Abbeville County School Dist. v. State
| Decision Date | 22 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 24939.,24939. |
| Parties | ABBEVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Allendale County School District, Bamberg County School District 1, Bamberg County School District 2, Barnwell County School District 19, Barnwell County School District 29, Barnwell County School District 45, Berkeley County School District, Chesterfield County School District, Clarendon County School District 1, Clarendon County School District 2, Clarendon County School District 3, Dillon County School District 1, Dillon County School District 2, Dillon County School District 3, Florence County School District 1, Florence County School District 2, Florence County School District 3, Florence County School District 4, Florence County School District 5, Hampton County School District 1, Hampton County School District 2, Jasper County School District, Laurens County School District 55, Laurens County School District 56, Lee County School District, Lexington County School District 4, Marion County School District 1, Marion County School District 2, Marion County School District 3, Marion County School District 4, Marlboro County School District, McCormick County School District, Orangeburg County School District 1, Orangeburg County School District 2, Orangeburg County School District 3, Orangeburg County School District 6, Orangeburg County School District 8, Saluda County School District and Williamsburg County School District, William L. Mills, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Allendale County and as Guardian ad Litem of Waylon Priester, Waylon Priester, a minor, by and through William L. Mills, as Guardian ad Litem, Betty Bagley, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Bamberg County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Tyler Bagley, Tyler Bagley, a minor, by and through Betty Bagley, as Guardian ad Litem, Evert Comer, Jr., individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Bamberg County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Kimberly Comer, Kimberly Comer, a minor, by and through Evert Comer, Jr., as Guardian ad Litem, Marla Q. Jameson, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Barnwell County and as a parent and Guardian of Eleanor Jameson, Eleanor Jameson, a minor, by and through Marla Q. Jameson, as Guardian ad Litem, Victor M. Lancaster, Sr., individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Barnwell County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Christie Lancaster, Christie Lancaster, a minor, by and through Victor M. Lancaster, Sr., as Guardian ad Litem, Dr. Charles Clark, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Chesterfield County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Candace Clark, Candace Clark, a minor, by and through Dr. Charles Clark, as Guardian ad Litem, Colonel Larry Coker, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Clarendon County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Corrie Coker, Corrie Coker, a minor, by and through Colonel Larry Coker, as Guardian ad Litem, John Whiteside, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Florence County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Joel Whiteside, Joel Whiteside, a minor, by and through John Whiteside, as Guardian ad Litem, Dr. Francis Mills, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Hampton County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Amy Mills, Amy Mills, a minor, by and through Dr. Francis Mills, as Guardian ad Litem, Benny Burrison, Jr., individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Hampton County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Shamon Burrison, Shamon Burrison, a minor, by and through Benny Burrison, Jr., as Guardian ad Litem, Robert Elisha Short, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Laurens County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Robert B. Short, Robert B. Short, a minor, by and through Robert Elisha Short, as Guardian ad Litem, Dr. Keith A. Bridges, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Laurens County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Jorgana Ranson Bridges, Jorgana Ranson Bridges, a minor, by and through Dr. A. Keith Bridges, as Guardian ad Litem, Hampton L. Logan, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Lee County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Kimberly Logan, Kimberly Logan, a minor, by and through Hampton L. Logan, as Guardian ad Litem, Dr. John Nobles, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Marlboro County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Erin Nobles, Erin Nobles, a minor, by and through Dr. John Nobles, as Guardian ad Litem, Patricia Hampton, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in McCormick County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Krystle Hampton, Krystle Hampton, a minor, by and through Patricia Hampton, as Guardian ad Litem, Matlin P. Brown, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Orangeburg County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Tanisha P. Brown, Tanisha P. Brown, a minor, by and through Matlin P. Brown, as Guardian ad Litem, James Berry, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Orangeburg County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Dondrea Berry, Dondrea Berry, a minor, by and through James Berry, as Guardian ad Litem, Gerald Smith, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Orangeburg County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Brenda Smith, Brenda Smith, a minor, by and through Gerald Smith, as Guardian ad Litem, Thomas Shealy, individually, and as a taxpayer residing in Saluda County and as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Thomas Shealy, Jr., Thomas Shealy, Jr., a minor, by and through Thomas Shealy, as Guardian ad Litem, Appellants, v. The STATE of South Carolina; David M. Beasley, as Governor of the State of South Carolina; Nikki Setzler, as Chairman of the Senate Education Committee and Chairman of the Education Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee, in his representation capacity as a properly designated representative of the South Carolina Senate; David H. Wilkins, as Speaker of the House of Representatives and as representative of the South Carolina House of Representatives; Barbara S. Nielsen, as State Superintendent of Education and as a representative of the State Department of Education; and Celia Gettys, as Chairman of the South Carolina State Board of Education, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Curtis L. Ott, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A., and Carl B. Epps, II, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, both of Columbia, for appellants.
W. Hogan Brown and Kenneth A. Davis, of Columbia, for respondent Setzler.
Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith, Jr., both of Columbia; Ashley B. Abel, of Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, of Greenville, for respondents State, Beasley, and Gettys.
Stephen L. Elliott, Executive Director of Research, of the House of Representatives, of Columbia, for respondent Wilkins.
George C. Leventis, of Columbia, for Respondent Nielsen.
Barbara E. Brunson and Nancy McCormick, both of Columbia, for the Intervenors South Carolina Protection & Advocacy System for the Handicapped, Inc., Suber and Cook.
