Court Rules Washington State Failed To Comply With Constitutional Mandate on Education
On February 4, 2010, in a remarkable decision regarded as the “biggest education-finance lawsuit in three decades,” King County Superior Court Judge John P. Erlick declared that the Washington State Legislature has failed to satisfy the State Constitutional mandate to provide ample education, and ordered the State to remedy its failure.
The litigation started over three years ago, when a collection of parents, students, school districts and community organizations filed suit against the State of Washington, alleging that the State had failed to make ample provision for the education of its children as required by the State Constitution. Article IX, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution provides: “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste or sex.”
In its decision, the Court carefully defined the terms “paramount,” “ample” and “education” as used in Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution. The word “‘paramount’ means that the state must fully comply with its duty under Article IX, §1 as its first priority before all others.” “Ample” means “considerably more than just adequate or merely sufficient . . . so no public school has to turn to or rely upon local levies, PTA fundraisers, private donations, or other non-State sources to provide all of its children the ‘education’ specified in Article IX, § 1.” The term “Education,” the court found, includes a myriad of competencies, as well as skills and knowledge specifically identified in existing state legislation.
The Court recognized that “Washington’s crisis in education is a microcosm of that of the nation.” Nonetheless, the State Legislature’s failure to satisfy the unique Constitutional mandate could not be brushed aside: “The Respondent State has no discretion in whether or not it will comply with the duties mandated by the Washington State Constitution.”
At the end of an exhaustive 73-page analysis, the Court concluded that “[t]he Respondent State is not currently complying with its legal duty under Article IX, § 1 of the Washington Constitution.” The Court ordered the State to: “(1) establish the actual cost of amply providing all Washington children with the education mandated by this court’s interpretation of Article IX, §1, and (2) establish how the Respondent State will fully fund that actual cost with stable and dependable State sources.”
An appeal may very well follow, and it remains unclear from the Court’s opinion whether the State may already be on its way to complying with the order by virtue of House Bill 2261, passed last year.
