Share “Recent Kansas Editorials”

Recent Kansas Editorials

Published on NewsOK Modified: March 31, 2015 at 10:00 am •  Published: March 31, 2015
Advertisement

The Wichita Eagle, March 26

Lawmakers showing contempt for courts:

State lawmakers find new ways each week to show contempt for Kansas' courts, as if a relationship already at risk of constitutional crisis over school finance needed more heat.

In the midst of the Legislature's hasty repeal this month of the 23-year-old school-finance formula, which is central to school districts' ongoing lawsuit against the state, a three-judge panel said it could act to "preserve the status quo" while the case is considered.

That set off lawmakers' talk about the potential "ramifications" of another court order to dramatically increase K-12 funding say, that it would hit the state budget hard and the judiciary might "share in that pain," or that a constitutional amendment giving the governor free rein to pick Kansas Supreme Court justices might newly find favor in the House as well as the Senate.

This week saw the introduction of Senate Bill 297, which aims to spell out grounds for the impeachment of Supreme Court justices. Its justifications for why a justice might be ousted from the bench by the Legislature include not only criminal and unethical conduct but also "attempting to subvert fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power" and "attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government."

Many lawmakers, fuming over court rulings that school funding is unconstitutionally low, likely would declare the high court guilty of those counts already though the judiciary has actually been doing its job of ensuring the level of state K-12 funding fulfills the mandate in the state constitution.

Meanwhile, Senate leaders put 2016-17 court funding in a bill separate from the rest of the state budget. That's a worrying sign of senators' desire not only to give it special scrutiny but perhaps also wed it to policy changes related to judicial selection and other issues. The House version of the overall state budget has the judiciary within it, though neither chamber has demonstrated a willingness to increase the funding for the next two years to the levels the judicial branch says are needed just to pay for basic operations.

The Legislature's other available tools of attempted intimidation include pending bills to lower justices' mandatory retirement age and to replace the Kansas Court of Appeals with separate civil and criminal appellate courts. Waiting in the wings: proposed constitutional amendments that, if approved by the Legislature and voters, would have Kansas switch to direct partisan election of appellate judges, allow recall elections of judges statewide and make it harder for Supreme Court justices to survive retention votes.

The biggest concern for Kansans is not the troubling lack of respect shown by one branch of state government for another as unseemly and unnecessary as it is but how that might lead to further assaults on the funding, authority and independence of the state judiciary.

The courts must have all three in order to serve Kansans and justice properly.

___

Salina Journal, March 30

Who's really clueless about school funding?

Perhaps Salina GOP Sen. Tom Arpke is right and the Kansas' school funding formula is seriously flawed.

Perhaps, Aprke was right when he said at the March 21 legislative issues forum in Salina that what the Kansas Supreme Court regards as important is outcomes, not whether enough money is being spent on schools. However, there are plenty of school administrators who will argue that if given the money that they're due in the school funding formula, they can improve the outcomes of their students.

But we're certain that Aprke is wrong when he says that the three-judge panel in Shawnee County that's considering the current school funding lawsuit doesn't have a "clue how our funding formula works today."

As many times as the school districts have sued the state over the past 40 years, there are any number of judges who are quite familiar with the intricacies of the funding formula, to say nothing of the law. We also think the judges probably see the state's move to end the current funding formula and go to block grant funding for the next two years for what it is — a way to do an end-run on the current formula.

That's why the court said it has the authority to stop the block grants and restore the current funding formula. That's also why Thursday four school districts asked the court to halt block-grant funding plan.

Arpke has accused the court of "sticking its nose where it doesn't belong." But this is a matter before the court, so it probably is well within its authority to say the state can't skip out on its obligations by changing the formula.

Which brings us to something else Arpke said: "A lot of people say the current (school finance) formula is fine, but we seem to have a lot of lawsuits over it."

Just because the state keeps getting sued doesn't mean the formula is flawed. All it means is that the state won't fund the schools the way it's been ordered to by the courts, so the schools keep suing.

Up to now, all the state has shown is that it doesn't want to fund schools the way it's been ordered, and the judges certainly aren't clueless about that.

Continue reading this story on the...