Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. Evans

Decision Date18 March 1993
Docket NumberNos. 19875,19922 and 19923,s. 19875
Citation850 P.2d 724,123 Idaho 573
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
Parties, 82 Ed. Law Rep. 660 IDAHO SCHOOLS FOR EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, an unincorporated association of superintendents of schools; Moscow School District # 281; Cambridge School District # 432-J; Lapwai School District # 341; Mullan School District # 392; Potlatch School District # 285; Whitepine School District # 284; Kendrick Joint School District # 283; Kootenai School District # 274; Cascade School District # 422; St. Maries Joint School District # 41; Orofino Joint School District # 171; Grangeville Jt. School District # 241; Culdesac Joint School District # 342; Genesee Joint School District # 282; Highland-Craigmont Jt. Sch. Dist. # 305; Bruneau-Grandview Jt. Sch. Dist. # 365; Dietrich School District # 314; American Falls School District # 381; Rockland School District # 382; Valley School District # 262; Challis Joint School District # 181; Horseshoe Bend School District # 73; West Jefferson School District # 253; Council School District # 13; Midvale School District # 433; Garden Valley School District # 71; Richfield School District # 316; Cottonwood Joint School Dist. # 242; Brian Silflow and Ganel Silflow, by and through their parents, Dale and Patti Silflow, husband and wife; Donald Paul Crea, by and through his father, Gary Crea; Nathan Noah, Holly Noah and Jessie Noah, by and through their parents Kate and Randy Noah, husband and wife; Andy Cook, by and through his father Larry Prally; on behalf of themselves and all other school people of the state of Idaho similarly situated; and Harry E. Davey, William H. Jones, Gainford Mix, Bob Clyde, Werner Branner and Gary Crea, citizens and taxpayers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Idaho Education Association, Plaintiff-in-Intervention-Respondent, v. Jerry L. EVANS, in his capacity as the Idaho State Superintendent of Public Instruction & as an ex officio member of the Idaho State Board of Education; Cecil D. Andrus, in his capacity as Governor of the state of Idaho; the Legislature of the state of Idaho, by and

Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, Boise, for respondents Frazier, et al. Merlyn W. Clark, argued.

Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, Ketchum, for Blaine County, et al. Rand L. Peebles, argued.

Larry EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., and William A. Von Tagen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondents Governor Andrus and the Idaho Legislature. William A. Von Tagen, argued.

Cantrill, Skinner, Sullivan & King, Boise, for respondent Boise City. Tyra H. Stubbs, argued.

BISTLINE, Justice.

Article 9, § 1 of the state constitution ("the education clause") provides:

The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.

Article 1, § 2 of the state constitution provides in part:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit....

The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases allege that the current method of funding the public schools does not provide either a "uniform" system or a "thorough" system and, further, violates the equal protection clause.

BACKGROUND

Public schools in Idaho are funded by a combination of local, state, and federal funds. The State partially or totally reimburses the districts for certain expenses (80% of costs of exceptional education personnel; 85% of transportation costs; and 100% of teacher retirement benefits, Social Security, and unemployment insurance). Money is also received from the State Educational Support Program. This program is funded by state revenues, allocated by a "support unit" formula and based on average daily attendance in the district. Each school district's portion is reduced by a projected "local contribution" equal to the money which would be collected by a .36% property tax levy by the school district. Because a school district with low assessed property value will collect less money than a district with high property values under the .36% formula, a low property value district contributes less money to the Educational Support Program fund than a high property value school district. The school district may also, with voter approval, raise more money through supplemental levies. Supplemental levies are used for both capital construction and day-to-day maintenance The appellants in this case are the Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity ("ISEEO"), Blaine County School District ("Blaine"), and the Frazier group ("Frazier"). The respondents are the State of Idaho, by and through the Legislature and Governor ("State"), and the Boise City School District ("Boise").

[123 Idaho 578] and operations. As will be discussed in greater detail below, chartered school districts have greater authority to levy money than do non-chartered districts. Finally, a relatively small amount of a school district's budget comes from lottery proceeds and various federal programs.

ISEEO filed a lawsuit in Latah County alleging that the current system of funding public schools is unconstitutional because it does not provide a thorough education in that necessary resources are unavailable due to lack of money. The Frazier lawsuit was filed in Ada County, also alleging the funding system is not thorough. Frazier further alleged that the disparities in funding caused by the property-tax funded system results in a system that does not provide a uniform education and violates the equal protection clause. The ISEEO suit was moved to Ada County upon motion by the State. ISEEO and Blaine moved to intervene as party plaintiffs in the Frazier suit. Boise moved to intervene as a party defendant. These motions were granted. Eventually, the Frazier and ISEEO suits were consolidated.

