Bismarck Public School Dist. No. 1 v. State By and Through North Dakota Legislative Assembly
| Decision Date | 24 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 930079,930079 |
| Parties | 88 Ed. Law Rep. 1184 BISMARCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT # 1 and the following taxpayers and parents residing in and their children enrolled in Bismarck Public School District # 1: Jeff Geiger, individually and as parent of Matthew Geiger; Sandy Horst, individually and as parent of Jacki Horst and Jessica Horst; George Keiser, individually and as parent of Sarah Keiser; Quentin Wangler, individually and as parent of Nicholas Wangler; Robert Penne, individually and as parent of Jonathan Penne; Gary Christenson, individually and as parent of Brandon Christenson; Karen Hoovestal, individually and as parent of Mark Hoovestal and Keith Hoovestal; Devils Lake Public School District # 1 and the following taxpayers and parents residing in and their children enrolled in Devils Lake Public School District # 1: Jay Klemetsrud, individually and as parent of Eric Klemetsrud; Paul Goulding, individually and as parent of Thomas Goulding; Dickinson Public School District # 1 and the following taxpayers and parents residing in and their children enrolled in Dickinson Public School District # 1: Dennis W. Johnson and Nancy Jo Johnson, individually and as parents of Timothy Johnson, Amie Johnson and Christopher Johnson; Phyllis Dvorak and Alvin L. Dvorak, individually and as parents of Eric Dvorak, Jason Dvorak and Deidra Dvorak; LeRoy Fettig, individually and as parent of Alicia Fettig; Lawrence A. Gardner and Marty Odermann, individually and as parents of Megan Gardner; Grafton Public School District # 3 and the following taxpayers and parents residing in and their children enrolled in Grafton Public School District # 3: Roger Moe, individually and as parent of James Moe and Susan Moe; Mandan Public School District # 1 and the following taxpayers and parents residing in and their children enrolled in Mandan Public School District # 1: Pamela Engelhardt, individually and as parent of Levi Engelhardt; Herman A. Schafer, individually and as parent of Robert Schafer and Tamera Schafer; Surr |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Calvin N. Rolfson (argued), of Rolfson Schulz Lervick Law Offices, Bismarck, David C. Long (argued), Mill Valley, CA and Clark J. Bormann (appearance), of Bormann Law Office, Bismarck, for plaintiffs and appellees.
Laurie J. Loveland (argued), Sol. Gen., Mary Norum Hoberg (appearance), Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Karrie Helm (appearance), Legal Asst., Attorney General's Office, Bismarck, for defendants and appellants.
Article VI, Section 4 of the North Dakota Constitution requires at least four members of this Court to declare a statute unconstitutional. 1 Because only three members of this Court have joined in this opinion, the statutory method for distributing funding for primary and secondary education in North Dakota is not declared unconstitutional by a sufficient majority.
We hold that the funding of the previously recognized fundamental constitutional right to education, see, e.g., State v. Rivinius, 328 N.W.2d 220 (N.D.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1070, 103 S.Ct. 1525, 75 L.Ed.2d 948 (1983), and other cases cited herein, is an important substantive right. We further hold that the widely disparate effect of the State's method of accomplishing this important substantive right fails to bear a close correspondence to the achievement of the constitutionally mandated goal of an equal educational opportunity, which was previously recognized by this Court in Lapp v. Reeder Public School District, 491 N.W.2d 65, 67 (N.D.1992), and in In Interest of G.H., 218 N.W.2d 441, 447 (N.D.1974).
In this appeal, we consider the constitutionality of North Dakota's statutory method for distributing funding for public elementary and secondary schools. The trial court held that the distribution method was unconstitutional and retained jurisdiction to monitor and enforce compliance with its decision. We affirm the trial court's declaration that the distribution method, as a whole, is unconstitutional, but we reverse the court's retention of jurisdiction.
In June 1989, nine public high school districts and thirty-one resident taxpayers and parents of children who attend public school in those districts [hereinafter collectively referred to as plaintiffs], brought this action for declaratory relief against the State and the legislative and executive officials constitutionally charged with establishing and maintaining North Dakota's public elementary and secondary schools [hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants]. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the statutory method for distributing funding to public schools, alleging it was based predominantly upon each school district's property tax base, which resulted in these nine "property poor" school districts and their pupils receiving fewer educational resources per pupil than "property wealthy" school districts. The plaintiffs alleged that the statutory method for distributing funding for education, as a whole, failed to equalize local property tax disparities and resulted in substantial inequities in educational opportunities in property poor districts in violation of the education [Article VIII, Secs. 1 and 2], and equal protection [Article I, Secs. 21 and 22], provisions of the North Dakota Constitution.
The district court held that the statutory method for distributing funding for education violated both the education and the equal protection provisions of our state constitution, and retained jurisdiction to monitor the enactment of a constitutional method for distributing funding. The defendants appealed.
