brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Defendants cite the Blue Book for the obvious proposition that by the addition ofAmendment 23, “the state constitution sets a minimum increase in funding.” Like theamendment itself, the Blue Book makes no reference to the Education Clause or to the fundingof a thorough and uniform system of public education, and certainly does not include in thestatement of purposes one such as: “the proposed amendment will establish the required fundinglevel under article IX, section 2 of the constitution.”Defendants attempt to manufacture a conflict between the two constitutional provisionsand resolve it by amending or in effect repealing the Education Clause. “A conflict exists whenone provision authorizes what the other forbids or forbids what the other authorizes.” Bickel v.City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215, 228-29 (1994). If their construction is accepted, Amendment 23implicitly amends the Education Clause by fixing an annual dollar standard of compliance withits mandate. For Defendants, the Education Clause now reads: “the general assembly shall . . .provide for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free publicschools throughout the state, provided that the costs of funding such system need not exceed theamount determined by the formula set forth in article IX, section 17.” Such violence to theFramers’ mandate is contrary to the rules of construction:“Amendments by implication are not favored,” and we will not presume that the GeneralAssembly intended to change preexisting law absent a clear expression or a manifestinconsistency rendering harmonization unworkable.In re Marriage of Chalat, 112 P.3d 47, 55 (Colo. 2005) (citations omitted). Further:Repeals by implication are not favored. When two apparently contradictory statutesrelate to the same subject matter and two alternative constructions are possible, one ofwhich will result in giving effect to both statutes, while the other will invalidate onestatute, we will adopt the interpretation that gives effect to both statutes rather than theone which results in repeal of the earlier statute by implication. Here, the two sentencingprovisions are not in irreconcilable conflict. Rather they can sensibly be read together togive effect to both provisions.12
People v. District Court, 196 Colo. 249, 585 P.2d 913, 915 (Colo. 1978) (citations omitted).Even if there were an ambiguity in the relation between Amendment 23 and theEducation Clause, “where ambiguities exist, a court should favor a construction that harmonizesdifferent constitutional provisions rather than creates conflict.” In re Great Outdoors ColoradoTrust Fund, supra, 913 P.2d at 538.A “cogent element” in our construction of general terms of the constitution is theconsideration of the object to be accomplished and the mischiefs to be avoided: we areobligated to construe the constitution in such a manner as will prevent an evasion of itslegitimate operation. Each provision of the constitution, both original and amended,should be construed if possible to avoid any conflict between the different parts of theconstitution.Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe, 810 P.2d 201, 206 -207 (Colo. 1991) (citations omitted).The Education Clause and Amendment 23 both serve the interests of public education,the former by directing the creation of a thorough and uniform system and the latter byprotecting a minimum funding level. There is neither an express nor an unavoidably implicit“conflict” between these naturally harmonious expressions of the public will. It is only whentwo constitutional provisions cannot be harmonized that rules of construction favoring the laterin time or the specific over the general enter the analysis. That is not the case here. The courtneed not be drawn into resolving a conflict that does not exist.III.THE EDUCATION CLAUSE CLAIMS ARE JUSTICIABIALEA. The Courts Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Actions Brought pursuantto the Education ClauseDefendants argue that statutes enacted by the legislature pursuant to the mandate of theEducation Clause are beyond constitutional review by the judiciary and that Coloradans such asthe Plaintiffs who believe that the Education Clause creates rights in its named beneficiaries have13
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 and 10: electorate, reacting against the de
Page 11: State to fund a thorough and unifor
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?