United States: Texas District Court Rules School Finance System Is Unconstitutional

On August 28, Judge John Dietz1 of the 250th District Court ruled that the method the state of Texas currently uses to finance public schools is unconstitutional in several respects.2 The decision discussed state constitutional deficiencies in the equity of the distribution of educational funding, the adequacy of the amount of funding, and effectively constituting a prohibited state property tax. However, the court found that the school finance system does not violate taxpayer equity under the state constitution. The court has given the Texas legislature the opportunity to correct the constitutional deficiencies by July 1, 2015 before the state is enjoined from distributing educational funds under the current school finance system. The state is expected to appeal the decision to a higher court.

Background

The Texas public grade schools and high schools are funded by a combination of local school district property taxes and state funding. Under the current system, some property tax revenues from the wealthier districts (as considered by total property tax revenues) are shared with the poorer districts. This "share-the-wealth" or "Robin Hood" system has resulted in numerous controversies between the state of Texas and its school districts with respect to the constitutionality of the school finance system. The following summary of litigation and legislation represents only the more noteworthy developments.

Beginning in 1984 when the Edgewood Independent School District (ISD) filed a lawsuit claiming the system was inequitable through the current court challenges, there have been several successful legal challenges by both property-value-poor districts and property-value-wealthy districts. Financial transfers from wealthier to poorer school districts began in 19933 when the Texas legislature finally responded to the Texas Supreme Court's 1989 ruling that concluded there were glaring and unconstitutional funding disparities between poor and wealthy districts.4 The Texas Supreme Court upheld the Robin Hood system and the overall new school funding system in 1995.5

In 2003, property-value-wealthy districts legally challenged the Robin Hood system as inefficient and effectively constituting an unconstitutional state property tax that pushed many districts to raise tax rates to the maximum legal rate. By being forced to impose the maximum tax rate, the districts argued that they had effectively lost the discretion to set their own tax rates. Numerous other districts joined the case arguing that the system was inequitable and insufficiently funded public education. In a trial involving over 300 districts in 2004, District Judge Dietz ruled the system unconstitutional and inefficient and set a deadline of October 2005 for the legislature to fix the problem.6 The Texas Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the system was effectively an unconstitutional state property tax.7

Under pressure from the courts, the legislature in 2006 sought to allocate more state funding to districts while cutting local school Maintenance and Operations (M&O) property tax rates by almost one-third.8 One funding mechanism created in that session was the Revised Texas Franchise Tax, which was intended to increase franchise tax revenues. Minimum school funding requirements based on the amount spent per student that year were set in place to make sure no district lost money by freezing these thresholds.

While districts were given some discretion over their tax rates, the maximum M&O tax rate that could be imposed by the districts was set at $1.17 per $100 of valuation. Prior to 2006, the school M&O tax rate was capped at $1.50 per $100 (except for seven districts in Harris County). Also prior to 2006, the school Interest and Sinking Fund (I&S) tax rate was capped at $0.50 per $100 valuation; a limit few districts had reached. The $0.50 I&S rate cap remains in effect. Currently, total property tax rates within Texas, including school district, city, county, and special district rates, vary from under 2 percent of property value to well over 3 percent of value.

In 2011, the legislature cut more than $4 billion in state spending on public schools in its effort to balance the state budget without raising taxes or draining the state's rainy day fund.9 Consequently, many school district tax rates were raised to the maximum limit. As a result, numerous plaintiffs filed lawsuits in 2011 and 2012 claiming the school finance system was again unconstitutional on a variety of grounds. More than 360 districts claimed the system was inequitable and inadequate, and more than 120 other districts claimed the tax rate cap constituted an unconstitutional state property tax.

In the initial school finance trial of the combined plaintiffs from the 2011 and 2012 lawsuits, Judge Dietz informally ruled the school finance system to be unconstitutional because of inadequacies of funding and inequitable distributions of those funds.10 The judge deferred action pending a second trial after the legislature had an opportunity to meet in 2013 and pass legislation and a budget that might mitigate the defects in the system.

In its 2013 session, the legislature restored much of the prior funding cut, and reduced the number of standardized tests required for high school graduation, but did not make fundamental changes to the school finance system.11 The reduction in standardized testing was thought by the legislature to reduce the amount of funding required to be "adequate." After considering the 2013 legislation in the most recent trial, Judge Dietz has formally ruled the Texas school finance system is unconstitutional on grounds that included inadequacy.

