Legislators miss first assignment from state Supreme Court

Imagine the domed state Capitol as a classroom, with 147 state lawmakers as students, and you may get a better picture of the challenge facing Washington’s Supreme Court this summer.

Justices in January gave the “students” a two-part assignment, which was due April 30.

They told them they needed to put more money into education, reminding them the state must be paying the full cost of basic education in public schools by 2018.

The other part of their homework required legislators to draw up a timeline showing what will be spent year-to-year, to ensure the state meets the court-imposed deadline in the McCleary case.

Well, those “students” didn’t get either done.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan committee of lawmakers representing the Legislature turned in a required progress report that described how they tried, and how political and philosophical divisions prevented them from completing their assignment.

They also explained that supplemental budgets, like the one adopted in 2014, are not the ideal vehicle for making a billion-dollar investment, as the court might have desired. A decision like that will be best made in 2015 when the next two-year budget is adopted.

And in the 58-page report, lawmakers expressed appreciation of the justices’ prodding to get them to live up to their constitutional obligations for education. But they also not-so-subtly said “Don’t mess with us” in a section arguing why they didn’t think the justices could force them to do the homework as assigned.

How will the court deal with such recalcitrance?

The Supreme Court could deliver another scolding — there have been two so far — then wait to see if lawmakers next year come up with “the grand agreement” they deem necessary for doing as they’ve been told.

Or it could exact punishment, as has happened in other states. In March, the Kansas Supreme Court directed the Legislature to provide more funds for education by July 1, or else part of the state budget will be voided.

Washington justices in January warned of a potentially bumpy road ahead should lawmakers not turn in a completed assignment.

“Our decision in this case remains fully subject to judicial enforcement,” Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote. “We have no wish to be forced into entering specific funding directives to the State, or, as some state high courts have done, holding the legislature in contempt of court.”

Lawmakers candidly admit in the report they did not do what the court asked them to do, said Thomas Ahearne, who is the attorney for the plaintiffs.

“Frankly, the Supreme Court is going to have to make a decision,” he said. “They are going to have to decide whether they meant what they said.”

More in Local News

Herald photos of the week

A weekly collection of The Herald’s best images by staff photographers and… Continue reading

No easy exit from Smokey Point shopping complex

There’s just no easy exit on this one. A reader called in… Continue reading

Lynnwood, Marysville, Sultan consider ban on safe injection sites

If approved, they would join Lake Stevens and Snohomish County, which have temporary bans.

City Council OKs initial funding for Smith Avenue parking lot

The site of the former Smith Street Mill is being developed in anticipation of light rail.

Single fingerprint on robbery note leads to arrest

The holdup occurred at a U.S. Bank branch in Lynnwood in June.

Two windsurfers rescued from Port Susan near Kayak Point

The men had failed to return to shore during Sunday’s windstorm.

Yes to turn signal — eventually

Adding a right-turn signal at 112th St. and 7th Ave. is turning out to be a bit more complicated.

Mill Creek councilman no longer lives in city, panel finds

The Canvassing Board determined Sean Kelly is not eligible to vote there.

A Democrat and ex-Republican team up to end two-party politics

Brian Baird and Chris Vance unveil a new organization called Washington Independents.

Most Read