League of Women Voters of Washington v. State
184 Wash. 2d 393, 355 P.3d 1131 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article IX, Section 2 of the Washington Constitution, a "common school" must be subject to the control of qualified local voters through an elected school board. Public funds constitutionally dedicated to common schools, including state appropriations for basic education, cannot be diverted to schools that do not meet this definition.
Facts:
- In November 2012, Washington voters approved Initiative 1240, the Charter School Act, authorizing the establishment of up to 40 charter schools within five years.
- The Act intended for charter schools to be public "common schools" but granted them flexibility from many state regulations applicable to traditional public schools in areas like staffing and curriculum.
- Under the Act, charter schools are operated by appointed "charter school boards" or nonprofit organizations, not by locally elected school boards.
- Authorization to create charter schools was granted to a new independent state agency, the Washington Charter School Commission, or to school districts approved by the Washington State Board of Education, not directly by local voters.
- The Act directed the state superintendent to apportion funds to charter schools on the same basis as traditional public school districts, including basic education appropriations and money from the common school construction fund.
Procedural Posture:
- The League of Women Voters of Washington and other organizations (Appellants) sued the State of Washington in King County Superior Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Charter School Act is unconstitutional.
- Several charter school supporters intervened in the lawsuit to defend the Act.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that charter schools are not 'common schools' and therefore could not receive funds from the common school construction fund.
- The trial court found this funding provision severable from the rest of the Act and upheld the remainder of the Act as constitutional.
- All parties sought direct review from the Washington Supreme Court, which the court granted.
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 Washington's Charter School Act (Initiative 1240), which designates charter schools as "common schools" and funds them with money allocated for the state's common school system, violate Article IX, Section 2 of the Washington Constitution because charter schools are operated by appointed boards rather than locally elected officials?
Opinions:
Majority - Madsen, C.J.
Yes. The Charter School Act violates Article IX, Section 2 of the Washington Constitution. To qualify as a 'common school' eligible for constitutionally protected funding, a school must be under the control of local voters, which charter schools are not. Because the Act unconstitutionally diverts funds reserved for common schools to charter schools and these funding provisions are integral to the Act, the entire Act is void. The court reaffirmed the definition of a common school established in the 1909 case School District No. 20 v. Bryan, which requires that such schools be 'subject to and under the control of the qualified voters of the school district.' Charter schools, which are run by appointed boards or nonprofit organizations, fundamentally lack this essential element of local voter control. Article IX, Section 2 explicitly reserves revenue from the 'common school fund and the state tax for common schools' exclusively for the support of common schools. By directing that charter schools be funded from the state's basic education allocation, which the court considers a protected fund, the Act unconstitutionally diverts these restricted funds. The funding mechanism is the 'heart and soul' of the Act and therefore is not severable, rendering the entire initiative unconstitutional.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Fairhurst, J.
No. While charter schools are not 'common schools,' the Charter School Act is not facially unconstitutional because it does not explicitly require the use of constitutionally restricted funds. The Act can be applied constitutionally by funding charter schools from the state's general fund with unrestricted monies. The majority is incorrect to strike down the entire Act. While I agree with the majority's conclusion that charter schools do not meet the constitutional definition of 'common schools' because they lack local voter control, the Act itself is not unconstitutional on its face. In a facial challenge, the appellants must prove there is no circumstance under which the Act can be applied constitutionally. The Act does not expressly command the use of restricted funds. The state can, and should, fund charter schools from the large portion of the general fund that is not constitutionally restricted for common schools. The majority improperly shifts the burden of proof to the State to show that funds are segregated. Therefore, the provisions designating charter schools as common schools should be severed, but the remainder of the Act, which allows for their creation and can be funded constitutionally, should be upheld.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms a century-old precedent defining 'common schools' based on local voter control, applying it to a modern education reform model. It creates a significant constitutional barrier against using state education funds, broadly interpreted, for schools operating outside the traditional, locally governed public school system. The ruling severely limits school choice initiatives in Washington, effectively requiring any future charter school legislation to secure a funding source entirely separate from the state's primary education budget to survive constitutional scrutiny. This interpretation has a lasting impact on how educational innovation and alternative school structures can be implemented and funded in the state.
Unlock the full brief for League of Women Voters of Washington v. State