Education Funding Ruling Remains In Place
New Hampshire Department Of Justice Plans Appeal To Supreme Court
Also on today’s menu:
Biden To Announce New Sanctions Against Russia
Smirnov Released Despite Cash, Russian Contacts
The state of New Hampshire is planning to appeal education funding decisions by Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David Ruoff to the state Supreme Court after the judge denied Justice Department requests to reconsider his decision calling for an overhaul of the state’s methods of supporting public education. Ruoff had found that the state was not meeting its constitutional requirement and ordered the state to pay at least $7,356.01 per student — nearly double what it currently pays — and he found New Hampshire’s statewide education property tax to be unconstitutional and ordered a restructuring so it distributes money to poorer towns.
Attorneys for the state argued that it is the legislature, not the court, that should determine the amount of school funding, and that court involvement violates the constitution’s separation of powers clause. They also asked the court to delay implementation of the new funding levels by at least one legislative session.
“The Court carefully considered the relevant separation of powers concerns when issuing the Base Adequacy Order,” Ruoff wrote. “Ultimately, the Court concluded that those concerns must be balanced against the reality that the right to a ‘constitutionally adequate public education is a fundamental right’” as the Supreme Court determined in a pair of landmark decisions in the 1990s.
Discussion: Immediately after the so-called Claremont decisions in the 1990s, the New Hampshire Legislature sought to find ways around paying for an “adequate” education and established the so-called statewide property tax which in reality is a locally collected property tax imposed on top of the existing local property tax in order to pretend the state is providing enough money. Even that farcical solution did not provide a realistic amount to cover basic educational costs, and the legislature soon caved in to complaints from property-rich towns that it was unfair for them to subsidize poorer towns. Lawmakers allowed the wealthy towns to keep the excess amounts, tipping the balance against the communities such as Franklin that really needed state help.
If the state really wants to avoid its obligation to pay for public education, it should consider the argument recently made before the House Education Committee that the Supreme Court got it wrong by interpreting the New Hampshire Constitution to say the state needs to financially support public education. The court noted that the constitution says the state should “cherish” public schools — but “public schools” as they were understood at the time the constitution was written were like “public schools” in England today: private educational institutions. The actual language in the state constitution says “to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination.” The argument made before the Education Committee was that “public schools” in the constitution are included with other forms of education that the state supports in principle, without any implication that the support be financial. However, there is a specific ban on using tax money for religious schools or institutions — a provision the Education Freedom Accounts specifically violate.
Biden To Announce New Sanctions Against Russia
Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to President Joe Biden Jr., said the administration plans to release a sanctions package against Russia on February 23, in the wake of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s death and as Ukraine approaches the two-year mark of Russia’s invasion. The sanctions, which include releasing Russian money held by the US to assist Ukraine’s efforts at repelling the Russians, would cover “a range of different elements of the Russian defense industrial base, and sources of revenue for the Russian economy that power Russia’s war machine, that power Russia’s aggression and that power Russia’s oppression.”
The administration also urged U.S. House Republican leaders to hold an up-or-down vote on military assistance for Ukraine. Speaker Mike Johnson called a two-week recess rather than allowing a vote on the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate that would support Ukraine’s resistance efforts. Sullivan said Ukrainian soldiers’ withdrawal from the city of Avdiivka is a reminder of why US assistance is so crucial. The new sanctions, Sullivan said, are not a replacement for Congress approving the emergency spending bill.
Meanwhile, responding to the vacuum in the US commitment to support democracy over authoritarianism, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark announced that that country will donate all of its artillery to Ukraine; Sweden announced it will donate $682 million in equipment and cash to Ukraine; and the European Union committed 83 million euros, or about $89 million, in humanitarian aid for those in Ukraine and Moldova affected by the war, three weeks after it approved $54 billion in military aid.
Discussion: MAGA Republicans have delayed aid to Ukraine since October, even though a bipartisan majority in Congress supports the measure. Former president Donald Trump has made it clear that, if re-elected, he will impose an authoritarian regime similar to that of Vladimir Putin, where political enemies will be prosecuted, and that he would allow Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to US allies who do not meet their voluntary spending goal of 2% of their gross domestic product on their military forces.
Smirnov Released Despite Cash, Russian Contacts
Alexander Smirnov, 43, an ex-FBI informant whose accusations against President Joe Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter, served as the basis for an impeachment attempt against the president, is now alleged to have high-level ties with Russian intelligence. Department of Justice filings on February 20 say Smirnov attended an overseas meeting with “a high-ranking member of a specific Russian foreign intelligence service” in December 2023, and he told his FBI handler that he learned Russian intelligence had intercepted several phone calls by prominent US people, to be used as “kompromat” (compromising material) during the 2024 election campaign.
The Justice Department arrested Smirnov as he arrived in Las Vegas, Nevada, from an overseas flight on February 15, charging him with falsely claiming the Bidens had received bribes from Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm. Prosecutors asked for Smirnov, a dual US-Israeli citizen, to be held without bail, arguing that his Russian intelligence contacts and the $6 million he had in liquid funds made him a flight risk, and that he could live comfortably for the rest of his life if he reached another country.
Judge Daniel Albregts allowed him to be released with GPS monitoring, ordering him to remain in Clarke County and banning him from applying for a new passport.
Discussion: Special Counsel David Weiss, who is prosecuting Hunter Biden, learned that Smirnov had fabricated the story about meeting with an official at Burisma who told him that Hunter Biden’s appointment to Burisma’s board was an effort to wield his father’s political influence as vice-president and that each of the Bidens received a $5 million payment in exchange. Weiss said Smirnov “claimed to have contacts with multiple foreign intelligence agencies and had plans to leave the United States two days after he was arrested last week for a months-long, multi-country foreign trip” and that they “could resettle Smirnov outside the United States if he were released.” Will GPS tracking prevent that from happening?
Café Chatter
On ‘Successful Rescue’: Thank you for sharing the story of Evan! All the best to him as he continues.
— Susan Duncan
Nothing specific to this story but just wanted to say that Sergeant Lucas is a Newfound Grad.
— Maurice ‘Skip’ Jenness