In the Court of Appeals
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NO. 113,267 ______________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ______________________________________ LUKE GANNON, by his next friends and guardians, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. STATE OF KANSAS, et al., Defendants/Appellants. ______________________________________ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES ______________________________________ Appeal from the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas Honorable Judges Franklin R. Theis, Robert J. Fleming, and Jack L. Burr Case No. 10-c-1569 ______________________________________ Alan L. Rupe, #08914 Jessica L. Skladzien, #24178 Mark A. Kanaga, #25711 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 1605 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 150 Wichita, Kansas 67206 (316) 609-7900 (Telephone) (316) 462-5746 (Facsimile) John S. Robb, #09844 SOMERS, ROBB & ROBB 110 East Broadway Newton, Kansas 67114 (316) 283-4650 (Telephone) (316) 283-5049 (Facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiffs TABLE OF CONTENTS NATURE OF THE CASE ...............................................................................................................1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY.............................................................................................................2 K.S.A. §60-401(h)................................................................................................................4 Friedman v. Kan. State Bd. of Healing Arts, 296 Kan. 636 (2013) .....................................5 Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., 282 Kan. 349 (2006) A. Plaintiffs’ Immediately and Properly Challenged the State’s Enactment of S.B. 7 .....................................................................................6 B. The Panel Ultimately Found that S.B. 7 Violated Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution .....................................................................................6 C. [Supplemental Procedural History]: The State Amended S.B. 7 to Comport with Article 6’s Equity Requirements But Wholly Failed to Cure the Known Adequacy Defects .........................................................6 Gannon v. State, 372 P.3d 1181 (Kan. May 27, 2016) ................................7 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .....................................................................................................7 I. The Funding Levels That Existed Prior to the Adoption of S.B. 7, Which S.B. 7 Froze Into Place, Violated the Adequacy Component of Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution ...........................................................................................7 A. Between 2009 and 2012, The State Began Making Significant Cuts to Education Funding for Political Reasons.................................................7 B. The Cuts to Funding Forced School Districts to Eliminate Services, Programs, and Staff that Were in Place to Provide Students with an Education that Meets the Rose Standards ....................................................8 C. The Services, Programs, and Staff Cut as Result of Decreased Funding Were Eliminated for Affordability Reasons ..................................8 D. [Supplemental Facts]: The Elimination of These Services, Programs, and Staff Negatively Impacted Student Achievement ................8 Montoy v. State, 282 Kan. 9 (2006) .......................................8, 9, 10, 14, 22 Morath v. Tex. Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coal., 2016 Tex. LEXIS 374, Tex. Sup. J. 771 (Tex. 2016)……………..9 Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1199 (2014).................................9, 17, 18 Gannon v. State, 372 P.3d 1181 (Kan. May 27, 2016) ........9, 10, 14, 15, 22 Montoy v. State, 282 Kan. 9 (2006) .................................................9, 10, 22 Montoy v. State, 279 Kan. 817 (2005) .......................................................10 K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 72-1127………………………………...........10, 17, 18 Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kan. & Mid-Missouri, Inc. v. Kline, 278 Kan. 372 (Kan. 2008) ... ............10 Urban Renewal Agency v. Decker, 197 Kan. 157 (1966) ....................14, 22 K.S.A. 60-409 ................................................................................15, 16, 22 K.S.A. 60-412 ......................................................................................15, 22 Gannon v. State, 2015 Kan. LEXIS 314 (Kan. June 28, 2016) ...........15, 22 Rose v. Council for Better Educ., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989) ...........17, 18 E. [Supplemental Facts]: The Kansas State Board of Education’s Recent Actions Demonstrate that Funding Levels Have Been – and Remain – Inadequate..................................................................................23 4835-5781-0485.1 i State ex rel. Miller v. Bd. of Educ., 212 Kan. 482 (1973) ..........................24 U.S.D. No. 443 v. Kansas State Board of Education, 266 Kan. 75, 96 (1998) ..................................................................24 K.S.A. 60-409 ............................................................................................25 K.S.A. 60-412 ............................................................................................25 Gannon v. State, 372 P.3d 1181 (Kan. May 27, 2016) ..............................25 Gannon v. State, 2015 Kan. LEXIS 314 (Kan. June 28, 2016) .................25 Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107 (2014).....................................................26 II. The Adoption of S.B. 7 Did Not Cure the Unconstitutionality of the Inadequate Funding Levels ....................................................................................26 A. S.B. 7 Wholly Replaced a Dynamic System with a Static Block of Funds ..........................................................................................................26 B. S.B. 7 Violated the Adequacy Component of Article 6 Because it Reduced the Overall Funding Levels, Which Had Already Been Deemed Unconstitutional...........................................................................27 C. S.B. 7 Violated the Adequacy Component of Article 6 Because it Eliminated the Weightings .........................................................................27 III. [Supplemental Argument]: Recent Amendments to S.B. 7 Did Not Cure the Unconstitutionality of the Inadequate Funding Levels ....................................27 Gannon v. State, 372 P.3d 1181 (Kan. May 27, 2016) ....................................27, 28 K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 72-8804 ...................................................................................27 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................31 I. Justice Requires An Immediate Remedy ...............................................................31 A. The Mandatory Nature of Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution Requires Action to Remedy Any Violations of Its Provisions ..................31 B. The Unconstitutionalities Present in the Current System Have Existed for Too Long and Must be Remedied Immediately ......................31 C. [Supplemental Argument]: The State’s Efforts to Escape Review by Arguing Justiciability, Mootness, and Changed Circumstances Should be Disregarded ...............................................................................32 Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107 (2014).....................................................32 Montoy v. State, 275 Kan. 145 (Kan. 2003) ...............................................33 Montoy v. State, 279 Kan. 817 (2005) .......................................................33 Knowles v. State Board of Education, 219 Kan. 271 (1976) .....................33 Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498 (1911) ....................34 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) .............................................................34 Petrella v. Brownback, 787 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2015)......................34, 35 II. The Appropriate Standard of Review and Allocation of Burden ..........................36 III. The Panel had Authority to Adjudicate the Constitutionality of House Substitute for Senate Bill 7 ....................................................................................36 IV. [Supplemental Argument]: The Panel Applied the Correct Test in Adjudicating the Constitutionality of S.B. 7 ..........................................................36 Morath v. Tex. Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coal., 2016 Tex. LEXIS 374, Tex. Sup. J. 771 (Tex. 2016) ..........................36, 38 Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107 (2014)...........................................................36, 38 Mock v. State of Kansas, No. 91-cv-1009 (1991) ..................................................37 4835-5781-0485.1 ii Provance v. Shawnee Mission U.S.D. No. 512, 231 Kan. 636 (1982) ................. 37 State v. Smith, 155 Kan. 588 (1942) .................................................................... 37 Montoy v. State, 279 Kan. 817 (2005) ................................................................. 38 V. The Panel Correctly Concluded that S.B. 7 Violates the Adequacy Component of Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution ..............................................38 A. The Legislature Adopted S.B. 7 – Which Further Cut the Funding Provided to Kansas School Districts – Knowing that Kansas Public Schools Were Already Being Funded at An Unconstitutional Level and Perpetuating Those Inadequacies ........................................................39 B. S.B. 7 Was Not Adopted to Address the Actual Costs of Funding an Education in Kansas ..............................................................................39