« The Red Crecent
Kansas to follow Washington State Supreme Court’s ruling on education funding? »
Kansas Supreme Court Discovers Education as “Fundamental Right”
September 10th, 2005
by KSMeadowlark
At least three Democrat Supreme Court Justices in Kansas apparently do not understand the legal principle of stare decisis. Stare decisis is a Latin term for the judicial principle of upholding an earlier high-court decision unless special circumstances exist to overturn it. The phrase literally means to “stand by things decided.”
Democrat Justice Carol Beier has only been on the Kansas Supreme Court since Sept 5, 2003, but took the lead in finding a “new right” for Kansans on Friday. Justices Beier, Luckert and Davis now claim that “education” is a fundamental right in Kansas.
From the Supreme Court’s web page (posted yesterday):
In her concurring opinion, Justice Beier said she disagreed with a 1994 Kansas Supreme Court decision holding that education is not a fundamental right, a holding “implicitly” affirmed in the January 3 decision.
From the Ryan Montoy, et al, v. State of Kansas lawsuit:
1 BEIER, J., concurring: I concur fully in the court’s result and in the bulk of its rationale. I write separately only because I disagree with the holding of U.S.D. No. 229 v. State, 256 Kan. 232, 260-63, 885 P.2d 1170 (1994), that education is not a fundamental right under the Kansas Constitution. I believe it is. Thus I would not, as the court implicitly did on its way to the opinion in this case, rely on U.S.D. No. 229 to conclude that the Kansas school financing formula under SDFQAA did not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. Rather, I would take the opportunity presented by this case to overrule the U.S.D. No. 229 holding on the status of the right to education under the Kansas Constitution.
In San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 93 S. Ct. 1278, reh. denied 411 U.S. 959 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that education is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.
. . .
For all of the foregoing reasons, I concur in the judgment and most of the rationale of my colleagues. I respectfully disagree with their view that education is not a fundamental right under the Kansas Constitution. It is. Justice Luckert never held otherwise in U.S.D. No. 229, slip op. This court should not have jumped to that regressive conclusion then, and it should not reinforce that error now.
DAVIS, J., joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.
LUCKERT, J., concurring: I concur fully in the result of the majority of the court and most of its rationale. However, I would find that education is a fundamental right under the Kansas Constitution. In this regard, I agree with Justice Beier’s analysis of this issue.
1 REPORTER’S NOTE: Two concurring opinions to the majority opinion in Montoy v. State, No. 92,032 filed January 3, 2005, were filed with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts on September 9, 2005.
All three Kansas Supreme Court Justices mentioned in this opinion, Beier, Davis and Luckert, are Democrats. (See the previous Kansas Meadowlark article, “Sebelius continues packing Kansas Supreme Court with Democrats: 5 Democrats Vs. 2 Republicans when Kansas has only 27% Democrats!”) Should these Democrat justices be called “activists” for finding a new “right” in the Kansas Constitution?
Today’s Salina Journal published the AP story, “Justices find education a ‘fundamental right’” (see p. A4). The Kansas City Star and Wichita Eagle posted this story on their web sites on Friday. Other Kansas newspapers carried this story today, including the Topeka Capital-Journal, the Lawrence Journal-World, and the Dodge City Globe.
Here’s a brief summary of the AP story:
TOPEKA - To life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, add an adequate education as a right guaranteed all Kansans under the state constitution.
At least, that’s the conclusion of three justices of the Kansas Supreme Court, who indicated Friday that they would go even further than the court already has in forcing improvements in school funding.
Justices Carol Beier and Marla Luckert issued new opinions to accompany a decision the Supreme Court issued in January, requiring the Legislature to provide more money to schools and distribute the dollars more fairly. Justice Robert Davis joined Beier in her opinion.
This is NOT the first time the current Kansas Supreme Court abandoned the principle of stare decisis. See the January the Kansas Political News article: Kansas Supreme Court Abandons Legal Principles.
It’s not clear why the Court discovered this new “right” at this point in time.
|
September 10th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Meadowlark, what’s to be surprised about? Any time the Democrats get power they will ignore the constitution and prescient to make laws by court activism. Have for years and will continue to do that. That’s why appointments to the Supreme Court are so important now. Not that you didn’t know that already.
Colt
September 11th, 2005 at 7:08 am
You said: “This is NOT the first time the current Kansas Supreme Court abandoned the principle of stare decisis. See the January the Kansas Political News article: Kansas Supreme Court Abandons Legal Principles.
