Richland County v. Campbell, No. 22833
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FINNEY; NESS |
| Citation | 294 S.C. 346,364 S.E.2d 470 |
| 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 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22833 |
Page 470
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.
Decided Jan. 25, 1988.
Page 471
[294 S.C. 347] 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.
FINNEY, Justice:
This is an appeal from the circuit court's dismissal of a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality[294 S.C. 348] 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte James
...to a public education; principle of local control is a constitutionally based and protected precept); and Richland County v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 364 S.E.2d 470 (1988) (concluding that unequal funding does not violate the state's equal protection clause, noting that it is within the legi......
-
Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, No. 27466.
...Abbeville I, this Court denied constitutional challenges to the EFA and EIA statutory distribution methods. Richland Cnty. v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 349–50, 364 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1988). We relied on Campbell, and the United States Supreme Court's ruling in San Antonio Independent School Dis......
-
Roosevelt Elementary School Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop, No. CV-93-0168-T
...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 fundamental prin......
-
Campbell County School Dist. v. State, No. O
...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). 33 The following school reform cases have applied strict scrutiny: Roo......
-
Ex parte James
...to a public education; principle of local control is a constitutionally based and protected precept); and Richland County v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 364 S.E.2d 470 (1988) (concluding that unequal funding does not violate the state's equal protection clause, noting that it is within the legi......
-
Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, No. 27466.
...Abbeville I, this Court denied constitutional challenges to the EFA and EIA statutory distribution methods. Richland Cnty. v. Campbell, 294 S.C. 346, 349–50, 364 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1988). We relied on Campbell, and the United States Supreme Court's ruling in San Antonio Independent School Dis......
-
Roosevelt Elementary School Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop, No. CV-93-0168-T
...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 fundamental prin......
-
Campbell County School Dist. v. State, No. O
...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). 33 The following school reform cases have applied strict scrutiny: Roo......