Columbia Falls Elementary School v. State

• Decision Date: 22 March 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-390.,04-390.
• Citation: 326 Mont. 304,2005 MT 69,109 P.3d 257
• Parties: COLUMBIA FALLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 and H.S. District No. 6; East Helena Elementary District No. 9; Helena Elementary District No. 1 and H.S. District No. 1; Billings Elementary District No. 2 and H.S. District No. 2; White Sulphur Springs Elementary District No. 8 and H.S. District No. 8; Troy Elementary District No. 1 and H.S. District No. 1; MEA-MFT; Montana School Boards Association; Montana Rural Education Association; School Administrators of Montana; Alan & Nancy Nicholson; Gene Jarussi; Peter & Cheryl Marchi; and Michael & Susan Nicosia, for themselves and as parents of their minor children, Plaintiffs, Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. The STATE of Montana, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

109 P.3d 257

2005 MT 69

326 Mont. 304

COLUMBIA FALLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 and H.S. District No. 6; East Helena Elementary District No. 9; Helena Elementary District No. 1 and H.S. District No. 1; Billings Elementary District No. 2 and H.S. District No. 2; White Sulphur Springs Elementary District No. 8 and H.S. District No. 8; Troy Elementary District No. 1 and H.S. District No. 1; MEA-MFT; Montana School Boards Association; Montana Rural Education Association; School Administrators of Montana; Alan & Nancy Nicholson; Gene Jarussi; Peter & Cheryl Marchi; and Michael & Susan Nicosia, for themselves and as parents of their minor children, Plaintiffs, Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v.The STATE of Montana, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 04-390.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Heard and Submitted October 20, 2004.

Decided March 22, 2005.

For Appellant: Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Brian Morris(argued), Solicitor; Ali Bovingdon(argued), Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana.

For Respondents: James P. Molloy(argued), Molloy Law Firm, Helena, Montana, Brian K. Gallik, Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin, Bozeman, Montana.

For Amicus Curiae: Stephen A. Doherty and Patrick L. Smith, Smith, Doherty & Belcourt, Great Falls, Montana (Montana Indian Education Association).

Justice W. WILLIAM LEAPHARTdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1The State appeals from the District Court's order determining that the State of Montana's public school system violates Article X, Section 1(3), of the Montana Constitution.This Court issued an order on November 9, 2004, affirming the District Court.This opinion supersedes that order.

¶ 2We restate the issues as follows:

¶ 3 1.Whether a challenge to the adequacy of the State's funding of a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools presents a non-justiciable political question.

¶ 4 2.Whether the District Court erroneously concluded that the current school funding system violates Article X, Section 1(3), by failing to provide adequate funding for Montana's schools.

¶ 5 3.Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the State has violated Article X, Section 1(3), by not paying its share of the cost of the public school system.

¶ 6 4.Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the State has violated Article X, Section 1(2), by not recognizing the cultural heritage of American Indians in its educational goals.

¶ 7 5.Whether the October 2005 effective date of the District Court's opinion should be moved up to May 2005.

¶ 8 6.Whether the current school funding system violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Montana Constitution.

¶ 9 7.Whether an award of attorney fees is appropriate.

BACKGROUND

¶ 10 A coalition of schools, education groups, and parents (the Coalition) brought this action contending that the State has acted unconstitutionally in administering and funding Montana's constitutionally-mandated public school system.After a three-week trial, the District Court found serious problems with the current school system, relating both to the manner in which the State funds its public schools and the educational product the schools are delivering.The District Court concluded that the current system violates the Public Schools Clause of Article X, Section 1(3), and the Indian Education Clause of Article X, Section 1(2).The District Court also concluded that the current school system does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Montana Constitution and that the Coalition should not be awarded attorney fees.

