The brief was submitted my a group of 30 Republican House members. (Dana Wormald | New Hampshire Bulletin)
The New Hampshire Supreme Court appears unlikely to overturn the landmark Claremont school funding decisions from the 1990s in the latest round of school funding lawsuits, according to a court order.
The announcement signals that the court is not interested in dismantling the principle underpinning school funding in New Hampshire for the past three decades: That the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure an “adequate” education for all students.
In an order sent to attorneys in a pair of lawsuits, the court appeared to dismiss the relevance of an amici curiae – or “friend of the court” – brief by Republican lawmakers that had asked for the Claremont decisions to be overturned.
The court said it “defers ruling” on that motion. “Unless the court should subsequently order otherwise, the plaintiffs need not further address the arguments in that memorandum,” the Sept. 27 order states.
The amici brief, submitted on behalf of a group of 30 House Republicans that included House Speaker Sherman Packard, had argued that the Claremont decisions were wrongly decided.
Those decisions – Claremont I, decided in 1993, and Claremont II, decided in 1997 – found that the state constitution created an obligation for the state to provide an adequate education, and that the state must do so in a way that taxes all residents equally.
The Republican lawmakers argued that the court did not interpret the constitution correctly in those decisions, and that the constitution merely requires the state to ensure that localities like cities and towns provide an adequate education. The lawmakers said the state has no obligation to directly provide funding for education, and that the court was wrong to direct the Legislature to do so because of the separation of powers doctrine.
The court’s order indicates it will likely not consider that approach as it prepares to hold oral arguments. Those arguments have not been scheduled yet.
Plaintiffs in the two school funding cases – Contoocook Valley School District et al. v. State of New Hampshire and Steven Rand et al. v. State of New Hampshire – argue that the state has not followed through on the directives in the Claremont decisions. The plaintiffs say the state is not providing enough funding for school districts to provide an adequate education without local property taxes, and they say property taxes are not equal between wealthier and poorer towns. The state counters that the present funding system is fair to school districts and that the court should not dictate to the Legislature where to set education funding levels.