“It’s not clear why the Court discovered this new “right” at this point in time.”
But wait a minute! A majority of the court (there are seven justices) did NOT overrule the ‘94 precedent. Stare decisis was followed and no new right was discovered.
September 12th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Read the Kansas Constitution. Sounds like education is so fundamental that the founding fathers granted it an entire article in the Constitution (excepts below):
Constitution of the State of Kansas
Article 6.–EDUCATION
§ 1: Schools and related institutions and activities. The legislature shall provide for intellectual, educational, vocational and scientific improvement by establishing and maintaining public schools, educational institutions and related activities which may be organized and changed in such manner as may be provided by law.
§ 6: Finance.
(b) The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.
source: http://www.kslib.info/ref/constitution/art6.html
September 12th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
The founding fathers granted it an entire article? Not TRUE! Perhaps you should do some more research: The Kansas Constitution was amended only in 1966 to have the word “suitable” used to describe education. So, we didn’t have the “right” before 1966?
From a July 31, 2005 Wichita Eagle letter to the editor from 10 Democratic lawmakers:
“Kansans overwhelmingly support their public schools. The very first provision of the Kansas Constitution set aside land for public schools. Then in 1966, Kansans approved a constitutional amendment requiring adequate and sufficient funding for those schools.”
Most people, possibly including the court, do not recognize that the founders of this state donated two sections of land to each township for the exclusive use of the common schools. And what happened to all that public land set aside for public schools?
September 13th, 2005 at 6:41 am
why would it make a difference whether the education language in the state constitution was there in 1861 or added as an amendment in 1966? Either way, it would seem to represent a value so fundamental to the people of the State of Kansas that they voted to incorporate it in their fundamental charter of state government.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
I was replying to the statement “Read the Kansas Constitution. Sounds like education is so fundamental that the founding fathers granted it an entire article in the Constitution (excepts below)”. My point was the founding fathers gave land to schools and didn’t use the word “suitable” at all.
The Kansas Consitution is the law of the land, but I fear it’s being reinterpreted. I guess it’s time for a road trip to a local library to read some 1966 newspapers to find out exactly what the original intent of the current language was.
So why if the Constitutional Amendment was made in 1966 did it take nearly 40 years to discover this new “right”? What has changed that now requires this proclamation?
Don’t misunderstand: I am for public education. BUT, I think there is a lot of money wasted, and little accountability. How does such a lack of accountability teach our kids anything?
September 15th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
What has changed is:
The conservative members of the legislature have repeatedly refused to increase funding for public eductaion even at the level of inflation (until the court made the mandate).
Also, the legislature paid to have a study done to determine if Kansas is providing a suitable education. The study said more money is needed to reach that level.
Also, times have changed and more Kansans than ever are graduating high school, going to college and even getting secondary degrees. Employers appetites for an educated work force have increased.
September 15th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Can you cite ANY reliable source for your “fact” about school funding not keeping up with inflation? Perhaps the “base” amount has gone down, but you need to look at the total amount spent on each student.
Karl Peterjohn, who is a reliable source of economic information in Kansas, says this:
“Despite complaints that funding for public schools in Kansas is declining … Spending has continued to grow at a rate that far exceeds inflation and student enrollment.”
http://www.kansastaxpayers.com/education_spending_1.html
Peterjohn’s page cites the Kansas Department of Education for the facts there.
Bob Corkins, who is one of the five Kansas education commissioner candidates (announced yesterday), wrote a letter to the Hutchinson News (4/13/2004):
“In the 2003-04 school year, Kansas school districts budgeted $9,389 per student statewide. That is 2.9 percent higher than the final actual expenditures for last school year, according to data from the Kansas Department of Education.”
“The fact: For the last decade, Kansas USD spending per pupil statewide has increased at double the rate of inflation.” Bob L. Corkins, Executive Director, Freestate Center for Liberty Studies, Topeka
I think you should re-investigate the study you cited. If I remember correctly, most of the funding increases were not based on fact, but on “wishes” from Kansas superintendents and principals.
Since when does a court set taxes? Taxes, and the political debate on how much to spend or not spend, is a political battle for the legislature, not any court. Perhaps you remember from high school government that courts “interpret” the laws. Their responsibility is not to make any new laws, or set expenditure levels. The court won’t even define what “suitable” means except that it means “more”.