Lake View School Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee

• Decision Date: 09 June 2005
• Docket Number: No. 01-836.,01-836.
• Citation: 210 S.W.3d 28
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Parties: LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, et al., Appellant, v. Governor Mike HUCKABEE, et al., Appellee.

Page 28

210 S.W.3d 28

LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, et al., Appellant, v. Governor Mike HUCKABEE, et al., Appellee.

No. 01-836.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 9, 2005.

Sharpe, Beavers, Cline & Wright, by: Brad Beavers, Forrest City, for appellant, Barton-Lexa School District, successor in interest to Lake View School District; and amicus curiae, Forrest City School District.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Christopher J. Heller, Little Rock, for appellant, Little Rock School District.

Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure, Thompson & Fryauf, P.A., by: David R. Matthews, Rogers, for appellant, Rogers School District.

Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Tim Gauger, Sr. Ass't Att'y Gen., and Mark Hagemeire, Ass't Att'y Gen., Little Rock, for appellee, Governor Mike Huckabee.

Wilson Law Firm, P.A., by: E. Dion Wilson, Helena, for amici curiae, Earle School District and Helena-West Helena School District.

Sharon Street, for amici curiae, DeQueen School District, et al.

Barrett & Deacon, by: D.P. Marshall, for amici curiae, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc.

MOTIONS TO RECALL MANDATE AND REAPPOINT MASTERS

ROBERT L. BROWN, Justice.

On May 5, 2005, this court issued a per curiam order setting the various motions to recall the mandate and reappoint the masters for oral argument. Forty-nine school districts were represented as either movants for the recall of the mandate or movants for intervention or as amici curiae. We asked that the parties focus their attention on these issues in rebriefing and at oral argument:

(1) this court's jurisdiction to hear the instant motions;

(2) whether the General Assembly at its 2005 regular session retreated from its prior actions to comply with this court's directives in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002), particularly with respect to the General Assembly's actions or inactions in relation to Act 57 and Act 108 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003;

(3) whether the foundation-funding levels for the next biennium assure a continual level of adequate funding for Arkansas students; and

(4) whether the General Assembly's commitment to facilities funding meets the adequacy criterion.

Oral argument was then held on May 19, 2005.

We first conclude that this court has jurisdiction to recall its mandate and appoint masters to make findings of fact. See Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 355 Ark. 617, 142 S.W.3d 643 (2004) (per curiam). See also Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 2(E).

We further made it radiantly clear in our supplemental opinion handed down on June 18, 2004, that although we were releasing jurisdiction of the case, we reserved the right to exercise our power at any time to assure that a constitutional system of education would be attained:

The resolve of this court is clear. We will not waver in our commitment to the goal of an adequate and substantially equal education for all Arkansas students; nor will we waver from the constitutional requirement that our State is to "ever maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools[.]" Make no mistake, this court will exercise the power and authority of the judiciary at any time to assure that the students of our State will not fall short of the goal set forth by this court. We will assure its attainment.

Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 358 Ark. 137, 161, 189 S.W.3d 1, 17 (2004) (emphasis added).

The allegations made by the movants in this case are of the most serious kind. The core assertions are that the General Assembly reneged on its legislative commitments and failed to comply with the landmark legislation passed during the Second Extraordinary Session in 2004. We are quick to add that we do not have adequate facts before this court to determine whether this is so. We merely underscore the seriousness of the allegations, but we further emphasize that they are only allegations.

The response of the State of Arkansas, both in its briefs and at oral argument, is first to deny any backtracking on the part of the General Assembly, but, secondly, to urge that even if there has been backtracking, a new case must be filed in circuit court, and litigation must begin anew. We are disinclined to agree with the State. This court's determination that Arkansas' public school funding system does not pass constitutional muster dates back twenty-two years. See DuPree v. Alma Sch. Dist No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983). Resolution of the issue has moved at glacier speed. There is no question in our minds that our failure to address the issues raised in the current motions with dispatch by using experienced Masters will only occasion additional delay. This we cannot sanction.

