Senators seek to limit court influence

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Under Missouri's system of three co-equal branches of government, the legislature sets public policy, the executive department carries it out and the judiciary determines whether it's constitutional.

However, three key Republican state senators, with the tentative blessing of Gov. Matt Blunt, want to trim the third branch of the state government tree to eliminate judicial review of legislative and executive decisions relating to public school funding.

The Senate heavyweights behind the effort are judiciary chairman Matt Bartle of Lee's Summit, education chairman Gary Nodler of Joplin and Majority Floor Leader Charlie Shields of St. Joseph. They propose putting before Missouri voters a constitutional amendment that would preclude state courts from hearing any case related to school funding -- even those that claim funding policies violate the constitutional rights of students or taxpayers.

The proposed amendment is a direct attempt to derail a pending lawsuit brought by 257 public school districts, including 49 from Southeast Missouri, and 35 families that claims the state's education funding system is unconstitutional because it provides too little money to local schools and doesn't fairly distribute that money. A separate group of 34 districts, among them Cape Girardeau, Perry County and New Madrid, and five taxpayers has joined the suit solely on the funding adequacy issue.

The proposed amendment is driven by the fear that the Missouri Supreme Court might eventually order lawmakers to increase education spending by billions of dollars. Supporters say such power shouldn't be vested with appointed judges.

Bartle says he and his colleagues simply want Missouri voters to consider the issue.

"If they feel like unelected judges should have a say in the appropriations process, then they will vote against the amendment," Bartle said. "If they agree with us that that's not a very healthy way to run a government, then they will vote in favor of the amendment."

Alex Bartlett, the Jefferson City lawyer representing the primary group of plaintiffs in the funding lawsuit, said the proposal is constitutionally dangerous as it would leave Missourians with no method to seek redress for their grievances.

"Checks and balances are key to our system of government," Bartlett said. "While courts render decisions in school finance cases, it is still left to the legislature to decide how to implement them, and in most cases it has. The system works."

Some school superintendents whose districts are plaintiffs in the lawsuit said courts shouldn't be barred from reviewing legislative and executive actions.

"I understand their desire to limit the involvement of the courts in education, but sometimes the only way you have to address a need is through the court system," said Dr. Kenneth Jackson, the Dexter superintendent.

Oak Ridge superintendent Dr. Gerald Landewee said the amendment would be a major shakeup in the concept of co-equal branches of government.

"The judiciary is meant to interpret the law," Landewee said. "I find it unusual that one branch of government would try to eliminate another."

Paul Sloca, Blunt's spokesman, said the governor hasn't reviewed the details of the measure but supports its goals.

"The governor does not believe judges should determine the funding level for Missouri schools," Sloca said.

'Pro-student amendment'

If the proposed amendment clears the legislature, it would go on the November 2006 ballot, unless Blunt set an earlier election date.

Even with a vote nearly two years from now, the current lawsuit likely still wouldn't be resolved. The case was filed more than a year ago and is still many months away from going to trial. Regardless of the outcome, it is certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Nodler, the Senate education chairman, said the proposed amendment in part aims to save the state and local school districts millions of dollars in litigation costs in a case that could drag on for years.

"This is a pro-student amendment," Nodler said. "This is an amendment that says the dollars taxpayers of the state of Missouri provide to public education should go to education and should not be diverted into the hands of attorneys."

In the last major school finance case in 1993, the trial judge declared the education funding system unconstitutional but left it to the legislature to decide how to fix the problem, which it did.

Sikeston School District superintendent Stephen Borgsmiller said it is often the threat of judicial action that encourages lawmakers to tackle the politically thorny issue of education funding distribution. Shields, who is perhaps the Senate's top expert on the state education funding formula, acknowledged as much in a report a special committee he led released last year.

"The impetus to consider a formula change almost always comes from a judicial mandate," the report said.

Conflicting provisions

If ratified by voters, the proposed amendment seemingly would be in conflict with at least three existing provisions of the Missouri Constitution. One mandates separation of powers among the three branches of government, another guarantees Missourians the right to seek remedies in court and the third gives the Supreme Court the authority to determine the validity of state laws.

The separation of powers section, however, provides exemptions to the doctrine when specifically stated elsewhere in the constitution. The other provisions might also be trumped under a Supreme Court precedent that held when constitutional provisions are in conflict and cannot be reconciled, the one most recently ratified prevails.

However, Bartlett said a prohibition on education funding lawsuits could run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process.

State Sen. Rob Mayer, a member of both the Senate education and judiciary committees, said he currently is skeptical of the proposal.

"It is a pretty profound resolution to put before the people," Mayer said. "It certainly needs a lot more study. I'm not sure you can deny people the right to address their problems in court."

Bartle, the judiciary chairman, said removing education funding decisions from judicial oversight wouldn't eliminate checks and balances in government as disgruntled voters could retaliate against elected officials at the ballot box.

"If voters don't like the funding priorities of any given legislature, they throw the legislature out," Bartle said.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608