Education Funding
Re: Board of Directors adopts position on
the constitutional question of whether a vote on an increase in state
debt created by the sale of bonds to pay for school facilities requires
a vote by citizens at a general election.
The Board of Directors voted to approve the following position
on a public vote on increasing state debt to pay for school
facilities:
- Citizens should not have a vote on increases in state debt
to pay for school facilities in the 30 Abbott school districts
where the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered 100% state payment
of costs in order to provide educationally adequate facilities.
Citizens should not have the right to deny, by a negative vote
on a public question asking for an increase in state debt, the
constitutional rights of almost one-quarter of New Jersey's
public school students. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 and
1998 that the facilities in these districts are incapable of
providing the courses and educational experiences that will
enable these students to achieve New Jersey's core curriculum
content standards, the benchmark for New Jersey's
constitutionally required "thorough and efficient" education.
- Citizens do have the right to vote on the increase in state
debt where the proceeds of bonds are used to pay for school
facilities in districts other than the 30 districts covered by
the Abbott v. Burke decisions.
- The League will not participate in any legal action seeking
to stop the state from issuing bonds for school facilities.
Two constitutional rights are in conflict in the issue of a
public vote on increasing state debt to provide state financial
support for the construction/renovation of school facilities
across the state.
Article XIII, Section II, 3. prohibits the Legislature from
increasing state debt or liabilities by more than one percent of
the amount appropriated in the annual budget for that year unless:
- the increase is authorized by a law for some single object
or work distinctly specified;
- the law provides a ways and means to pay the interest and
principal within 35 years;
- the law is submitted to the people at a general election
and approved by a majority of the legally qualified voters of
the State voting thereon.
For 2000, the debt increase limit is less than $225 million
before a public vote is required. The total amount of state
bonding authorized by the new facilities law is $8.6 billion. The
bonds will be issued by the state over a period of 10 years. $6
billion is authorized for schools in the 30 poor urban districts
known as Abbott districts. The remaining $2.6 billion will fund
school construction in all other districts in New Jersey.
Article XIII, Section IV, 1. requires that "The Legislature
shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and
efficient system for free public schools for the instruction of
all children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen
years.
Three school funding laws have been found unconstitutional
since 1973 because they failed to provide the required equal
educational opportunity to students living in poor urban cities.
In decisions of 1973 and 1990 the Supreme Court declared that
educationally adequate facilities were required by the
constitution, but it failed to order any action. In 1997, the
League of Women Voters of New Jersey provided the Court with a
record of the state's spending for school construction and offered
the constitutional reasoning why the Court must act on the issue
of inadequate facilities in 30 poor urban districts, the Abbott
districts. Using this information, the Court declared the state
was responsible for funding 100 percent of the costs of
educationally adequate school facilities in 30 poor urban
districts. The justices confirmed the responsibility of the state
in its 1998 Abbott decision.
The following circumstances led to the need for the League to
develop a position on this issue. As the school facilities funding
law moved closer to passage, it became clear that some group or
individual would consider, and possibly act, to go to court to
challenge the issuance of state bonds that massively increase
state debt without a vote by the public. It also was obvious that
the League would be asked if it were going to participate in such
an action since we were the only organization that played a
visible role in challenging the pension bond plan of 1997 on the
same grounds. The League also has been highly visible through its
legal action in the Abbott v. Burke case (1997) that resulted in
the Supreme Court decisions in 1997 and 1998 declaring the state
responsible for funding 100 percent of school facilities costs in
30 poor urban districts.
When the constitutional rights of two different groups of
people collide, it is a difficult and complex decision as to how
that conflict should be resolved. Ultimately, it is only the
New Jersey Supreme Court that can make the final decision.
However, people and organizations concerned with or involved in
such issues must consider the question and come to some decision
on their response. The combined Fiscal Policy/Education Committee
reviewed and discussed the issue and recommended the proposed
position to the Board of Directors for approval or rejection. Part
of that recommendation was that the League should keep a low
profile.
The Board approved the position and added the provision that
the League would not undertake any legal action related to this
matter.
The necessity of having a position was immediately apparent. In
the three days following the vote by the Board, reporters from two
major organizations contacted the League to determine what we were
going to do. Furthermore, the League was asked to join a suit
seeking to stop the state from issuing any bonds for school
facilities without a public vote.
