School districts still in search of what they won
Jim Fisher Monday, February 11, 2008
Notice something missing from the Idaho Supreme Court's arguments to deflect a lawsuit over its failure to enforce the finding that state government has not met its constitutional duty to schools?
Something like a defense of, or even a reason for, that failure?
The motion U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill dismissed Thursday dealt with his jurisdiction over the case rather than its merits. That might make for good legal maneuvering, but for public enlightenment and respect for the court it is disastrous.
In 2005, when the state's highest court upheld a trial court finding that legislators were not meeting their obligation to provide safe buildings in which to educate Idaho's children, it may as well have added, "But never mind." It refused to hand the case back down to the trial court for corrective action and declared the case closed.
And nothing happened. It was as if the case had been misplaced rather than decided.
Similar suits in other states, including neighboring Washington, forced states to do more for schools than they had been doing. But in Idaho, Deputy Attorney General Mike Gilmore, the lawyer fighting the school districts every step of the way, was able to declare, "Right now there's nothing indicating that a court judgment requires changes."
Out of frustration, the attorney for the school districts that filed the lawsuit nearly three decades ago, Bob Huntley, sued the court on which he had once been a justice. And he not surprisingly argued that court decisions are supposed to require changes when a party is found to be violating either statutory or constitutional directive.
In refusing both the court's motion to dismiss the suit, and the districts' motion for summary judgment in their favor, Winmill suggested that court justices "meet and confer" with the school districts. Otherwise, he said, the case can proceed in his court.
That's not a bad idea, but the plaintiff districts are not the only ones to whom the court owes an explanation. The court's own self-enfeeblement has left the people of Idaho to wonder whether its decisions mean anything.
Winmill rejected the court's claim that only the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over such an appeal of a state supreme court decision, noting that applies only to those who lose such a decision.
"In fact," he wrote, "Plaintiffs are not the state-court losers."
It was an apt reminder, because from the aftermath of this case, you would never know it. - J.F.
Heisinger may be contacted at andreah@lmtribune.com or (208) 743-9600, ext. 278.
Originally published by the Lewiston Tribune