Texas School Finance System Court Ruling

Judge Dietz ruled the school finance system in Texas is unconstitutional because of defects in equity and adequacy and because the system is effectively a state property tax. From an equity perspective, the court found that the system violates Article VII, Section 112 of the Texas Constitution since the system fails to provide equal access to revenues necessary for the education of students by arbitrarily funding districts at different levels. From an adequacy perspective, the court decided that the system violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution since funding is inadequate for support and maintenance of public schools and providing education to students of poor families. Finally, the court concluded that the system can be construed as imposing a state property tax violating Article VIII, Section 1-e13 of the Texas Constitution, since poor districts are forced to tax at or near the $1.17 cap and no longer have meaningful discretion in setting their tax rates.

The ruling enjoins the state of Texas from distributing funds under the current school finance system after July 1, 2015 if the Texas legislature does not remedy the constitutional violations. If the state of Texas appeals the decision (to the Third Court of Appeals14 or to the Texas Supreme Court), the injunction is automatically stayed. The court also awarded "reasonable and necessary" attorney fees to the public school district plaintiffs, but not to other interveners including charter school plaintiffs.

Commentary

The issues litigated in this case are similar in nature to those previously litigated and discussed above. The lengthy decision, which relied on numerous findings of facts and conclusions of law, surprised few and places heavy reliance on those prior decisions and rationale.

In the process of adopting the Texas Constitution of 1876, the concept of "(a) general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people" was the most controversial and debated issue in the Constitutional Convention of 1875.15 From a tax perspective, the "inadequacy of funding" may have the greatest impact, as that same finding has had in the past. Expert witnesses testified that state spending would have to increase by over $6 billion per year to be considered adequate. That is a significant sum of money even for a Texas-sized economy.

The Texas Attorney General is expected to appeal the district court's ruling directly to the Texas Supreme Court. The appeals process could take about a year without a decision from the Supreme Court until after the legislature meets again in 2015. Alternatively, the Texas Attorney General could appeal the district court's ruling to the Third Court of Appeals. If so, the entire appeals process through the Texas Supreme Court could take over two years.

In any event, the legislature should have an opportunity to address the legal challenges with school finance system changes in the next legislative session scheduled for 2015. Historically, the legislature has been reluctant to increase funding or make significant modifications in anticipation of a court mandate because such funding or actions may be inconsistent with any eventual mandate. Texas public schools are funded significantly by local property taxes and those taxes and educational issues are always high on legislative agendas and priorities. School taxes comprise the majority of Texas property taxes and the Texas property taxes are already high by national comparison. However, the recent decision by the Texas district court means that some form of change to the funding and possibly the structure of the school finance system could at least be considered by the legislature. As potential changes to the school finance system may have a significant impact on taxpayers in Texas, developments relating to the constitutionality of the school finance system should be monitored until the legislature and the courts resolve the issue.

Footnotes

1 Texas tax practitioners may recognize Judge Dietz from his decision in Southwest Royalties, Inc. v. Combs, 353rd District Court, Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-1-GN-09-004284, April 30, 2012; aff'd, Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, No. 03-12-00511-CV, Aug. 13, 2014 (refunds of Texas sales and use tax denied for oil and gas above-ground and below-ground production equipment). In the instant school finance system case, Judge Dietz survived the Texas Attorney General's Motion to Recuse.

2 The Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition v. Williams, 250th District Court, Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-1-GN-11-003130, Aug. 28, 2014.

3 S.B. 7, Laws 1993.

4 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1989).

5 Edgewood Independent School District v. Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. 1995).

6 West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District v. Neeley, 250th District Court, Travis County, Texas, Cause No. GV-100528, Nov. 30, 2004. This was decided by the same judge as the instant case.

7 Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, 176 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005).

8 H.B. 1, Laws 2006.

9 H.B. 1, Laws 2011.

10 The Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition v. Williams, 250th District Court, Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-1-GN-11-003130, Feb. 4, 2013.

11 S.B. 1, Laws 2013.

12 This section of the Texas Constitution provides for the support and maintenance of a system of public free schools. Specifically, this section provides that "[a] general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools." TEX. CONST. art. VII, § 1.

13 This section of the Texas Constitution provides that "[n]o State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State." TEX. CONST. art. VIII, § 1-e.

14 This is an intermediate appellate court that is located in Austin, Texas.

15 Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, 176 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005), quoting TEX. CONST. art. VII, § 1.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions