Wall Street Journal – Court Decision Could Upend N.J. Schools Asbury Park Press - School Funding Decision Coming Tomorrow Njspotlight.com - Five justices, Many Questions Abbott ruling due today from short-handed court with disparate interests Wall Street Journal – Court Decision Could Upend N.J. Schools byline-box By Lisa Fleisher text The New Jersey Supreme Court is expected to deliver its decision on a challenge to Gov. Chris Christie’s school-funding cuts, which left schools under-funded by $1.6 billion, on Tuesday morning. The court could order billions of dollars more in schools spending during Mr. Christie’s term, pinching spending in other areas. The Republican governor has said he is considering defying the court, which would lead to a constitutional crisis enveloping all three branches of state government. Mr. Christie wants to remake the court by replacing its members. Why is this case important? This long-running string of litigation has shaped how New Jersey funds its schools for the past 40 years, leading to the implementation of the income tax and pumping billions of dollars into poor and urban districts. Now, the court could order New Jersey to spend more on schools—up to $1.7 billion for the 2011-12 school year—which would mean major cuts in other areas. Mr. Christie has warned of doomsday scenarios under which hospitals and other services would close to pay for schools. Already, about a third of the state’s roughly $30 billion budget is spent on schools. “Every other governor and legislature have been willing to cede the question,” said Peter Woolley, executive director of the PublicMind poll at Fairleigh Dickinson University. “With this governor, it’s really hard to say, because he’s been willing to confront other people and problems in New Jersey in a way that is just not characteristic of New Jersey politics. On TV, we’re a rough and tumble state, but usually most governors have played nice with the Supreme Court.” What is the question the court is trying to answer? Did the administration’s cuts deprive all children of a “thorough and efficient” education as required by the state constitution, and should the court order school funding to the detriment of other services? The lawsuit was filed by the Education Law Center after the Christie administration ignored a court requirement to spend a certain amount of money on schools. That requirement was issued in 2009, as a condition of approving a new method of distributing state tax money to districts. The court said the state needed to fully fund the new formula for three years to see whether it was working. Gov. Jon Corzine initially made some small cuts, but the ELC only sued after Mr. Christie shorted the formula by $1.6 billion in the 2010-11 school year. Don’t they get that the state is broke? That’s what Mr. Christie says. His administration’s lawyers said the court should take into account the state’s financial situation. One justice, Barry Albin, pointed out that the governor vetoed a tax increase on income over $1 million—drawing biting, public and personal criticism from the governor. Meanwhile, there’s a break in the fiscal clouds over New Jersey: Last week, the state treasurer said there would be $511 million more than expected coming in through June 2012. A nonpartisan legislative agency predicted that the windfall would be even higher—$913.4 million. It’s unclear whether that will come up in the court’s ruling. Could Mr. Christie ignore the court? Mr. Christie’s reaction to the case could be more interesting than the ruling itself. He’s shown that he is not tethered to tradition, and even said defying the court is “an option.” If he does that—by vetoing taxing or spending in a budget passed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, for example—he could find himself in contempt of court, said Frank Askin, a law professor at Rutgers University. Heads snapped to attention this month when the state attorney general, Paula Dow, said she had a police force—and the Supreme Court doesn’t—in a seemingly off-the-cuff remark during a legislative budget hearing. Brigid Harrison, a political science professor at Montclair State University, said she wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Christie in some way went against the court ruling. “He has not been reluctant to flex the executive muscles” in developing his national profile, she said. Will property taxes go up? That’s hard to say. While there’s no direct link between municipal property taxes and this ruling, if the state is forced to spend more money on schools, there’s less money left over to offset property taxes, either through aid to towns or through direct credits for seniors, homeowners and disabled people. Mr. Christie set up that choice already: He said last week that he would use nearly half of an additional $511 million in newly projected revenue to increase property tax credits. This could set him up to pull that back and blame the Supreme Court. Does this mean certain districts will win or lose? It’s unclear. During oral arguments, justices tried to suss out whether attorneys believed the court was ruling on behalf of all districts in the state—or just the 31 so-called former Abbott districts identified over the years as being poor, highly taxed, failing and/or serving a large population of students who need extra resources. The Education Law Center, which represents the Abbott districts, said it pertains to all districts. The irony here is that suburban and rich districts could, proportionally, see more of a benefit if the court orders increased spending. Mr. Christie’s cuts were proportionally bigger on richer districts—dozens of districts lost all state aid—though the dollar amount cut from urban districts was bigger. Asbury Park Press - School Funding Decision Coming Tomorrow May 24 by Jason Method TRENTON — The state Supreme Court is widely expected today to order New Jersey to spend hundreds of million of dollars, or more, on local public schools. The court decision, to be announced at 10 a.m., finally will begin to answer the questions that have hung over the state capital for weeks like the overcast sky: how much, for whom and what happens next? Observers believe the court could limit its order to the 31 low-income school districts that have been provided massive amounts of state aid for years under previous decisions. Such a ruling would cost less money — perhaps around $50The state Supreme Court is widely expected today to order New Jersey to spend hundreds of million of dollars, or more, on local public schools. The court decision, to be announced at 10 a.m., finally will begin to answer the questions that have hung over the state capital for weeks like the overcast sky: how much, for whom and what happens next? 0 million — but would prove unpopular as lower to middle-income school districts would continue to operate on reduced budgets. Or the court could tell New Jersey to fully fund a statewide formula that accounts for children from impoverished families, those who do not speak English proficiently or who have educational disabilities. That might cost as much as $1.75 billion and spark a budgetary stand off between Republican Gov. Chris Christie and the Democrat-controlled Legislature. There could be a middle ground, with the court ordering the state to come up to full funding over time. State constitutional law professor Robert Williams said the atmosphere over a decision has not been this intense since the state Supreme Court forced then-Gov. Brendan T. Byrne to pass the income tax. “There are all kind of possibilities,” said Williams, of Rutgers University-Camden. “The stakes are high. … It’s as politically charged a situation since the summer of 1976 when the court closed the schools.’’ New state tax revenue projections that showed New Jersey should pick up an additional $500 million to $900 million through next June will help ease the situation, noted Rider University political scientist Ben Dworkin. Dworkin said that might be enough justification for the justices to limit the decision to the school districts formerly known as the Abbotts. “The court is sensitive to the state’s fiscal situation and therefore cognizant that handing the state a huge bill would create a huge backlash,” Dworkin said. “No judge ever got there because they passed a civil service exam,” Dworkin added. “They are all political people. While they are committed to interpreting the constitution, they obviously understand the political realities that exist.” In anticipation of a decision, Christie and members of his administration have said he will not raise taxes to fund a Supreme Court order. Christie even broached the possibility of defying the court during a radio talk show, but has said little about that since. Democrats, meanwhile, continue to raise the possibility of a millionaire’s income tax surcharge that could bring in $500 million to $700 million more. Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said Christie is walking a “fine line” because the governor’s approval rating has been hurt by the school budget cuts and the voters’ support a millionaire’s tax. “The millionaire’s tax makes sense to them, because they don’t have to pay it,” Murray said. “If Christie funds (extra school aid) through budget cuts, the question will be: How visible will those cuts be?’’ The state Supreme Court is expected to rule, by some margin, against Christie because a special master appointed by the court has decided Christie’s school aid cuts last year violated the state constitution's requirement that New Jersey provide a "thorough and efficient system of free public schools.” Christie has campaigned publicly against the court’s longtime school funding rulings. In legal arguments, however, the administration has said because of the financial crisis, New Jersey did not have the money to fully fund the formula. An advocacy group for low-income students brought the case. Njspotlight.com - Five justices, Many Questions Abbott ruling due today from short-handed court with disparate interests print | email | share By John Mooney, May 24 in Education |Post a Comment The New Jersey Supreme Court will issue today its 21st ruling in the long-running Abbott v. Burke school equity case, with the decision set to be posted on the court’s website at 10 a.m. Guessing the court’s sentiment has become a parlor game in Trenton and beyond, both publicly and privately. Will the justices order full funding of the state’s school finance law and order more money for the state’s schools, as the plaintiffs have demanded? Or will they back the Christie administration’s argument that enough has been spent and no more can be afforded? Or will it be somewhere in between, maybe a phase-in of additional funding with some time to revisit the formula? The stakes are high, both in dollars and programs, with as much as $2 billion said to be in the balance. But will the latest revenue estimates of an unforeseen $900 million in income and other taxes this year make a difference, too? And the court itself could be in the balance as well, with Christie ever critical of the court and poised to replace three of the justices. In that climate, will the court strive for a unanimous decision on the already short-handed roster or be content with a divided ruling that could open to even more criticism. Given any conjecture at this point will be moot at 10:01 a.m., we instead offer a scorecard at the five justices who will be in play and some thoughts as to what each may bring to the decision. Jaynee LaVecchia Batting lead-off, so to speak, LaVecchia wrote the last Abbott decision that upheld the School Funding Reform Act and appears a sure bet to vote the same way again. She is leading candidate to author it as well, if she’s in the majority. Appointed by former Gov. Christie Whitman in 2000, she has tenure and her seat is safe. Still, she is known as an independent jurist and one that did serve in previous Republican administrations under Whitman and former Gov. Thomas Kean. Barry T. Albin Probably the court’s most liberal member, Albin has proved a lightning rod for his liberal views. Christie has specifically called out Albin for his queries during the oral arguments that posed the question of whether the state could indeed have afforded the full funding if the governor had not rejected the so-called millionaire’s tax. Now, there’s another $900 million in the table. Will that add to Albin’s line of questioning? Appointed by former Gov. James McGreevey in 2002, his seat is safe. Edwin H. Stern Maybe the wild card in the mix, Stern was appointed by the court to fill in during the governor’s and legislature’s recent tug-of-war over court vacancies. A member of the state’s appellate court, he has a reputation as a "judge’s judge" and one who some said would stand up for legal precedent. His vote is sure to be pivotal, so much so that Christie has specifically decried the possibility of a temporary replacement being the deciding vote in a 3-2 decision. Roberto A. Rivera-Soto Rivera-Soto has announced he will not seek reappointment, ending what has been a tumultuous term since his appointment by McGreevey in 2004. But through that he has been maybe the court’s most conservative member and the most outspoken in oral arguments over the Abbott case. Still, he did join the last decision written by LaVecchia and was silent in the spring arguments. There is also the possibility he will sit out the decision altogether, as he has raised the possibility as a protest of the Stern promotion. Helen E. Hoens The newest associate justice, appointed by former Jon Corzine in 2006, Hoens also joined the last opinion and remained relatively quiet in the oral arguments. But she is up for reappointment and could feel some pressure. But her greatest leverage in influencing the court’s decision could be that she would be the vote that takes Abbott XXI from a 3-2 decision to a four-member or even unanimous one.