N.J. Supreme Court weighs state's obligations to school funding during recession

AP Photo/Mel EvansMembers of the New Jersey Supreme Court, (left to right) Associate Justices Helen E. Hoens, Barry T. Albin, Virginia A. Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, Roberto A Rivera-Soto and temporary Justice Judge Edwin H. Stern listen to attorney David Sciarra, standing at the podium, Wednesday in Trenton as the court heard arguments on a new chapter in its decades-long dilemma over what the state must do to provide an adequate education for children in its poorest communities.Wednesday’s long argument over funding New Jersey schools returned to the state Supreme Court, where stark battle lines were drawn.
The Newark-based Education Law Center, which advocates for needy students, argued that cuts in school funding made by Gov. Chris Christie and the Legislature last year violate the state’s constitutional obligations. It wants the state ordered to fully bankroll the court-approved school funding formula.
In response, the state argues that cuts to education couldn’t be avoided because of the recession — and that the court has no role in how the state spends its money because there’s no constitutional inequity in school funding.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in state funds rest on the Supreme Court’s decision in the latest chapter of long-running Abbott vs. Burke. The court fight has drawn close scrutiny in part because the court itself is caught in a fierce political battle between Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney over the governor’s decision to dump former Associate Justice John Wallace Jr. in May.
None of the controversy was on display Wednesday as debate focused on the state’s obligations during a recession.
"Is this court not to take into account the present economic realities?" Associate Justice Barry Albin said. "Should that not be a factor?"
Education Law Center Executive Director David Sciarra said he only wants "what the state committed to do."
"This is a fundamental constitutional right," he said. "This court has the authority to indicate to the state what it’s responsibilities are."
Assistant Attorney General Nancy Kaplen said the state needed another $1.8 billion in the current budget year to fully meet the school funding formula created by former Gov. Jon Corzine’s administration and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2009.
"It’s no longer a flush time," she said. "We can no longer afford this flush formula."
Kaplen said the state cut education spending in an equitable way, without penalizing poor or rich districts. "The gross disparities (between rich and poor districts) that caused the court to intervene in the past do not exist," she said.
James Harris, president of the New Jersey NAACP, was troubled by the state’s argument. "We’re in a dangerous situation where the state of New Jersey says it cannot afford the constitutional rights of children," he said.
The Supreme Court could wreak havoc on the budget process if it forces the state to spend more money on schools — a position it has taken in the past. Some justices suggested appointing a special master to review the impact of funding on school performance before the court rules.
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner recused himself from the case. Associate Justice Robert Rivera-Soto, who will not seek renomination when his term ends in September, is abstaining from voting to protest the temporary appointment of an appeals court judge to the seat once held by Wallace. Senate Democrats are refusing to consider Christie’s choice to replace Wallace, because they say denying him tenure was an attack on judicial independence.
Christie said if the state loses the Abbott case, he’ll blame Senate Democrats. "If for some reason this court were to turn down the (school funding) cuts, that lays at the feet of the Senate Democrats. They have a judge participating who has not been nominated by a governor and has not been confirmed by the Senate. That’s not the way the system is suppose to work," Christie said.