Supreme Court Remands ConVal Suit
Adequacy Of State 'Adequacy Aid' Becomes Question For Legislature
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has rendered a mixed decision in the appeal of a Superior Court ruling concerning whether the state adequately funds public schools. The unanimous decision means that the case of Contoocook Valley School District & a. v. The State of New Hampshire & a. will go back to the lower court and likely go to the New Hampshire Legislature for a legal fix.
The issue before the Supreme Court was narrowly focused on whether the trial court was correct in its ruling. Justice Patrick Donavan wrote, “We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the Governor and the Commissioner in their individual capacities, and its denials of the State’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the State’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. However, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and awarding attorney’s fees, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
The plaintiffs in the case — Contoocook Valley School District, Myron Steere III, Richard Cahoon, Richard Dunning, Winchester School District, Mascenic Regional School District, and Monadnock Regional School District — argued that the state statute — RSA 198:40-a, II(a) — was unconstitutional for failing to include in its calculation of what constitutes adequate state aid for education the costs of transportation, teacher benefits, facilities, and certain services.
The so-called Claremont lawsuit found that “Part II, Article 83 of the State Constitution ‘imposes a duty on the State to provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child in the public schools in New Hampshire and to guarantee adequate funding.’” Because the legislature did not include all of the items that a joint committee had identified as being part of an adequate education, the plaintiffs argued that local taxpayers were having to pick up the costs that rightfully belonged to the state.
The Supreme Court found that “the methodology employed by the legislature in determining the cost of an adequate education in RSA 198:40-a is irrelevant to the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge,” but ruled that, “Although determining the components of an adequate education and their costs presents a mixed question of law and fact, as the parties’ briefs make clear, the underlying facts are vigorously disputed, thereby precluding entry of summary judgment for either party.”
The case will return to the lower court for a decision, but given that statement, it is likely that the Superior Court will ask the legislative body to revisit how to determine adequate state aid to education.
Permanent Expanded Absentee Voting Fails
Earlier this month, the Senate defeated a bill that would have extended the temporary rules for absentee voting adopted during the pandemic so people could continue requesting absentee ballots without having to provide a reason.
Supporters of Senate Bill 47 said the expanded rules for absentee votes in the most recent election allowed a record number of voters to cast ballots. “This bill allows people throughout the state who are registered voters to participate in elections in a safe manner for them,” said Democrat Donna Soucy. “I have not been a proponent for this, but I have come to see the importance of people’s constitutional rights to decide who speaks for them.”
The bill was defeated in a 14-10 party-line vote.
Return To Cash Bail
Led by Wolfeboro Republican Jeb Bradley, the Senate in a 20-4 vote partially reversed an earlier initiative at bail reform. Prior to the change, the granting of cash bail was determined to discriminate against the poor who could not afford to post bail, while the wealthy avoided pretrial jail time. Bradley said that the reform meant that dangerous criminals were allowed out on the streets and the new bill would allow judges to take that danger into account.
“Under this bill, violent offenders would be held until a judge determined whether or not they could be safely released on bail and those violent offenses are now clearly spelled out,” said Bradley. “We need this clarification because, under our current rules, recently adopted under SB 556, defendants cannot be denied bail simply because they cannot afford it. … Cleary, this has undermined public safety. People who are a danger to the public or who fail to abide by their conditions of release should not be granted bail.”
The News Café is a virtual meeting place where we discuss the news of the day. You can support us by subscribing to this newsletter for as little as $5 per month and, in exchange, you will receive all posts directly in your email in-box. Paid subscribers also have access to the web archives of all the newsletters. Subscribers can share their knowledge, thoughts, and questions about any topic, and we may select some of those subjects for more in-depth analysis.
If you’re unable to pay but still want to see the free posts at the News Café, sign up with a free subscription. You’ll get the public posts in your in-box, and will be able to share them with your friends.
Either way, we invite you to fill your cup with your favorite drink, pull up a chair, and join us at The News Café as we build our community. www.libertymedianh.org