The State and Boise moved to dismiss for failure of the plaintiffs to state a cause of action and for lack of standing. The district court granted the motion. All parties agree that the court, in its memorandum decision, held that: 1) the equal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 cases
  • Reclaim Idaho v. Denney
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 23, 2021
    ...concept of ordered liberty." Van Valkenburgh , 135 Idaho at 126, 15 P.3d at 1134 (citing Idaho Sch. For Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573, 581–82, 850 P.2d 724, 732–33 (1993) ; Simpson v. Cenarrusa, 130 Idaho 609, 615, 944 P.2d 1372, 1378 (1997) ). Van Valkenburgh dealt with t......
  • Reclaim Idaho, & the Comm. to Protect & Pres. the Idaho Constitution, Inc. v. Denney
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 23, 2021
    ...concept of ordered liberty." Van Valkenburgh , 135 Idaho at 126, 15 P.3d at 1134 (citing Idaho Sch. For Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573, 581–82, 850 P.2d 724, 732–33 (1993) ; Simpson v. Cenarrusa, 130 Idaho 609, 615, 944 P.2d 1372, 1378 (1997) ). Van Valkenburgh dealt with t......
  • Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Worcester
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 11, 1995
    ...courts in a number of sister states, we hold that education per se is not a 'fundamental right' "); Idaho Schs. for Equal Educ. v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573, 582, 850 P.2d 724 (1993) (holding that education is not a fundamental right, and, therefore, strict scrutiny standard did not apply); Boar......
  • Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 30, 1999
    ...954 P.2d at 680 (citing Lyng v. Int'l Union, U.A.W., 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988); Idaho Schs. for Equal Educ. v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573, 850 P.2d 724 (1993)). The issue thus becomes whether the statutory prohibition against intoxicated persons' tort recovery from negli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Safeguarding the right to a sound basic education in times of fiscal constraint.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 75 No. 4, June - June 2012
    • June 22, 2012
    ...2010); Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. State, 976 P.2d 913, 922 (Idaho 1998); Idaho Sch. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans, 850 P.2d 724, 730 (Idaho 1993); Montoy v. State, 112 P.3d 923, 925 (Kan. 2005); Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 215 (Ky. 1989); Md......
  • HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 97 No. 4, April 2020
    • April 1, 2020
    ...Trial court ID 2004 97 P.3d 453 Court of last resort ID 2005 129 P.3d 1199 Court of last resort ID 2001 [Unreported] Trial court ID 1993 850 P.2d 724 Court of last resort ID 1996 912 P.2d 644 Court of last resort ID 1998 976 P.2d913 Court of last resort ID 2013 [Unreported] Trial court ID 2......
  • GLIMPSES OF REPRESENTATION-REINFORCEMENT IN STATE COURTS.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 36 No. 2, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...it violated the state constitution's education article equal protection provision); Idaho Schs, for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans, 850 P.2d 724 (Idaho 1993) (holding that although the term "uniform" in the Idaho Constitution's education article did not require equality of education spend......
  • Educational issues and judicial oversight.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 71 No. 4, September 2008
    • September 22, 2008
    ...mixed results ensue when relevant constitutional clauses are presented in tandem. Idaho Schs. for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans, 850 P.2d 724, 736 (Idaho (64) Roosevelt Elementary Sch. Dist. v. Bishop, 877 P.2d 806, 812, 815-816 (Ariz. 1994) (emphasis omitted). (65) Id. at 816. (66) Id. ......
2 provisions
  • Chapter 341, HB 743 – School Facilities Improvement
    • United States
    • Idaho Session Laws
    • January 1, 2006
    ...uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools." (2) In the case of Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573 (1993), the Idaho Supreme Court held that the then exist- ing State Board of Education rules for school facilities, textbooks and cur- ricu......
  • Chapter 288, HB 690 – School Facilities Improvement Act
    • United States
    • Idaho Session Laws
    • January 1, 2006
    ...uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools." (2) In the case of Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573 (1993), the Idaho Supreme Court held that the then exist- ing State Board of Education rules for school facilities, textbooks and cur- ricu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT