Final
Update on Court Filings

SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM

Votes:
Action Taken:
<none><none>




01:36 PM -- Update on Filings in Lobato v. State of Colorado

Renny Fagan, Office of the Attorney General, was joined at the table by John Sleeman and Tony Dyl, also representing the Office of Attorney General. Mr. Fagan said he would cover three topics pertaining to Lobato v. State of Colorado: what the plaintiffs are requesting, the motion to dismiss filed by the state on August 24, and the potential next steps in the case. He described the plaintiffs' claims and requests in the case, and said that the lawsuit asks the court to provide an injunction against continuing to implement the current funding system. He indicated that the claim is asking the court to decide what adequacy is under state constitutional provisions.


01:40 PM

Mr. Fagan indicated that the state filed a motion to dismiss with the court on August 24. Mr. Fagan described the motion and said that it raised two arguments in requesting that the case be dismissed. The first argument contends that by adopting Amendment 23, Colorado established a standard for an adequate level of K-12 funding. The second argument asserts that determinations about funding should be left to the legislative branch, not to the judiciary. Mr. Fagan elaborated on the state's argument that Colorado voters, in adopting Amendment 23, established a specific definition of adequate funding for constitutional purposes.



01:45 PM

Mr. Fagan responded to questions about the filing of the case in Denver district court. Mr. Fagan described the potential outcomes if the motion to dismiss is granted in district court and indicated that appeals by the plaintiff could be taken to the state court of appeals. Senator Tupa asked whether most of the lawsuits in other states have also been filed in state courts. Mr. Fagan indicated that most cases address provisions in state constitutions and are therefore filed in the state court system.
Mr. Fagan further stated that the Amendment 23 argument was utilized in the Haley case, which was dismissed in district court. Senator Windels raised issues concerning interpretations of adequacy based on provisions in Amendment 23.


01:49 PM

Mr. Fagan continued to discuss the second portion of the motion to dismiss concerning the argument that the judiciary should not determine a level of adequacy for school funding. Additionally he said that the state's motion in Lobatorelies on the Lujan decision that education is not a fundamental right, as well as its affirmation of the separation of powers and the prerogative of the General Assembly. He described the Lujan findings that the General Assembly should make qualitative decisions about education funding. Mr. Fagan said that several other states have used similar arguments in responding to lawsuits. Senator Anderson asked about the language in other state constitutions, and Mr. Fagan indicated that the state has done some research on the correlation of state constitutional language and court decisions.



01:56 PM

Representative King asked about the standards used in other states to establish "adequacy" when lawsuits have been successful. Mr. Fagan and Mr. Sleeman both addressed Representative King's questions. Representative Penry asked further questions about the relationship between the Lujan decisions and the plaintiffs' filings in Lobato. Mr. Fagan responded to additional questions about the standards for adequacy. He indicated that if the motion to dismiss is not granted, the lawsuit would go forward and said that the Office of Attorney General is limited in commenting on further steps that would be taken in defending the state. He further noted that if the lawsuit goes forward, the requisite defense of the case would be a costly undertaking for the state.