|
|
| |
| Fri, Nov. 21, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| | Supreme Court denies Lake View rehearing request
Friday, Sep 10, 2004 By David Robinson Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - The state Supreme Court on Thursday denied a petition to rehear its decision in Arkansas' long-running school funding case. The 4-3 decision was issued in fewer than 50 words, but the high court's three dissenters were sharply critical of the majority in a five-page opinion. "While this court has steadfastly held from 1983 to date that Arkansas' education system has been and is unconstitutional, it simply fails to come to grips to assure the system will ever become constitutional," Associate Justice Tom Glaze wrote for the dissenting justices. The high court in June praised legislative progress toward making the education system constitutional and voted 4-3 to give up jurisdiction of the school funding case. The rehearing request was filed by Lake View School District attorney Roy C. "Bill" Lewellen. The case, filed initially in 1992 by the Lake View School District, claimed that the state had an unfair system of distributing tax dollars to public schools. A lower court in 2001 and the Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that the funding system was both unfair and insufficient. The rulings, plus the threat of a court takeover of the state treasury to finance the school system, led Arkansas lawmakers earlier this year to infuse public education with an additional $400 million a year. Glaze, who was joined by Associate Justices Betty Dickey and Donald Corbin, criticized the majority for not allowing two special masters appointed by the court to continue oversight of the executive and legislative branches as they work to make the education system constitutional. "This is not the time for the court to quit the race," Glaze wrote. "The finish line is too close." Glaze also said the court had changed its position on whether it should oversee state compliance with the court's 2002 order to make the education system adequate and equitable. In its June 18 decision, the court said it was relinquishing jurisdiction because it was not the court's role to monitor the Legislature on an ongoing basis. "In the beginning of this litigation, the court held the view that it was not a violation of the separation of powers doctrine to conduct a compliance hearing to examine, check, and evaluate the actions of the other two governmental branches," the dissent states. The court, Glaze wrote, should allow itself a reasonable amount time to make a final ruling regarding the constitutionality of the education system. He said the court should at least wait until the end of the next regular session of the Legislature, which begins meeting in January. |
