Yesterday I went over some of the possible responses to the state Supreme Court’s decision that charter schools are unconstitutional. I neglected to bring up an odd point from the majority opinion, which comes in the footnote to this sentence (page 12-13):

. . . under the terms of the Act’s provisions the source of funds for the operation of charter schools is the basic education moneys that are otherwise dedicated to the operation of common schools.

The footnote reads as follows:

After the October 28, 2014 oral argument in this case, the State filed a statement of additional authority on July 22, 2015 citing Laws of 2015, chapter 4, section 516(5) as supporting the notion that “charter schools can operate without access to constitutionally restricted revenue.” . . . Section 516(5) is a subsection of the operating budget regarding funding for the 2015-2017 biennium, and provides, “State general fund appropriations distributed through Part V of this act for the operation and administration of charter schools as provided in chapter 28A. 710 RCW shall not include state common school levy revenues collected under RCW 84.52.065.” . . . This legislation, which is expressly effective on June 30, 2015 and is prospective in its application, does not alter our analysis or conclusion concerning the effect of the Act as previously passed by the voters in 2012 and codified in 2013. The validity of section 516(5) as a substantive law provision buried within an operating budget is not before us. For present purposes it is enough to note that section 516(5) does not assist the State.

(Citations omitted.) So here was an attempt by the Legislature to show that charters would not be funded with funds that are dedicated to common schools. But because it took effect after the Charter School Act, the Court ignored it. Even if some of the legislative accounting fixes I went over yesterday were to be enacted (and even if they are not “buried within an operating budget”), it’s not clear to this non-attorney if they would pass muster with the Court. Or, as Rep. Sullivan suggested in the Olympian article, would there need to be some sort of constitutional amendment?

Additionally, former state Supreme Court justice Philip Talmadge has an op-ed in The News Tribune arguing that the Court should reconsider its decision. He writes, “The effect of the court’s opinion is to confuse school programs with a common school system.”