This is a declaratory judgment action brought by appellants challenging the State's funding of public primary and secondary education. Appellants are forty less wealthy school districts, their public school students, and their taxpayers; respondents (the State) are the State of South Carolina and individuals sued as representatives of governmental bodies. The circuit court granted the State's Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, motion and dismissed appellants' complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint alleged violations of the South Carolina Constitution's education clause (art. XI, § 3), the state and federal equal protection clauses, and a violation of the Education Finance Act (EFA), South Carolina Code Ann. §§ 59-20-10 to -80 (1990 & Supp.1998). We reverse the education clause ruling, and affirm as to the remaining issues.
In South Carolina, public education is funded by the federal, state, and local governments. State funding of education is done primarily through mechanisms established by two acts: the EFA and the Education Improvement Act (EIA), S.C.Code Ann. §§ 59-21-420 to -450 (1990 & Supp.1998). The EFA distributes funds using a wealth-sensitive formula, which results in appellants receiving proportionately more state money than wealthier districts. Unlike the EFA, the EIA distributes funds without regard to the school district's tax base. This Court has previously denied constitutional challenges to these statutory distribution methods, including an equal protection challenge, to the EFA's funding scheme. Richland County v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 364 S.E.2d 470 (1988) (Campbell).
Appellants raise a number of challenges to the State's current education funding system. Essentially, they allege that the system is underfunded, resulting in a violation of the state Constitution's education clause, art. XI, § 3; that to the extent funds are distributed without regard to district wealth under the EIA, the system violates the state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection; and that the EFA created a private cause of action. Unlike similar suits brought in other states, appellants do not seek "equal" state funding since they already receive more than wealthier districts, but instead allege that the funding results in an inadequate education. On appeal, appellants allege the circuit court erred in granting the State's 12(b)(6) motion, and also allege procedural error.
We address the procedural issue first. While the order purports to decide a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is clear that the judge in fact granted respondents summary judgment, making numerous factual determinations, and finding appellants failed to present "clear and convincing" evidence to support their claims. In this appeal, we decide the Rule 12(b)(6) issue: Does appellants' complaint state a cause of action?
We next address appellants' equal protection causes of action. Campbell is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conn. Coal. for Justice in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell
... ... of an imperfect public educational system in this state that is straining to serve many students who, because their ... that the state has failed to provide children in any school district in this state with minimally adequate teachers, ... 565 (1995) ( Campaign I ) ]; see also, e.g., [ Abbeville County School District v. State , 335 S.C. 58, 68, 515 ... ...
-
Ex parte James
... ... , Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama and as a president of the State Board of ... ," 713 So.2d at 894, with regard to their school-funding duties); Pinto v. Alabama Coalition for Equity, ... See, e.g., Seattle School Dist. No. 1 v. State, 90 Wash.2d 476, 585 P.2d 71, 104 (1978) ... by the judicial branch of our government"); Abbeville County School Dist. v. State, 335 S.C. 58, 69, 515 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Gannon v. State
... ... 4. Under the facts of this case, the school districts' claims arising under Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution ... 72–64b02 and filed suit in Shawnee County District Court the following November. Two days later a three-judge panel ... In Rural Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Wilson, Kansas, 243 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir.2001), the ... as mandatory and judicially enforceable.”); see also Abbeville County School Dist. v. State, 335 S.C. 58, 67, 515 S.E.2d 535 (1999) (“ ... ...
-
Lobato v. State
... ... natural guardian of Rachel Wrangham and Deanna Wrangham; Alamosa School District, No. RE-11J; Centennial School District No. R-1; Center ... 1 in the County of Mineral and State of Colorado; Del Norte Consolidated School District ... See State v. Campbell County Sch. Dist., 32 P.3d 325, 334-37 (Wyo.2001). 13 ... Important ... Voight, 236 Wis.2d 588, 614 N.W.2d 388 (2000); Abbeville County Sch. Dist. v. State, 335 S.C. 58, 515 S.E.2d 535 (1999); Abbott ... ...
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...Court of last resort RI 2012 2012 WL 2946774 Trial court RI 2014 89 A.3d 778 Court of last resort SC 1996 [Unreported] Trial court SC 1999 335 S.C. 58 Court of last resort SC 2014 410S.C. 619 : Court of last resort SC 1987 364 S.E.2d 470 Trial court SC 1988 294 S.C. 346 Court of last resort......
-
Safeguarding the right to a sound basic education in times of fiscal constraint.
...v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249, 256 (N.C. 1997); DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733, 747 (Ohio 1997); Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 515 S.E.2d 535, 541 (S.C. 1999); Tenn. Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 91 S.W.3d 232, 242 (Tenn. 2002); Neeley v. W. Orange-Cove Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 176 S.......
-
The Children's Internet Protection Act: a Denial of a Student's Opportunity to Learn in a Technology-rich Environment
...S.W.2d 186, 212 (Ky. 1989); Claremont Sch. Dist. v. Governor, 703 A.2d 1353, 1359-60 (N.H. 1997); Abbeville County Sch. Dist. v. State, 515 S.E.2d 535, 540 (S.C. 1999); Campbell County Sch. Dist. v. Wyoming, 907 P.2d 1238, 1259 (Wyo. 1995). [431]. See, e.g., Wyo. Stat. Ann Sec. 21-9-101(b) ......
-
Coerced Choice: School Vouchers and Students With Disabilities
...Court has interpreted the clause to require the state to confer a "minimally adequate education." Abbeville Cty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 515 S.E.2d 535, 540 (S.C. 1999).66. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 584 (1975) (holding that a public school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student ......