Yesterday Attorney General Bob Ferguson asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision that charter schools are unconstitutional. His motion states,

Ultimately, the State urges the Court to reconsider its decision to set aside the entirety of Initiative 1240, as adopted by the people. But even if the Court rejects that request, it should narrow and clarify its opinion.

The AG specifies four clarifications:

1. Eliminate footnote 10. In footnote 10 of the opinion (page 11), the majority said that charter schools violate the uniformity requirement of the constitution because they are not controlled by school boards. The AG argues that the footnote should be eliminated: “It is unnecessary to the Court’s holding, contrary to precedent, and opens a Pandora’s Box of questions.” The reasoning “calls into question the many public school programs not run by school districts.”
2. Hold that common schools must be under some measure (rather than complete) control of local school boards. (And, thus, the Court should at least allow charter schools that are authorized by school districts.) As the AG notes, “local school boards have never had ‘complete control’ over the schools. . . . In reality, state law has never given school districts unfettered control over schools or even unfettered authority to hire and fire teachers.”
3. Remove language equating basic education appropriations with restricted common schools funding. On this issue, “the opinion relies on factually and legally incorrect assertions made by the Plaintiffs as to how the State funds public education.” The “discussion of school funding repeatedly conflates the rules for funding common schools with the rules for funding public schools more generally.” This, despite the fact that “this Court has repeatedly concluded that funding for public schools certainly exceeds the funding for common schools.” Further, “Such a ruling casts doubt on the funding mechanisms for a wide range of public, non-common school programs.”
4. Hold that the funding provisions are severable from the rest of the charter school act. The AG notes that the Court argued that voters would not have passed I-1240 had there been no funding source. But, as the AG writes, voters often do so — most recently with I-1351. He writes, “The Court’s holding that the people would never do what they have repeatedly done is troubling.”

Additionally, the AG filed a motion asking the Court to delay the ruling’s effective date until the end of the school year, so as to minimize the disruption for students.

The AG’s reconsideration motion makes an important point, from a budgetary perspective:

. . . it is unfair to penalize initiative sponsors who specify how their policies would be funded. Put another way: I-1240’s drafters could easily have done what many other successful initiative sponsors have done: omit any discussion of how to fund the policy.

Thus, should the Court decline to reconsider its decision, it could unfortunately provide another incentive to future initiative sponsors to put forward unfunded proposals.

(More on the charter school decision here, here, and here.)