¶ 11The State now appeals, arguing that we cannot reach the issue whether the current school system violates Article X, Section 1(3), because the issue is a political question.In the alternative, the State argues that the District Court wrongly concluded that the current school system violates Article X, Section 1(3).The Coalition cross-appeals, arguing that the court erred in concluding that the current school system does not violate Montana's Equal Protection Clause, that the effective date of the court's opinion should be moved from October 1, 2005, to May 1, 2005, and that the court erred in not awarding attorney fees.We conclude that, since the Legislature has implemented Article X, Section 1(3), the question whether the system it created violates the Constitution is not a political question.We affirm the court's determination that the current system violates Article X, Section 1(3), but we also defer to the Legislature for the definition of "quality" as used in that constitutional provision.Furthermore, we affirm the effective date of the District Court's opinion and vacate and remand the issue of attorney fees.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 12 Whether an issue presents a non-justiciable political question is a legal conclusion that this Court reviews de novo.Northfield Ins. Co. v. Montana Ass'n of Counties,2000 MT 256, ¶ 8, 301 Mont. 472, ¶ 8, 10 P.3d 813, ¶ 8.We review a district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous, In re Estate of James,2004 MT 314, ¶ 9, 324 Mont. 24, ¶ 9, 102 P.3d 12, ¶ 9, and a district court's discretionary rulings, such as the award or denial of attorney fees, for abuse of discretion.Johnson v. Hamilton,2003 MT 199, ¶ 9, 317 Mont. 24, ¶ 9, 75 P.3d 778, ¶ 9;Mortgage Source, Inc. v. Strong,2003 MT 205, ¶ 8, 317 Mont. 37, ¶ 8, 75 P.3d 304, ¶ 8.

DISCUSSION

ISSUE ONE

¶ 13Whether a challenge to the adequacy of the State's funding of a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools presents a non-justiciable political question.

¶ 14The State, relying on Baker v. Carr(1962), 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 710, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, 686, asserts that questions arising under Montana Constitution Article X, Section 1(3), are non-justiciable under the political question doctrine.That section provides: "The legislature shall provide a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools."Of course, in interpreting our own Constitution, this Court need not defer to the United States Supreme Court.State v. Jackson(1983), 206 Mont. 338, 342, 672 P.2d 255, 257.Nonetheless, given the dearth of Montana precedent on the political question doctrine and the State's reliance on federal doctrine, we look to the federal precedent for guidance in developing our own doctrine.

¶ 15 Both the United States Supreme Court and this Court recognize that non-self-executing clauses of constitutions are non-justiciable political questions.Baker,369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. at 710, 7 L.Ed.2d at 686(listing one factor of the federal political question doctrine as "the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion");State ex rel. Stafford v. Fox-Great Falls Theatre Corp.(1942), 114 Mont. 52, 73, 132 P.2d 689, 700.

¶ 16 To determine whether the provision is self-executing, we ask whether the Constitution addresses the language to the courts or to the Legislature.Stafford,114 Mont. at 73, 132 P.2d at 700.If addressed to the Legislature, the provision is non-self-executing; if addressed to the courts, it is self-executing.Stafford,114 Mont. at 73-74, 132 P.2d at 700.Louisiana's Constitution once provided that "Gambling is a vice and the Legislature shall pass laws to suppress it."State v. Mustachia(1922), 152 La. 821, 94 So. 408, 409.In Stafford,we agreed with the Louisiana Supreme Court's conclusion that provisions beginning "the Legislature shall" are non-self-executing provisions; as such, in Louisiana, gambling was legal unless the Legislature enacted a provision making it illegal.Stafford,114 Mont. at 75-76, 132 P.2d at 701(citingMustachia,94 So. at 409).

¶ 17 Like the Louisiana clause, Montana's Public Schools Clause constitutes a directive to the Legislature: "The legislature shall provide a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools."Since the Public Schools Clause is non-self-executing, it presents a political question which, in the first instance, is directed to the Legislature and is non-justiciable.That determination, however, does not end the inquiry.As here, (1) once the Legislature has acted, or "executed," a provision (2) that implicates individual constitutional rights, courts can determine whether that enactment fulfills the Legislature's constitutional responsibility.City of Boerne v. Flores(1997), 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624(determining, under the First Amendment, that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 violates the Constitution despite Congress specifically implementing the Act through Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that provides that "[t]he Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.").

¶ 18 Like Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, provisions that directly implicate rights guaranteed to individuals under our Constitution are in a category of their own.¹That is, although the provision may be non-self-executing, thus requiring initial legislative action, the courts, as final interpreters of the Constitution, have the final "obligation to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution...."Robb v. Connolly(1884), 111 U.S. 624, 637, 4 S.Ct. 544, 551, 28 L.Ed. 542, 546.Thus the question whether Article X, Section 1(3), presents a "justiciable" controversy cannot be addressed in a vacuum.The clause must be read in the context of any correlative individual rights guaranteed under the Montana Constitution.

¶ 19 In this case, the requirement that the Legislature shall provide a basic system of free quality public schools, must be read in conjunction with Section 1 of Article X, which guarantees a right to education.Kaptein ex rel. Kaptein v. Conrad Sch. Dist.(1997), 281 Mont. 152, 155, 931 P.2d 1311, 1313;seeState ex...