You Are Here: Home > Online Library > Articles > Dissenting Online
| Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer’s Opinion | Page 1 |
| Only infrequently
are the members of this court required to balance our appreciation for the principle of
separation of powers among the three branches of government against our desire to use the
considerable powers of this court to mandate action to improve the imperfect. The issue in
this very important case is not whether education in Ohio should be better. All seven
members of this court would agree that in an ideal school setting, all children would be
taught in well-maintained school buildings by teachers with high salaries and would read
from the latest-edition school books. Rather, the question presented is whether
specific financing statutes adopted by the Ohio General Assembly violate the words and
intent of the Ohio Constitution. By its words, the Constitution requires the General
Assembly to "make such provisions, by taxation or otherwise, as *** will secure a
thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state." Section 2,
Article VI, Ohio Constitution. We find that the statutes withstand plaintiffs’
constitutional challenge because, rather than abdicating its duty, the General Assembly
has made provisions by the challenged statutes for funding a system of schools with
minimum standards throughout the state. The issues of the level and method of funding,
and thereby the quality of the system, are committed by the Constitution to the collective
will of the people through the legislative branch. One cannot disagree with the aspirations of the majority to provide a school system that enables children to "participate fully in society," that provides "high quality educational opportunities," and that "allows its citizens to fully develop their human potential." However, the majority relies upon the phrase "thorough and efficient" to declare Ohio’s education financing system unconstitutional despite the fact that our Constitution commits the responsibility for ascribing meaning to the phrase "thorough and efficient" to the General Assembly and not to this court. The majority of this court, moreover, apparently interprets the Constitution as requiring that all schools be of the same undefined level of high quality without relying on any supporting text of the Constitution, and equates imperfect schools with an unconstitutional system of funding. We disagree with these conclusions. We must apply well-established standards before declaring statutes unconstitutional. Among those established standards is a strong presumption that enactments of the General Assembly are constitutional. State ex rel. Jackman v. Cuyahoga City. Court of Common Pleas (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 159, 161, 38 O.O.2d 404, 405, 224 N.E.2d 906, 908-909. It is not the function of this court to assess the wisdom or policy of a statute or statutory scheme. Rather, we are limited to determining whether the General Assembly acted within its legislative power in enacting that statute. Austintown Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Tracy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 353, 356, 667 N.E.2d 1174, 1175-1177. It has also been recognized that evidence of a long-standing legislative practice "goes a long way in the direction of providing the presence of unassailable grounds for the constitutionality of the practice." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), 299 U.S. 304, 328, 57 S.Ct. 216, 224, 81 L.Ed. 255, 267. Local property taxes have funded Ohio schools since 1825 — before the adoption of the Education Clause. Walter, 58 Ohio St.2d at 378, 12 O.O.3d at 333, 390 N.E.2d at 820. Local property taxes were the sole source of funding until 1906. Id. Nonetheless, the majority dispenses with the state’s reliance on this historically based method of funding, thereby usurping the authority of the General Assembly. A fundamental question in this case is which branch of government shall decide the issue of what level of funding of public education satisfies the constitutional standard of "thorough and efficient." To answer this question we rely upon common-law tests that have guided the courts in this country since the first state constitution was adopted over two hundred years ago. For the reasons that follow we respectfully, and jointly, dissent from the opinion of the majority. |
The
plaintiff: A coalition of school districts suing the current state system, want the system overturned. Friend of the court briefs were filed in support by the: • ACLU
The State of Ohio
|