You are here: Home > Background > Q & A
Background
Questions & Answers
Who are the attorneys, plaintiffs and defendants?
Attorneys: David H. Angeli, Robert Van Brocklin and James N. Westwood of Stoel Rives, LLP.
Plaintiffs: Pendleton, Crow-Applegate-Lorane, Eugene 4J, Coos Bay, Corvallis, Three Rivers, Astoria, Creswell, Lincoln County, Siuslaw, Centennial, Amity, Reynolds, Coquille , Parkrose, Pine Eagle , Jefferson 14J and McKenzie School Districts as well as individual parents on behalf of their school age children. More about the plaintiffs
Defendants: At the time of filing, the defendants included both the State of Oregon and Oregon's legislative leadership. On August 24, 2006 in order to prevent the possibility of costly and time-consuming procedural motions, and quickly and efficiently resolve the constitutional merits of the case, the plaintiffs dropped the six named individual legislators from the lawsuit. The suit continues against the State of Oregon. Please refer to this August 24, 2006 Press Release
Who are the funders?
This effort is being funded by a broad coalition of organizations and individuals from the legal, business and education communities.
What is the legal strategy?
The claims are rooted firmly in two separate but equally powerful provisions of Oregon’s Constitution. Article VIII, Section 8 requires the Legislature to appropriate in each biennium a sum of money “sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of K-12 public education meets quality goals established by law.” Article VIII, Section 3 requires the Legislature to “provide by law for the establishment of a uniform and general system of Common schools.” The Legislature apparently doesn’t fully understand what its constitutional obligations are with respect to providing a quality education system. So we’re asking the court to clarify those obligations and to instruct the Legislature to fulfill them.
Can the courts enforce a decision upon the legislature?
That question has been raised in many of the 38 states where similar litigation has been filed. An overwhelming majority of courts in those states have recognized that the final authority to determine adherence to the Constitution resides with the Judiciary. In other contexts, the Oregon Supreme Court has similarly recognized that, although the Legislature has the constitutional authority to decide how to satisfy its constitutional obligations, the Judiciary has the final authority to determine whether those obligations have been satisfied.
What does this suit aim to accomplish?
We want Oregon schoolchildren to receive the quality education to which they are constitutionally entitled - the quality education that voters demanded by a 2-1 margin when they passed Measure 1 in 2000. That’s what we’re asking for in our Complaint - we want the Legislature to provide for the specific qualitative changes in our schools that are required to satisfy the quality goals established by law in Oregon.
What happens to funding for other vital state services?
While we recognize the importance of many other state services, this is a legal action, not a policy debate. The Constitution imposes certain obligations on the Legislature, and compliance with those obligations is not optional. The Legislature must live up to its education funding obligations regardless of other demands, and regardless of whether the state’s economy is in a boom or a bust phase. Ultimately, the Legislature will have to make whatever policy choices are necessary to ensure that it satisfies its constitutional responsibilities. But simply abdicating those responsibilities is not an option.
Is the QEM (Quality Education Model) relevant?
From a legal perspective - and that is what this case is about - the QEM is not only relevant, it’s dispositive. Article VIII, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution requires the Legislature to provide funding sufficient to attain the statutory quality goals established by the Legislature in 1991. The Legislature, in turn, vested the Quality Education Commission with the authority to determine - using the QEM - the specific qualitative changes that were required for our schools to attain those quality goals. The Legislature has never adopted an alternative standard.
Can’t the legislature just change the law?
The key point is that, whether or not the Legislature could change the law, it hasn’t. This case, like any other legal case, has to be decided based on what the law is, not what the law might be. Pursuant to statute, the Legislature may “make a determination that the report of the Quality Education Commission should not be used as the basis for carrying out” the Legislature’s reporting requirements. In that case, however, the Legislature must “identify the reasons for not using the report” and must “outline an alternative methodology” for making its findings, which must be based on “(A) research, data and public values; and (B) the performance of successful schools and/or professional judgment.” The Legislature has not done so. And at least with respect to the 2005-07 biennium, it’s too late.