CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the holdings of the hardworking panel are affirmed in part and reversed in part.

We affirm the panel’s dismissal of all of the individual plaintiffs’ claims and the plaintiff school districts’ equal protection and due process claims for lack of standing.

We further affirm the panel’s implicit ruling that the plaintiff school districts’ claims under Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution are justiciable because they are not political questions.

We further affirm the panel’s denial of plaintiffs’ claims for payment of capital outlay state aid to which districts were otherwise entitled for fiscal year 2010.

We additionally affirm the panel’s denial of plaintiffs’ claims for attorney fees.

We further affirm the panel’s rulings that the State failed to meet its duty to provide equity in public education as required under Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution. More specifically, we affirm the panel’s holding that the State established unreasonable, wealth-based disparities by (1) withholding all capital outlay state aid payments to which certain school districts were otherwise entitled under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 72-8814(c) and

107

(2) prorating all supplemental general state aid payments to which certain districts were entitled under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 72-6434 for their local option budgets.

We remand for the panel to enforce these affirmed equity rulings.
Because the legislature should have an opportunity to expeditiously address these inequities, its actions may require additional panel review. So we provide the following guidance to the panel:

1. As to capital outlay:

1. If by July 1, 2014, the legislature fully funds the capital outlayprovision as contemplated in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 72-8814, the panel

   need not take any additional action on this issue.

2. If by July 1, 2014, the legislature acts to cure—whether by statutoryamendment, less than full restoration of funding to prior levels, or otherwise—the panel must apply our test to determine whether that legislative action cures the inequities it found and which we have affirmed. More specifically, the panel must assess whether the capital outlay state aid—through structure and implementation— then gives school districts reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort. If the legislative cure fails this test, the panel should enjoin its operation and enter such orders as the panel deems appropriate.
3. If by July 1, 2014, the legislature takes no curative action, the panel shall declare null and void that portion of K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 72- 8814(c) prohibiting transfers from the state general fund to the school district capital outlay state aid fund. This will enable the funds envisioned by the statutory scheme to be available to school districts as intended.

108

d. Ultimately, the panel must ensure the inequities in the present operation of the capital outlay statutes, K.S.A. 72-8801 et seq., are cured.

2. As to the local option budget and supplemental general state aid:

1. If by July 1, 2014, the legislature fully funds the supplementalgeneral state aid provision as contemplated in the existing SDFQPA, K.S.A. 72-6405 et seq., without proration, the panel need not take any additional action on this issue.
2. If by July 1, 2014, the legislature acts to cure—whether by statutory amendment, less than full restoration of funding to prior levels, or otherwise—the panel must apply our test to determine whether such action cures the inequities it found and which findings we have affirmed. If the panel then determines those inequities are not cured, it should enjoin operation of the local option budget funding mechanism, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 72-6433 and 72-6434, or enter such other orders as it deems appropriate.
3. If by July 1, 2014, the legislature takes no curative action, the panel should enjoin operation of the local option budget funding mechanism, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 72-6433 and 72-6434, or enter such other orders as it deems appropriate.
4. Ultimately, the panel must ensure the inequities in the present operation of the local option budget and supplemental general state aid statutes are cured.

We also remand to the panel to determine whether the State met its duty to provide adequacy in public education as required under Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution. Although adequacy and equity are distinct components of Article 6, they do not exist in

109