revenue. Hell, they are so chicken the people of the state even voted on a referendum spelling out exactly what that might look like, but the government refused to obey the people. See, unless the law is something the rich people want or are willing to accept, the laws don’t even get implemented or enforced…
When lotto originally came to Washington state, wasnt the promise of using the money to fund education the main reason people were sold on it? How much of that money is being used on education now? How much of it goes into a general fund?
If Tim Eyman had an gram of compassion, a slam dunk initiative would be to force all lotto profits to go directly into the educations budget.
@5 why would this happen without a profit margin in it for the initiative sponsors?
It may suck in some ways, but I hope the courts do what has to be done. Education has to be a priority in spending.