We’ve heard some legislators claim that the move to change judicial selection has nothing to do with wanting to reign in court protection of school funding. We hope this story ends those claims, and Kansans see what’s really going on here.
“[Senate President] Wagle – whom the governor called a ‘rock star and personal hero of mine’ – projected that a decision requiring lawmakers to increase school funding would push the Legislature to go to voters with a constitutional amendment to change the way Supreme Court justices are picked.
‘It will be a very tough year if we’re at odds,’ Wagle said. ‘If we get that ruling down, what we’re going to do is focus on what is the role of the Supreme Court.
‘Should they be interpreting law? Should they be appropriating money?’ she added.”
Our answers to Wagle’s questions: 1. Yes, they should be interpreting the law. 2. They aren’t appropriating money. In Montoy they ordered the legislature to look at costs when determining funding. The legislature went back and commissioned a study, and agreed to fund schools in accordance with that study as a condition for dismissing Montoy. The legislature is not abiding by that agreement, and no one has produced a study to show school funding needs have become less expensive since Montoy. Under Wagle’s view, the Constitution’s mandate to make suitable provision for the funding of our education system is meaningless. The Supreme Court is potentially standing in the way and insisting that a generation of children can’t be sacrificed in pursuit of zero income taxes. Wagle wants to end that, but Kansans need the Supreme Court to remain independent and able to decide issues on the merits rather than bowing to political pressure.
Read more here:http://www.kansas.com/2013/11/07/3102607/brownback-wagle-school-finance.html#storylink=cpy