State getting its day after day after day in court
Published August 24, 2014
Editorial by Burlington Times-News, August 22, 2014.
North Carolina’s proposed school voucher program — called “opportunity scholarships” — ran aground in court last week. A Wake County Superior Court judge ruled it unconstitutional.
There’s a reason Judge Robert Hobgood sees it that way. It probably is.
The state Constitution is pretty clear on the subject, something pointed out repeatedly during debate about the program and after it was approved by the N.C. General Assembly. Here’s what the constitution says about it: Education funding “shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of free public schools.”
This specific wording was noted by politicians, educators and editorial writers. Even those willing to entertain the notion of a voucher program pointed out that other alternatives were available for lawmakers to choose.
But instead, they took a path that could likely lead to litigation and expense — and may decide to do so again. Backers of the measure said they intend to appeal the ruling. Smart money tells us this is a bad idea. We remain puzzled why state lawmakers refuse to follow a smarter road already paved by the state of Florida where a voucher program gives tax credits instead of direct payments for low-income parents frustrated by public schools that want alternatives but can’t otherwise afford it. The Times-News is not against voucher programs, we just want them constructed correctly with no damage to public education.
The rush to create laws that will ultimately lead to lengthy court cases seems to be a goal of some state lawmakers these days. The Opportunity Scholarships program is a case study. But it is hardly the only one. This year, federal judges struck down a state law that would allow a “Choose Life” license plate, but not a pro-choice plate, as well as a provision in an N.C. law that required doctors to narrate ultrasound images for women seeking abortions. Also this year, a Superior Court judge whistled foul on lawmakers for an “unlawful taking” of Asheville’s water system.
Too often today it seems that proposed laws seem poorly vetted by House and Senate leadership for possible legal ramifications. It’s an expensive proposition to continually battle case after case in a variety of state and federal courts.
That’s why we chuckled but also liked a modest proposal rendered last week by the Charlotte Observer. It most certainly would curb this urge to legislate without really looking.
“If an N.C. lawmaker votes for a bill that is subsequently rejected by the courts, that lawmaker must help pay for resources that went into defending the flawed law,” the Observer wrote.
The Observer was using satire to make a point. It posed this solution as its unreasonable response to what they see as overreaching legislation in the state budget. In the new law, instead of constitutional challenges working through the legal system, they would, starting in September, immediately go to a three-judge panel appointed by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. State Republicans say this would eliminate judge shopping by activists seeking a favorable ruling, which seems to be what this law is trying to create for lawmakers, their own friendly judges.
Ironic, right?
The measure already has enemies in the North Carolina State Bar and the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts. They say it deprives plaintiffs the full appeals process they’re entitled to. That includes Superior Court judges issuing stays on legislation being implemented until matters are legally settled.
So expect a legal challenge to this one, too.
And maybe we should consider who should be paying for it.
August 24, 2014 at 11:37 am
Richard Bunce says:
All actions by legislatures and executives should be challenged in court as a matter of principle. Many actions would fail the Constitutional test if just challenged.
