[BBMW]

I don't buy that it was done because of federal law. When this happens, it's usually something under the state constitution or statute. If it were federal, it would have hit NYS also, since we have a million districts with wildly different funding levels. NYC is trying to do something like this to force changes to the state funding formula, but it's explicitly under a clause in the state constitution. If they could use the US Constitution or Federal law, they would have decades ago.

So if the NV constitution would allow it, it could be done. IIRC, a while back, Jim and I got into this, and I skimmed through the NV constitution looking for anything that would server as a basis for this kind of challenge. I don't remember seeing anything.

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

It is not clear that would stand up to inevitable litigation. In California it didn't. The courts ruled it violated various Federal anti-discrimination laws as well as the Equal Protection clause, because poor districts could not afford to tax themselves as much as rich districts, and because poor districts would need to impose a higher tax rate to raise the same dollars per parcel, and poor districts were disproportionately comprised of protected minorities (Blacks and Latinos).

The remedy imposed on California school districts is to "vacuum up" the property taxes going to the school districts to a State-level aggregation, and then send it back down to the school districts, giving much more to districts comprised of protected minorities. That way, East Palo Alto schools (with a high minority percentage) receive almost twice as much per pupil from the Stae as do neighboring Palo Alto schools.

From there it gets more complicated.

My point is there would be litigation. The outcome is uncertain.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by BBMW

I don't buy that it was done because of federal law.

Hmmm.... Looks like you're right, even though the Equal Protection Clause of the US 14th Amendment is central to the California litigation, and also to similar litigation in both Texas and New Jersey. Clearly, my memory isn't as good as it used to be. Also, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrano_v._Priest

Initiated in 1968 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Serrano v. Priest (John Serrano was a parent of one of several Los Angeles public school students; Ivy Baker Priest was the California State Treasurer at the time) set forth three causes of action (quotes from the decision).

In an opinion by Justice Raymond L. Sullivan, the Court agreed with the plaintiffs, largely on (US 14th Amendment) equal-protection grounds, and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Separately in Texas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_An...t_v._Rodriguez,

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, which was based on local property taxes, was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The majority opinion, reversing the District Court, stated that the appellees did not sufficiently prove a textual basis, within the US Constitution, supporting the principle that education is a fundamental right. Urging that the school financing system led to wealth-based discrimination, the plaintiffs had argued that the fundamental right to education should be applied to the States, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that there was no such fundamental right and that the unequal school financing system was not subject to strict scrutiny.

At the US Supreme Court, new justice Lewis Powell proved to be the swing vote in the Rodriguez case. Powell led the narrow majority in deciding that the right to be educated (as a child of school age or an uneducated adult), was neither 'explicitly or implicitly' textually found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It was therefore, not anywhere protected by the Constitution.

He also found that Texas had not created a suspect class related to poverty. The two findings allowed the state to continue its school financing plan as long so it was "rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

****
However, years later in Texas was the Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby litigation, which resulted in legislation to correct imbalances in school funding. The law "recaptured" property tax revenue from property-wealthy school districts and distributed those in property-poor districts, in an effort to equalize the financing of all school districts throughout Texas. Not surprisingly, it was called The Robin Hood legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_plan

****

Now, in New Jersey there are so-called Abbot Districts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district .

Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey that are provided remedies to ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with the state constitution. They were created in 1985 as a result of the first ruling of Abbott v. Burke, a case filed by the Education Law Center. The ruling asserted that public primary and secondary education in poor communities throughout the state was unconstitutionally substandard. The Abbott II ruling in 1990 had the most far-reaching effects, ordering the state to fund the (then) 28 Abbott districts at the average level of the state's wealthiest districts. The Abbott District system was replaced in 2007 by the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.

At the end of the day, it is all about "who pays." Litigation is just about guaranteed, and once things get to the courts there is no sure thing.

As an aside, here is a bit more detail on the hoops California school financing jumps through:

https://ed100.org/lessons/whopays