brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Amendment 23 includes three principal provisions: a mandatory, minimum level ofannual increases to public school funding; the creation and funding of a state education fund tosupport the mandated increases and to address specified compelling educational needs; and arequirement to maintain a minimum level of state public school funding effort. The purpose toestablish minimum annual funding increases could not be more plainly expressed: subsection (1),titled “Purpose,” states that for fiscal years 2001-02 through 2010-11 PSFA and categoricalprogram funding “shall grow annually at least by the rate of inflation plus an additional onepercentage point,” and, thereafter “at a rate set by the general assembly that is at least equal tothe rate of inflation.”Defendants seek to make the unambiguous language of Amendment 23 say somethingthat it manifestly does not. Nothing in the language of Amendment 23 remotely suggests apurpose to define the cost of a constitutionally adequate education. Amendment 23 does notexpressly refer to, amend, or supplant, much less diminish the qualitative mandate of theEducation Clause; nor does it attempt to define or limit the level or method of funding necessaryto fulfill that mandate. Amendment 23 certainly does not state that the most minimal level offunding permitted by its terms also constitutes sufficient funding for purposes of the EducationClause. It is not the function of a court to search out and construe some unexpressed orinadequately expressed intent of the electorate. See id., 913 P.2d at 540.Amendment 23 and the Education Clause coexist harmoniously in parallel. Defendantsdo not point to any language that is “reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation” orother textual ambiguity in Amendment 23 that would require the court to look beyond the text.See Zaner, supra, 917 P.2d at 283. The minimum annual funding requirement advances thegoals of the Education Clause by partially mitigating the effects of TABOR on the ability of the10
State to fund a thorough and uniform system of public education. Its meaning is clear anddevoid of conflict or absurdity, whether read in isolation or in the context of the rest of theconstitution.Ultimately, Defendants depend upon mischaracterizing Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs donot claim that the Education Clause mandates a “particular minimum state-level contribution forfunding public education services in Colorado.” 10Plaintiffs seek neither a minimum nor amaximum funding level, 11 but one that intentionally, accurately, and fully provides fundingsufficient to meet the qualitative standards of the Education Clause and permits school districtsto fulfill their duty to control instruction in their schools.This mischaracterization is critical to Defendants’ argument; indeed, it is all the argumentthey have. Amendment 23 undoubtedly establishes a minimum annual increase in publiceducation funding that the legislature cannot fail to meet. Equally clearly, it does not establish afiscal safe harbor for the State or diminish the educational rights of the people by defining athorough and uniform system of public education to be whatever education can be afforded at therate of 1994 spending plus an inflation factor. 12Based upon the unambiguous language ofAmendment 23 itself, Defendants’ argument fails for complete absence of textual support.10 Motion to Dismiss, at 4.11 Paragraph 228 of the Complaint, to which Defendants’ cite, states that Plaintiffs seekinjunctive relief “[C]ompelling the Defendants to establish, fund, and maintain a thorough anduniform system of free public schools throughout the state that fulfills the qualitative mandate ofthe Education Clause and the rights guaranteed to the Plaintiffs thereunder and that is in fullcompliance with the requirements of article IX, section 15, and article X, section 3(1)(a) of theColorado Constitution.”12 The 1994 funding levels were not based upon a valid analysis of the actual costs of providing aconstitutionally adequate, quality education, and there is no basis to conclude that merelyrestoring the 1994 funding levels would provide funding that meets the mandates of theEducation Clause.11
Page 1 and 2: DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OFD
Page 3 and 4: system of public schools throughout
Page 5 and 6: Amendment 23 was not intended to an
Page 7 and 8: evenues they can raise, receive, an
Page 9: electorate, reacting against the de
Page 13 and 14: People v. District Court, 196 Colo.
Page 15 and 16: with an informal foster family.Ther
Page 17: In his concurring opinion, Justice
Page 20 and 21: Implicit are supportive services: (
Page 22 and 23: if the districts lack sufficient fu
Page 26 and 27: judicial power; that the executive
Page 28 and 29: The general assembly can reprioriti
Page 30 and 31: state auditor and treasurer from is
Page 32 and 33: There is nothing fair or just about
Page 34 and 35: Defendants offer revenues raised in
Page 36 and 37: a state must be deemed commensurate
Page 38 and 39: local over state control of instruc
Page 40: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby cert

brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?