District Court City And County Of Denver Colorado Order (Page 2 of 3) in pdf

FINDINGS AND ORDER

The following facts, as relevant here, are undisputed:

1) Article IX, § 2 (“the Education Clause”) reads, in relevant part, “the general assembly

shall. . . provide for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform

system of free public schools throughout the state, wherein all residents of the state,

between the ages of six and twenty-one years, may be educated gratuitously”.

2) Adopted in 2000, Amendment 23 specifically sets the minimum level of state funding

for public education.

3) Article III prohibits the judiciary from exercising those powers constitutionally

conferred upon the legislature.

4) The Public School Finance Act of 1994 authorizes school district property tax mill

levies in individual school districts.

5) Colorado school districts and their governing boards are political subdivisions of the

State.

6) Political subdivisions cannot challenge the constitutionality of a statute that directs

their performance or otherwise defines their responsibilities.

Applying the stringent standard of review to the case here, the Court finds that the

Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to prove any set of facts in support of their claim that would

entitle them to relief. Plaintiffs argue that the State of Colorado is failing to provide “a

thorough and uniform system of free public schools” as mandated in the Education

Clause due to insufficient funding. While the Education Clause does not include any

specific funding requirements in its mandate for a “thorough and uniform standard”,

Amendment 23 clearly mandates a minimum level of state education funding. This

funding floor was voted on by the people of Colorado as a means of addressing the

precise financing problems Plaintiffs allege. Though Plaintiffs argue that Amendment 23

does not define the amount of funding required to meet the qualitative standards set forth

in the Education Clause, this court finds the levels dictated by Amendment 23 to be

consistent with the goals of the Education Clause. Whether the floor created by

Amendment 23 is adequate is an issue to be decided by the voters and the legislature; and

Plaintiffs’ claim alleging that current funding levels are unconstitutional must be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Colorado Constitution clearly commits power of appropriations and the

determination of educational adequacy to the legislature, subject only to constitutional

limitations. Despite Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Colorado Supreme Court has exercised

jurisdiction over Education Clause claims, these cases presented constitutional questions

of equality, not quality or adequacy of educational funding. In fact, no Colorado court

has defined “adequate” or “thorough” because the substance of these terms is a legislative

District Court City And County Of Denver Colorado Order Page 2