In our opinion handed down on June 18, 2004, we wrote about the laudable steps taken by the General Assembly to chart a constitutional course. This court is committed to assuring that that course remains fixed and true.

We, therefore, recall our mandate in this case forthwith and reappoint Bradley D. Jesson, former Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, and David Newbern, a former Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. The Masters shall have the same powers and authority as set forth in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 356 Ark. 1, 144 S.W.3d 741 (2004) (per curiam). The Masters are authorized to examine and evaluate the issues listed in this opinion, but also any other issue they deem relevant to constitutional compliance.

We direct that the Masters furnish this court with their report on or before September 1, 2005, unless the Masters request additional time.

GLAZE, CORBIN, and DICKEY, JJ., concur.

HANNAH, C.J., GUNTER, J., and Special Justice CAROL DALBY, dissent.

IMBER, J., not participating.

TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice, concurring.

I agree wholeheartedly with the court's decision to recall the mandate and reappoint the Masters; however, I write separately to address the separation-of-powers issues raised in the dissenting opinions. The separation-of-powers doctrine is set forth in Ark. Const. art. 4, §§ 1 and 2, as follows:

§ 1. Departments of government.

The powers of the government of the State of Arkansas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of them to be confined to a separate body of magistracy, to-wit: Those which are legislative to one, those which are executive to another, and those which are judicial to another.

§ 2. Separation of departments.

No person, or collection of persons, being one of these departments, shall exercise any power belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted.

This court has recognized that judicial review of legislative action is not undertaken de novo by a trial court because that would be judicial legislating and violative of the separation-of-powers doctrine contained in Ark. Const. art. 4, § 2. City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park, Inc., 323 Ark. 332, 916 S.W.2d 95 (1996); Johnson v. Sunray Serv., Inc., 306 Ark. 497, 816 S.W.2d 582 (1991); Wenderoth v. City of Ft. Smith, 251 Ark. 342, 472 S.W.2d 74 (1971).

However, in the 2002 Lake View decision, we rejected an argument that this court has "no role in examining school funding in light of the Arkansas Constitution." In that opinion, this court wrote as follows:

This court's refusal to review school funding under our state constitution would be a complete abrogation of our judicial responsibility and would work a severe disservice to the people of this state. We refuse to close our eyes or turn a deaf ear to claims of a dereliction of duty in the field of education.

Lake View School Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002).

The court continued by noting that early on, this court announced that "[t]he people of the State, in the rightful exercise of their sovereign powers, ordained and established the constitution; and the only duty devolved upon this court is to expound and interpret it." Id. at 54, 91 S.W.3d 472 (quoting State v. Floyd, 9 Ark. 302, 315 (1849)). We then quoted extensively from the Supreme Court of Kentucky, explicitly adopting the following language:

[W]e must address a point made by the appellants with respect to our authority to enter this fray and to "stick our judicial noses" into what is argued to be strictly the General Assembly's business.

* * * * * *

. . . [In this case] we are asked-based solely on the evidence in the record before us-if the present system of common schools in Kentucky is "efficient" in the constitutional sense. It is our sworn duty, to decide such questions when they are before us by applying the constitution. The duty of the judiciary in Kentucky was so determined when the citizens of Kentucky enacted the social compact called the Constitution and in it provided for the existence of a third equal branch of government, the judiciary.

* * * * * *

To avoid deciding the case because of "legislative discretion," "legislative function," etc., would be a denigration of our own constitutional duty. To allow the General Assembly (or, in point of fact, the Executive) to decide whether its actions are constitutional is literally unthinkable.

* * * * * *

The judiciary has the ultimate power, and the duty, to apply, interpret, define, and construe all words, phrases, sentences and sections of the Kentucky Constitution as necessitated by the controversies before it. It is solely the function of the judiciary to so do. This duty must be exercised even when such action services as a check on the activities of another branch of government or when the court's view of the constitution is contrary to that of other branches, or even that of the public.

Lake View, 351 Ark. at 54-55, 91 S.W.3d 472 (emphasis added) (quoting Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 208-10 (Ky.1989))

How cynical it would be for the court to don such a...