Relying on Dickinson Pub. School Dist. v. Sanstead, 425 N.W.2d 906 (N.D.1988), and County of Stutsman v. State Historical Society, 371 N.W.2d 321 (N.D.1985), the defendants assert that the nine school districts, as political subdivisions, do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory method for distributing funding for public education.
In Sanstead, this court concluded that NDCC ch. 15-40.1 [State School Aid] did not create an express contract between the State and local school districts for state foundation aid. We thus held that a school district's action against the State for "compensatory damages" for the alleged failure to properly calculate past foundation aid payments was not one arising upon contract and was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We indicated that "state aid to local school districts is a mere gratuity." Sanstead, supra, 425 N.W.2d at 910. See also Zenith School District No. 32 v. Peterson, 81 N.W.2d 764, 768 (N.D.1957). In County of Stutsman, this court held that Stutsman County, as a political subdivision of the state, could not successfully assert that the state had violated its constitutional rights, because a county is a creature of the constitution and is not a person or private party under the applicable constitutional provisions.
School districts are political subdivisions created by the state. Baldwin v. Board of Education, 76 N.D. 51, 33 N.W.2d 473 (1948); NDCC Sec. 15-47-43. For purposes of challenging the constitutionality of the statutory method for distributing funding for education, County of Stutsman and Sanstead suggest that the nine plaintiff school districts do not have standing to raise those issues. But see Application of Otter Tail Power Co., 451 N.W.2d 95, 97 (N.D.1990), and State v. Woodworth, 234 N.W.2d 243, 249 (N.D.1975) []. See also Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of Hennepin, 451 N.W.2d 319, 321 (Minn.1990) []. However, the defendants concede that the remaining plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory method for distributing funding for education. Accordingly, it is not necessary for us to resolve the standing issue.
Before evaluating the parties' constitutional arguments, we trace the contours of the statutory method for distributing funding for public elementary and secondary education in North...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haney v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
... ... Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, Bismarck, for appellee ... SANDSTROM, ... 65-01-01, N.D.C.C., sets forth the legislative purpose behind North Dakota's Workers' ... The state of North Dakota, exercising its police and ... , revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be ... Benson at 108. See also Bismarck Public School District # 1 v. State, 511 N.W.2d 247, 250 ... 'Through what precise points in a field of many competing ... ...
-
Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Worcester
... ... 117, 102 Ed. Law Rep. 781 ... Jane DOE 1 ... SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF WORCESTER & ... -waived trial, upholding her expulsion from school for at least one year, based on her possession of ... to protect the students of the Worcester Public Schools, any student who is found on school ... During that week, staff at North High School (North High) distributed copies of ... that said student should be suspended shall state in writing to the school committee his reasons ... is no sound basis, absent a specific legislative mandate, to import into a school setting a ... Boylston Water Dist. v. Tahanto Regional School Dist., 353 Mass. 81, ... expense and with anxious solicitude through the colonial and provincial periods of our ... schools [and the] general assembly shall implement this principle"] and equal ... a thorough and efficient system ... "); Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist. 1 v. State, 511 N.W.2d 247, 250, ... ...
-
Montoy v. State
... ... amicus curiae Kansas Families United for Public Education ... Patricia E. r, of Kansas Association of School Boards, of Topeka, was on the brief for amicus ... have statewide effect and require legislative action in the 2005 legislative session, we ... 1. We reverse the district court's holding that ... 72-6439(c) ... Through these provisions, the legislature has imposed ... , Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, ... constitutional mandate."); Claremont School Dist. v. Governor, 142 N.H. 462, 473, 703 A.2d 1353 ... it existed in his or her lifetime."); Bismarck Public School Dist. 1 v. State, 511 N.W.2d 247, ... ...
-
Roosevelt Elementary School Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop
... ... C. Diane BISHOP, Superintendent of Public Instruction, in her official capacity; State ... and uniform" requirement of Article XI, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution. We hold that it ... But Madison is located in north central Phoenix and is largely middle income ... of the equalized level must be raised through bonded indebtedness by the individual districts ... taxpayer willingness." The Joint Legislative Budget Committee's Staff, K-12 Funding Formula ... Id. at 102-04; 7 see also Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist. # 1 v. State by and through North Dakota Legislative Assembly, 511 N.W.2d 247, 262 ... ...
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...Trial court NC 1996 122 N.C. App. 1 Intermediate court NC 1997 346 N.C. 336 Court of last resort ND 1991 [Unreported] Trial court ND 1994 511 N.W.2d 247 Court of last resort NE 1990 [Unreported] Trial court NE 1993 244 Neb. 163 Court of last resort NE 2005 [Unreported] Trial court NE 2007 2......
-
State courts and school funding: a fifty-state analysis.
...439 N.E.2d 359 (N.Y. 1982) (S); Britt v. State Bd. of Educ., 357 S.E.2d 432 (N.C 1987) (S); Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 511 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 1995) (S); DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997) (P); Board of Educ. v. Walter, 390 N.E.2d 813 (Ohio 1979) (S); Fair Sch. Fin. Cou......