Texas Supreme Court: Property tax is illegal

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Perhaps Shane can explain this.... [/]

November 23,2005

Elizabeth Pierson

The Monitor

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the property tax cap forced on school districts is unconstitutional, ordering the Legislature to change the system by June 1 or keep school doors shut next fall.

Despite problems with the finance system, the court ruled the state is meeting the Constitution’s educational requirements for a "general diffusion of knowledge" and did not order the state to increase the total amount of money paid to the $30 billion school system.

In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the Legislature must do away with the $1.50 cap per $100 valuation that districts can collect because it amounts to an unconstitutional statewide property tax.

Justice Scott Brister dissented, in a case that boiled over last year when a state District Court judge in Austin ruled in favor of a coalition of rich and poor districts that represented about half of all Texas school children. The District Court judge, John K. Dietz, called the finance and education system unconstitutional.

The latest ruling Tuesday came as a disappointment to Rio Grande Valley educators and lawmakers who said it makes it easy for the Legislature to not increase education spending. Valley districts that are struggling to educate poor and bilingual students, and trying to build and repair schools, have contended they need more money, not just a financial restructure.

"We are extremely disappointed," said Martin Peña, legislative liaison for Region One Education Service Center in Edinburg, the state agency that includes all Valley school districts. "We’re going to have just the basics, the $1.50, being addressed, and not much more."

Gov. Rick Perry and limited-government advocates praised the decision, saying schools could be improved with more efficient, not increased, funding.

"The decision issued today by the Texas Supreme Court is an important victory for Texas schoolchildren and property taxpayers," Perry said in a statement. "It reaffirms the conclusion that many Texans have already drawn based on the significant achievement gains Texas students have made in recent years: that our system of education funding is fair and meets or exceeds all constitutional requirements."

Perry said he would call lawmakers back to Austin "at an appropriate time" before the June 1 deadline. If he calls them back before the March primaries, he risks the Republican-led legislature failing to again come up with a solution on his watch.

Valley teachers who have suffered a 50 percent decrease in their state-provided health insurance stipend, haven’t had a raise from the state for six years and face increasing stress from standardized tests will not celebrate the ruling, said Ruth Skow, president of the McAllen Federation of Teachers.

"I guess every teacher would laugh if you said that everything was rosy or everything was wonderful," Skow said. "Because, right now, they’re inundated with paper for the (state) test. Really, teaching is second; it’s teaching to the test that’s first."

The Legislature has been unable to come up with a way to decrease property taxes in a string of regular and special sessions. Businesses have lobbied heavily against any business tax expansion, and consumer advocates have been dead set against a sales tax increase.

The 2 million Texas school children who attend schools in property-poor districts will suffer directly from the ruling, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund said in a statement. MALDEF represented the 22 school districts, half of which are in the Valley, that first filed the school finance case.

"Our undisputed evidence at trial showed that the quality of education for certain Texas children still suffers as a direct result of which side of the tracks they live on," said MALDEF attorney David Hinojosa. "Despite the glaring disparities between the haves and the have-nots, the court refused to confront the issues head-on."

Hinojosa said there is a silver lining to the ruling for property-poor districts: it did not order the state to eliminate the Robin Hood, or share-the-wealth, system under which they have benefited.

Attorney General Greg Abbott said the ruling was a "victory for democracy" because it leaves policy questions about education in the hands of legislators rather than courts.

"The Court recognized — as all Texans recognize — that we can and should do a better job of educating students in Texas," said Abbott, who argued the case for the state. "But just because we can do a better job does not mean that the job being done now is unconstitutional."

Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, said he was particularly shocked the court didn’t order more money for facilities.

"The issues remain. The cause remains. It didn’t go away with this opinion, but it wasn’t helped by it," said Oliveira, vice chairman of the House Public Education Committee. "This doesn’t give any backbone to the some of the spineless colleagues who didn’t want to press the issue. They can continue to avoid the tough decision."

State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, said that despite the ruling, he expects the Legislature to put more money into the system because "general public is fed up" with struggling schools and students.

"With all due respect to the Supreme Court, they really, in my opinion, ruled incorrectly that we didn’t need any more money appropriated in the public school system," Hinojosa said.

At the Brownsville school district, the ruling means officials will begin next year crafting a conservative budget that doesn’t count on extra money from the state, said Lorenzo Sanchez, chief financial officer. They need $350 million worth of facilities improvements in the next five to 10 years, but won’t count on making a significant dent in those needs, he said.

"We’ll survive somehow, you know," Sanchez said. "Districts have for so long, and it’s so difficult to predict how the Legislature is going to react to all of this."

State Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, said the court’s ruling is a warning to the Legislature to improve schools before they fail to meet constitutional muster.

"The Supreme Court may have declared adequacy and equity in our education system as constitutional for now, but they recognize that something must be done in the near future to address these concerns," Lucio said in a statement.

Rep. Ismael "Kino Flores, D-Mission, like Oliveira, said he was especially puzzled the court did not agree that schools need more money for buildings.

"There are schools along the border that have a majority of students being taught in portable buildings, and the classroom settings in South Texas are housed in dilapidating buildings, so it is hard for me to comprehend how the Supreme Court can rule that the State provides adequate levels of funding," said state Rep. Ismael "Kino" Flores, D-Mission.

[Dr. Shane]

I haven't read enough to really understand the ruling. The legistlature has placed a cap on the amount of taxes school districts can change the those in their district. So if that cap is unconstitutional I would think they could increase taxes and educators would be happy. I think I am missing part of the story.

Quote:

---

State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, said that despite the ruling, he expects the Legislature to put more money into the system because "general public is fed up" with struggling schools and students.

---

This guy refused to let TSA search him at an airport because he said they always search him and it is just because he is a celebrety. A few months later he "accidently" tried to board a plane with a handgun.

Quote:

---

"There are schools along the border that have a majority of students being taught in portable buildings, and the classroom settings in South Texas are housed in dilapidating buildings, so it is hard for me to comprehend how the Supreme Court can rule that the State provides adequate levels of funding," said state Rep. Ismael "Kino" Flores, D-Mission.

---

This guy is very level-headed. He has thought of running for Congress and he would be much better than the one we have representing us now.