Amendment has the backing of Governor Lynch and legislative leaders in both parties, but it also has many opponents, including the teachers union, many house conservatives, and the Democratic chairs of a half-dozen House committees.
During the past decade, state lawmakers have debated and rejected 33 school funding constitutional amendments. Supporters of this latest proposal have understandably been at pains to show this one is different.
"We’re not using the constitution to fight a short-term political conflict."
That’s Marjorie Smith chairman of the House finance committee and the amendment’s lead author.
"We’re using this opportunity to strengthen the constitution by making clear just how important the state’s responsiability is in educating citizens to take their place in a democracy."
Smith claims the amendment will achieve three goals: allow lawmakers to target money where its most needed without first paying for educational adequacy in every district, preserve the existing level of court review over school funding matters, and to clarify in 21st century english the constitutional requirement that the legislature cherish the interest of literature and the sciences.” But according to critics, the amendment would just muddy the waters. They point in particular to phrases like, lawmakers shall distribute money in a way that “alleviates local disparities” and “meaningful share of these funds.” Andru Volinsky was lead plaintiff attorney in the original Claremont lawsuit. He says at best, the amendment might buy buying the state some time as challenges to the untested language play themselves out in court.
"I am unaware of any court opinion that has considered the term meaningful in any context close to this. And I am concerned that we will spend a lot of time debating the meaning of meaningful and end up right back where we are."
And the crticism isn't simply coming from those who believe the state needs to live up to past supreme court rulings.
"There is a disconnect between the ends and the means."
Ed Mosca is a Republican lawyer and who believes the Claremont rulings are an abomination, and that the court needs to be barred from future involvement in school funding matters. Mosca adds that the rationale of targeting school aid should be to get the state off the hook of raising the cost of adequacy statewide, which this amendment wouldn’t allow.
"Sometimes when you compromise for the sake of compromise you end up with pablum, and that’s what you end up with here, pablum."
Whether lawmakers are game to stomach this amendment is far from clear. Groups looking to influence the vote were out in force at the statehouse. The NEA, school boards, and school administrators kicked off the day with a press conference to denounce the proposal. An hour later a coalition of business groups held their own event to argue that the amendment is essential. House leaders in both parties, meanwhile, treated the rank and file to lengthy caucus meetings to hash out differences. At the Democratic caucus, 15 key lawmakers, including the chairs and vice chair of the education committee, handed colleagues a letter stressing their fear that the amendment would reverse lawmakers commitment to all the children in the state and would result in higher property taxes on many low and middle income families. During a break, House speaker Terie Norelli characterized the closed meeting as respectful, and said she would not attempt to tell members how to vote. Norelli proved circumspect when asked if she thought the measure would get the super majority support it needs to clear the house.
"It’s a high bar. We’ve said that all along, so I think if you look historically, that it will be a challenge, and we expect that."
The word out of the GOP caucus was almost as guarded. Deputy house minority leader David Hess claimed last week that he could deliver 120 republicans votes for the right amendment. On the eve of the vote, he seemed a lot less sure.
"There is considerable difference of opinion within the republican caucus about this constitional amendment, or any constitutional amendment. Perhaps this will be resolved by tomorrow, perhaps it won’t."
To survive, it will need 237 votes regardless of how many lawmakers make it to session. If that threshold is met, the measure would then head back the the senate, where measure it would again need to win 3/5th support to make it on the November ballot. To take effect, the Amendment would need 2/3rds support from state voters.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo