A plan to remove the courts from the process of funding Ohio public schools has a lot to recommend it. But even its sponsor, state Sen. Eugene Watts, R-Dublin, hopes Senate Joint Resolution 4 never has to reach the statewide ballot in 2000.

The Ohio Supreme Court will make up Watts’ mind later this year when its seven members decide whether to uphold the latest ruling by Judge Linton D. Lewis Jr. of Perry County Common Pleas Court that the legislature filed to fix Ohio’s method of school funding.

Watts' proposed constitutional amendment would insert an 11-word phrase into the relevant section of the Ohio Constitution, naming the General Assembly as the only body authorized to decide school funding.

If the Supreme Court overrules Lewis, the Watts plan will fold. If the court upholds Lewis’ decision, Senate Joint Resolution 4, which so far lacks the three-fifths majority needed to place it on the ballot, is expected to become a contender on the legislative docket.

Some have accused Watts of threatening the court, holding the resolution over the justices’ heads like the sword of Damocles. Others have fretted that the proposal represents a reckless move toward constitutional changes that would erode the courts’ role in Ohio’s system of checks and balances.

Both fears pale next to the specter of a public policy not legislated by representatives of citizens across the state but ordered by a judge elected in a county of 31,000 residents.

"Is this a threat? I know all those people (on the Ohio Supreme Court), and Gene Watts does not threaten them. I’m not fooled for a second," Watts says. “I do recognize the other side of this argument, the slippery slope argument. But I don’t remember anyone in the General Assembly saying that in regard to workers’ compensation or the tort-reform decision."

Watts fears, as should every taxpaying Ohioan, that the question of school funding, once entrenched in the court system, never will leave that forum. Already, Columbus lawyers have made millions of dollars representing the interests of the well-intentioned school districts that in 1991 brought the lawsuit against the state.

No one argues that many, especially Ohio’s rural districts, suffer because they are unable to generate sufficient local taxes to fund decent public education. They have legitimate concerns about the financing formula, circa 1991. Despite changes since then by the General Assembly, problems remain. The issue is whether Ohio courts can or should decide how to solve them. Or should the legislature, which directly represents the people, perform the duty mandated by the Ohio Constitution?

The General assembly should do the job.

New Jersey is probably the best example of what happens when such a conflict drags on. In 1970, plaintiffs there filed a lawsuit charging that the state's reliance on local property taxes to fund schools discriminated against poorer districts and created disparities in education.

In 1976, the New Jersey Legislature missed a state-aid funding deadline, and the state Supreme Court closed the public schools, locking out 100,000 summer-session students. A week later, the funding was approved and the schools reopened.

In 1981, another suit was filed, this time charging that the prescribed aid failed to end the disparities. In June 1990, the state Supreme Court ruled the system was unconstitutional. A month later, another law was enacted to address the problem. It included a $1.1 billion income-tax increase but was revised to divert $360 million to property-tax relief.

In 1992, a third suit was filed, claiming the revised law fell short of the Supreme Court mandate. In 1994, the justices ruled the revised law unconstitutional, ordering the Legislature to eliminate the disparity. The court did not prescribe how much must be spent.

In January 1997, plaintiffs in New Jersey challenged another education-funding law enacted in 1996. In May 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the school-funding law was unconstitutional. The state has raised funding levels for its 28 neediest districts and created a set of standards that all districts must meet, a plan that appears - but isn’t guaranteed - to satisfy the court.

Garden State lawmakers continue to grapple with the school-funding issue. And lawyers there continue to rake in the fees.

Get the picture?

That could be Ohio. Already the school-funding debate has dragged on for eight years. It could go on endlessly if the Ohio Supreme Court doesn’t rein in Lewis and return the job of public education policy to the legislature.

Fiddling with the state constitution never is a first option. But any branch of government that refuses to acknowledge its constitutional limits invites the electorate to clarify the issue. The framers of the Ohio Constitution at the 1850-51 constitutional convention were explicit when they called on the legislature to "make such provisions by taxation, or otherwise, as. . . will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state." If that is unclear to the courts, Ohio citizens have the power to spell it out more explicitly.