Courts, legislatures, and school finance reform : a comparative analysis of judicial impact

New judicial federalism has allowed state courts to provide broader rights protection than exists at the federal level through the interpretation of state constitutions. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the United States Supreme Court held that education was not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution, and thus spurred litigation in state courts concerning state funding schemes. Education finance litigation is an important aspect of new judicial federalism and has proceeded in three waves. This dissertation examined third wave decisions in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama and legislative reaction to those decisions to determine the impact of court decisions on state legislatures. Impact was investigated through an analysis of per pupil expenditures and a survey of state legislators. This study found that there were similarities and differences in the way each state approached the school funding issue. All three courts emphasized education quality rather than just funding equity in invalidating state funding schemes. The Kentucky Supreme Court, however, invalidated the entire education system. Courts in Kentucky and Alabama articulated comprehensive definitions of the education right, while the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to declare that education was a fundamental right. Legislatures in each state were required to remedy the school systems to bring them in conformity with state constitutional guarantees. Despite these enactments, an analysis of per pupil expenditures indicated that disparities have not been reduced but have in fact increased. The susceptibility of legislatures to factional influence and specific problems with each law are offered as explanations for this situation. The impact of the courts has been significant. The survey indicated that without judicial involvement in each state the education reform legislation would not have been enacted. Legislators also indicated that the court decisions forced them to spend more time on education issues. Judicial involvement in education policy has prominently placed this issue on the political agenda in each state. In short, new judicial federalism has allowed state courts to greatly impact state education policy. This is significant due to the unwillingness of state legislatures to remedy funding schemes on their own.