This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Judge Lori Wilbur says school districts do not have legal standing to sue the state over insufficient funding. They can't be party to the funding lawsuit, can't contribute money to support it.
The judge accepts the argument that school districts are creatures of the legislature and thus would be suing themselves if allowed to continue as parties to the lawsuit.
I'm still scratching my head. School boards are elected separately from the Legislature, in non-partisan elections. They represent unique jurisdictions whose boundaries are distinct from legislative district boundaries. They are as external to the legislative budgeting process as you, me, and PP. Their operations are directly affected and limited by the Legislature's funding decisions.
If school districts don't have standing to sue the state over insufficient funding, who does? (And where do they sign up to join the lawsuit?)
Hide Fido (by Andy Horowitz)
-
I coined Noem as the ‘Palin of South Dakota’ when she ran for the state
house, seems I nailed it; America: meet your new Secretary of Homeland
Security. Sh...
3 hours ago
Cory, at the risk of sounding like the Loon who stole Labor Day, I'll take your last question and twist it around. If school districts can sue the state over insufficient funding, who else in the public sector can do it too?
ReplyDeleteI'm not a lawyer, so I can't make a legal judgment here. But when one part of the public sector sues another at taxpayer expense, then I, as a taxpayer, believe I have reason to be annoyed.
I wish we could find another way to resolve this besides legal warfare. The school districts say that they have tried every other option and failed -- but have they, really?
If enough of us South Dakotans want more education funding and are willing to pay for it, why don't we elect people to the legislature and the governorship who will do what's necessary to make it happen without resorting to combat?
However, if the majority of people don't believe they can cough up any more money than they're shelling out now for taxes, housing, energy, food, and medical care, especially in the face of the current economic situation and volatile world mood, why should a minority be allowed to force their will upon the majority?
I trust that the courts will come to the correct legal conclusions. But I still think it would be better to let good old fashioned democracy solve this dilemma.
I agree that I'd rather see a legislative solution than a judicial one. Lawsuits are a terrible way to legislate. If we really support education, we should have the collective will to enact such funding through our legislature.
ReplyDeleteBut on who can sue: can states sue the federal government? Does that analogy fit the relationship of school boards to the Legislature?
It depends on what they are suing over. If they are suing over a civil or constitutional right violation then there is greater chance they'll get in the courthouse door. For example if rural districts receive less than urban, they could argue an equal protection violation (separate but equal). (The discrimination is the ends, funding merely the means.)
ReplyDeleteFor example one branch of government cannot set out rules, then arbitrarily only enforce some of them, some of the time.
Undoubtedly some wanted to "legislate" resolutions to the civil rights crisis. And the winner will be: the tyranny of the majority. When the majority sets the rules, through a constitution or other legislative or executive means, then we the people have rights to ensure the rules apply to all, even handedly. Otherwise we could have a tyranny of the bureaucrats.
States suing the federal government, over unfunded mandates for example? Good analogy, Cory. But in that case, wouldn't the sources of revenue be different for the plaintiff (presumably the state's treasury) and the defendant (the federal treasury)? It would be like one snake drinking the blood of another (ugly enough), as opposed to the current situation in South Dakota, that seems to me more like a snake supping on its own blood (downright demonic).
ReplyDeleteAs for the "tyranny of the majority," I agree with Anon 11:18 (my undercaffeinated brain reads this as blogospherical scripture at this witching hour) that this is a danger inherent in any society, democratic or otherwise, and we had better always be on the lookout for this horrible hydra's hideous heads. I would not wish to imply that a tyranny of the minority is any better, however.
May truth, justice, and the American Way prevail!
The judges ruling, if it means that the whole lawsuit is thrown out, solves many things for the state without ever having to go to court.
ReplyDeleteDo we really want a judge dictating funding and the corresponding increases in taxes to pay for it?
The last thing, IMHO, we need in this state is another tax. Let the state become more efficient through uses of technology and take those savings and apply it to school funding. Can you be 10% more efficient in your daily tasks? The state should be able to do the same.