Davis v. State Dakota

804 N.W.2d 618

273 Ed. Law Rep. 411

2011 S.D. 51

Mark DAVIS and Bonnie Davis, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Charlie Davis, Carl Davis, Joey Davis, and Selena Davis; Kay Eben, as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of Grace Eben and Kendra Eben; Dan Grant and Jane Grant, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Dylan Bambas and Alexis Bambas; Debra Buchholz and Calvin Buchholz, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Hannah Buchholz and Jared Buchholz; Julia Orrock, as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of Lucius Orrock and Dominic Orrock; Julie Schenkel, as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of Nathan Schenkel and Noah Schenkel; Anita Bach and Todd Bach, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Taylor Bach, Tyra Bach, and Seth Bach; Mike Hintz and Julie Hintz, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Kaitlin Hintz and Hannah Hintz; Brad Nelson and Rita Nelson, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Chantel Nelson and Shaina Maresh; Shane McIntosh and Tamara McIntosh, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Landry McIntosh and Bennett McIntosh; Jim Akre and Kay Akre, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Taylor Akre; Dawn Bialas and Kurt Bialas, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Morgan Bialas, Connor Bialas, and Keelan Bialas; and Ron Schoenfelder and Renea Schoenfelder, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Taylor Schoenfelder, Sadie Schoenfelder, and Molly Schoenfelder, Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.The STATE of South Dakota; South Dakota Department of Education; South Dakota Board of Education; Honorable M. Michael Rounds, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of South Dakota; Rick Melmer, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Education of the State of South Dakota; Vernon L. Larson, in his official capacity as the Treasurer of the State of South Dakota, Defendants and Appellees.

Nos. 25330

25333.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued Jan. 11, 2011.Decided Aug. 31, 2011.

Ronald A. Parsons Jr., Scott A. Abdallah, Pamela R. Bollweg, Shannon R. Falon of Johnson, Heidepreim, & Abdallah LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants.Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Diane Best, Bobbi J. Rank, Assistant Attorneys General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendants and appellees.MEIERHENRY, Retired Justice.

[¶ 1.] When our state founders laid the cornerstone for our state capitol building in 1908, the distinguished leader and Dakota Territorial Superintendent of Public Instruction, Gen. W.H.H. Beadle, addressed the crowd. He spoke of the importance of education to the future of the state:

The advance of every free state depends upon the broad intelligence of its citizens. Because we are a state, republican in form, education of all the people becomes the highest duty of the state. Nothing can be so important except the struggle for the very existence of the republic. The genius of the poorest must have equal chance with the opportunity of the rich. The true state will not disregard the welfare of the humblest orphan. Our resources of farm, orchard, and mine, our soils and our water supply, our rocks, our clays, must be scientifically studied and mastered; our livestock, our entire productive possibilities require a scientifically trained and educated people. As our population doubles and crowds our area, this need increases. This training should be masterly and broad and prepare as fully also for all civic and social duties. Not for wage earning alone, nor for money making alone, must we educate. All skill, all technical training, all science, all the industries, can not together, but unaided, save and develop all that human society and government have in charge for our permanent welfare. Technology is required for the world's progress, but it is not all the story of man's advancement.

* * *

The mastery of history, government, literature, philosophy; the knowledge of all the world and its mutual and conflicting interests, of the origin and nature of human society and “the grand results of time” must be the possession of those who are to lead us in the profound questions bound up in the state and national and international interests.

* * *

The great, final, single, comprehensive aim of education and of the highest education is the equipment of men for moral leadership. I believe that all this should be done inside the state, that all scholars, all teachers and all trained citizens should be made by institutions within our own state. Within our borders, under our laws and institutions, under the discipline of our own conditions and inspired by our state pride, all this can best be done. All the elements of, and inspiration for it, should be thoroughly given in our common schools, from our libraries and at our firesides.¹

General Beadle's convictions are embedded in the language of South Dakota's Constitution.

[¶ 2.] Article VIII, Section 1 of the South Dakota Constitution emphasizes the importance of a “general and uniform system of public schools” and places the duty to establish the system on the State Legislature:

The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.

(Emphasis added.) The Legislature also has the duty to fund education. Article VIII, Section 15 of the South Dakota Constitution directs the Legislature to provide through general and local taxation as follows:

The Legislature shall make such provision by general taxation and by authorizing the school corporations to levy such additional taxes as with the income from the permanent school fund shall secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.

[¶ 3.] Whether the Legislature has met the constitutional requirements of adequately funding education is the central question in this action. The plaintiffs—a group of children who attend public schools in South Dakota school districts and their parents and natural guardians—claim that the present system of funding education is unconstitutional because it does not provide all children with an adequate and quality education. Specifically, the plaintiffs ask for a declaratory ruling that Article VIII, Sections 1 and 15 mean (1) “that the South Dakota Constitution entitles all children to a free, adequate and quality public education,” and (2) that the present system of funding is unconstitutional because it does not provide all children with an adequate and quality education.

[¶ 4.] Clearly, the language of the South Dakota Constitution guarantees every child a free public education to provide them with “the advantages and opportunities of education.” What this means and its relationship to funding, however, is a trickier question.² To answer that question, we look at the plain meaning of the language and the intent of its drafters. See Brendtro v. Nelson, 2006 S.D. 71, ¶ 34, 720 N.W.2d 670, 681–82. The drafters used key words in defining the Legislature's duty. They required the Legislature to “establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools, ... adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education,” and provide funding to “ secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.” S.D. Const. art. VIII, §§ 1, 15 (emphasis added). The plain and ordinary meaning of these key words appears unchanged since 1889 when South Dakota's Constitution was ratified.³General means “[p]ertaining to, affecting, or applicable to, each and all of the members of a class, kind, or order”; uniform is “[h]aving always the same form, manner, or degree”; and system is “[a]n aggregation or assemblage of objects united by some form of regular interaction or interdependence.” Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language 1043, 2777, 2562 (2nd ed.1937). Suitable means “suited to ... one's needs, wishes, or condition, the proprieties, etc., appropriate; fitting,” and secure is “to make secure or certain; to ensure.” Id. at 2522, 2263. Advantage and opportunity are similarly defined as “[a]ny condition, circumstance, ... or means, particularly favorable to success, or to any desired end,” or “juncture of circumstances favorable to some end.” Id. at 38, 1709. Thorough means “so complete as to leave nothing unaffected or wanting”; and efficient signifies “[c]apable, competent, [and] able.” Id. at 2631, 819.

[¶ 5.] Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the language of Article VIII, Section 1 requires the Legislature to establish a general system of free public schools, each of the same form, and to employ all appropriate and fitting means to ensure children in South Dakota are afforded the advantages and opportunities of education. Additionally, Article VIII, Section 15 directs the Legislature to provide a method of general and local taxation that, along with income from the permanent school fund, ensures the existence of a system of common schools throughout the state. The school system must be complete in all respects, as well as capable, competent, and able.

[¶ 6.] We check this interpretation against the historical context and intent of the framers of the South Dakota Constitution. See Campbell Cnty, 907 P.2d at 1259. See also Doe v. Nelson, 2004 S.D. 62, ¶ 10, 680 N.W.2d 302, 306. The importance of education to those early leaders is unmistakable.

[¶ 7.] As early as 1861, the organizers of the Territory of Dakota set aside land for schools. Comm. on Territories, 49th Congr., 1st Sess., Rep. to...