Gannon v. State
319 P.3d 1196, 298 Kan. 1107 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution contains both an adequacy and an equity component for public school finance. The equity component requires that school districts have reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunities through similar tax effort, and the adequacy component requires that the state's funding system be reasonably calculated to have all students meet or exceed the seven educational capacities outlined in Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc.
Facts:
- Following the Montoy v. State litigation, the Kansas legislature committed to a multi-year funding increase for K-12 education, setting the Base State Aid Per Pupil (BSAPP) to reach $4,433 for fiscal year 2009.
- In the wake of a national economic recession, the 2009 legislature began reducing education funding, cutting the BSAPP from the promised $4,433 to $4,400 in fiscal year 2009.
- Between fiscal years 2009 and 2012, the legislature continued to reduce education funding, with BSAPP falling to $3,780 and total cuts exceeding $511 million.
- During this period, the legislature began withholding all 'capital outlay state aid' payments, which were designed to help property-poor districts fund building maintenance, construction, and equipment purchases.
- The legislature also began to prorate, or reduce, 'supplemental general state aid' payments, which were designed to equalize the ability of property-poor districts to fund their local option budgets (LOBs).
- As a result of these legislative actions, plaintiff school districts, including Wichita (U.S.D. No. 259), Hutchinson (U.S.D. No. 308), Dodge City (U.S.D. No. 443), and Kansas City (U.S.D. No. 500), experienced significant reductions in state funding.
Procedural Posture:
- Four Kansas school districts and 31 individuals sued the State of Kansas in Shawnee County District Court.
- A special three-judge panel was appointed pursuant to statute to hear the case.
- Plaintiffs alleged that the State's education funding system violated the adequacy and equity requirements of Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution, as well as substantive due process and equal protection rights.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were nonjusticiable political questions and that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
- Following a 16-day bench trial, the three-judge panel found that the State had violated Article 6 by underfunding education and by creating unconstitutional, wealth-based disparities through its elimination of capital outlay aid and proration of supplemental general state aid.
- The panel rejected the plaintiffs' substantive due process and equal protection claims and found that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing.
- The State of Kansas, as appellant, appealed the panel's Article 6 rulings to the Kansas Supreme Court, and the plaintiff school districts, as cross-appellants, appealed the panel's other adverse rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the State of Kansas's school funding system, specifically its reduction of overall funding and its elimination or proration of equalization aid for capital outlay and local option budgets, violate the adequacy and equity requirements of Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, in part. The State's school funding system violates the equity requirement of Article 6 by creating unconstitutional, wealth-based disparities, but the question of whether it violates the adequacy requirement must be remanded for determination under the proper legal standard. First, the court held that challenges to the state's education funding system are justiciable and do not present nonjusticiable political questions. The court reasoned that Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution imposes a mandatory, judicially enforceable duty on the legislature to make 'suitable provision' for education finance, a standard which the courts are equipped to interpret and apply. Second, the court held that while individual students and their guardians lacked standing, the plaintiff school districts had standing to bring their claims under Article 6 because the funding cuts caused them a cognizable injury that hindered their ability to perform their constitutional duties. Third, on the merits of the equity claim, the court established a test: school districts must have reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunities through similar tax effort. By eliminating capital outlay equalization aid and prorating supplemental general state aid, the legislature created unreasonable, wealth-based disparities that disproportionately harmed property-poor districts, thereby violating the equity component of Article 6. Fourth, on the merits of the adequacy claim, the court held that the lower court applied the wrong standard by exclusively focusing on whether the legislature considered 'actual costs' of education. The correct standard, which the court formally adopted from Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., is whether the financing system is reasonably calculated to ensure all students can achieve seven specific educational capacities. The case was remanded for the lower court to re-evaluate the evidence using this new adequacy standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reshapes Kansas school finance jurisprudence by formally adopting the qualitative, outcomes-based Rose standards as the definitive test for constitutional adequacy, moving away from the cost-study-centric approach of the earlier Montoy cases. It also clarifies and strengthens the equity component of Article 6 by articulating a clear standard based on equalizing the relationship between local tax effort and educational opportunity. Furthermore, the court's firm rejection of the State's political question argument solidifies the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional compliance in school finance, ensuring that legislative appropriations remain subject to judicial review. This precedent empowers courts to scrutinize not only the amount of funding but also its distribution and its sufficiency to achieve specific educational goals, setting the stage for future litigation focused on student outcomes rather than just legislative inputs.
