Richland County v. Campbell, 22833
| Decision Date | 20 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22833,22833 |
| Citation | 294 S.C. 346,364 S.E.2d 470 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 44 Ed. Law Rep. 820 RICHLAND COUNTY; Raymond E. McKay, Jr., in his individual capacity as a resident, elector and taxpayer of Richland County; John D. Monroe, in his individual capacity as a resident, elector and taxpayer of Richland County; Leone S. Castles, in her individual capacity as a resident, elector and taxpayer of Richland County; Bill E. Taylor, in his individual capacity as a resident, elector and taxpayer of Richland County; and James C. Farley, in his individual capacity as a resident, elector and taxpayer of Richland County, Appellants, v. Carroll A. CAMPBELL, Jr., as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; Nick A. Theodore, as Lieutenant Governor of the State of South Carolina and as President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, and as a Representative of the State of South Carolina Senate; Robert Sheheen, as Speaker of the House of Representatives and as a Representative of the South Carolina House of Representatives, Respondents. . Heard |
William F. Able and C. Dennis Aughtry, Richland County Attorney's Office, Columbia, for appellants.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Atty. Gen. J. Emory Smith, Jr., Columbia, for respondents.
This is an appeal from the circuit court's dismissal of a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of the public education financing system. Appellants Richland County, et al., attacked the constitutionality of the South Carolina Education Finance Act (EFA), the Education Improvement Act (EIA), and the validity of the requirement that local school districts contribute to the funding of local schools under Article XI, Section 3, of the South Carolina Constitution. See, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 59-20-10, et seq. (1986), 59-21-20 and 12-35-510 (1976). The trial court granted respondents', Governor Carroll A. Campbell, Jr., et al., motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.
Appellants commenced this action alleging that the present system for financing public primary and secondary education is unconstitutional and sought an order directing the legislature to reallocate school funds to remedy the alleged invalid system. Appellants contend that the plan for financing public education under the EFA and EIA violates Article XI, Section 3, of the South Carolina Constitution, because the plan provides for shared funding of a minimum program of public education by the state and local school districts. Appellants assert that this shared funding of public education produces disparate revenue and unequal educational opportunities because it is based upon formulas that take into account the individual wealth of the various school districts. See, S.C.Code Ann. § 59-20-40(e) and (f) (1986).
Respondents moved to dismiss the action on the grounds of legislative immunity, lack of standing, lack of authority of certain respondents to provide the requested relief, and the validity and constitutionality of the EFA and EIA. The trial judge granted respondents' motion, finding that the EFA and the EIA are valid legislative means to provide for the funding of public education under Article XI, Section 3. The trial judge concluded that the provision permits shared state and local funding to support the public education system as set forth in the EFA and the EIA.
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding that the EFA, EIA and shared funding of public schools by local and state revenues are constitutionally valid means to support public education. Appellants' attack on the validity of the EFA, EIA and the shared funding requirement is based upon their interpretation of Article XI, Section 3, of the South Carolina Constitution which states that the legislature "... shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools...." Apparently, appellants interpret this provision as requiring the legislature to "pay" for the cost of the public school system rather than "provide" for its maintenance and support.
The challenged provision is similar to a section contained in the South Carolina Constitution in 1946 which required the General Assembly "... to provide for a liberal system of free public schools...." See, Article XI, Section 5, Constitution of South Carolina, repealed by Act 653, Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1954. The trial court noted that in 1946, the South Carolina Supreme Court made the following comments about the provision which are applicable to Article XI, Section 3:
[T]he Constitution ... places very few restrictions on the powers of the General Assembly in the general field of public education. It is required to 'provide for a liberal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Unified School Dist. No. 229 v. State
...(1979) (a 'thorough and efficient' education is equated with an 'adequate,' 'minimum,' or 'basic' education); Richland County v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 364 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1988) (constitutional requirement that legislature maintain and support public schools guarantees equal standards and......
-
Roosevelt Elementary School Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop
...(Okla.1987); Olsen v. State, 276 Or. 9, 554 P.2d 139 (1976); Danson v. Casey, 484 Pa. 415, 399 A.2d 360 (1979); Richland County v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 364 S.E.2d 470 (1988); Kukor v. Grover, 148 Wis.2d 469, 436 N.W.2d 568 In our effort to define "general and uniform," we distill two fun......
-
Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter
...(1979) (a "thorough and efficient" education is equated with an "adequate," "minimum," or "basic" education); Richland County v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 364 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1988) (constitutional requirement that legislature maintain and support public schools guarantees equal standards and......
-
Bismarck Public School Dist. No. 1 v. State By and Through North Dakota Legislative Assembly
...(Okla.1987); Olsen v. State, 276 Or. 9, 554 P.2d 139 (1976); Danson v. Casey, 484 Pa. 415, 399 A.2d 360 (1979); Richland County v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 364 S.E.2d 470 (1988); Kukor v. Grover, 148 Wis.2d 469, 436 N.W.2d 568 (1989).7 The United States Supreme Court affirmed our decision un......
-
State courts and school funding: a fifty-state analysis.
...(S); Danson v. Casey, 399 A.2d 360 (Pa. 1979) (S); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40 (R.I 1995) (S); Richland County v. Campbell, 364 S.E.2d 470 (S.C. 1988) (S); Tennessee Small Sch. Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1993) (P); Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby ("Edgewoo......
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...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 SD 1995 [Unreported] Trial court SD 2009 [Unreported] Trial court SD 2011 804 N.W.2d ......
-
Lawsuits and Legislative Leadership
...original jurisdiction), abrogated by Am. Petroleum Inst., 382 S.C. at 579, 677 S.E.2d at 19–20. [43] See Richland Cty. v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 364 S.E.2d 470 (1988). --------- ...