Texas school finance trial would not be easily settled  

AUSTIN — Last week wasn’t the first time Fort Worth state Sen. Wendy Davis called on Attorney General Greg Abbott to settle the school finance trial.

Her reiteration came after both parties had finished presenting their arguments to State District Judge John Dietz. Dietz now has the case and may come to a decision in the spring. But the case could be appealed further.

About 600 school districts are involved in the case. They contend that the state’s funding of public schools is neither adequate nor equitable.

Davis, the leading Democratic candidate for governor, has fashioned herself as an education candidate first and foremost. Last week she unveiled the third of four education planks in her platform. The third plank seeks more access to pre-K and emphasis on early-age reading among Texas schoolchildren.

Although the filibuster that made her famous regarded abortion, Davis has been hearkening back to her 2011 filibuster protesting $5.4 billion in cuts to school funding.

Dietz said in a previous oral ruling that the state needed to increase school funding by about $10 billion. The Legislature came back and restored about $3.4 billion of the funding.

While Dietz is deliberating, Davis wants Abbott, the Republican front-runner for governor, to settle the lawsuit and possibly come back in a special session to handle school finance.

Davis sent out a news release citing a Lubbock news source that quoted Abbott as saying: “Texas voters know that they elect an attorney general to defend laws that are challenged in court. I happen to be the attorney general defending laws challenged in court. Democrats will continue to lose elections if they keep thinking that Texas voters are stupid. They are not.”

Davis argued in a release earlier this year that it is within Abbott’s discretion to settle the case.

“Contrary to facts and the law, Greg Abbott has maintained that as State Attorney General he was required to defend the $5 billion in cuts to public school funding enacted by his allies in the Legislature. But, case law dating to the 1979 decision of Bullock v. Texas Skating Association, clearly states:

‘In matters of litigation the Attorney General is the officer authorized by law to protect the interests of the State, and even in matters of bringing suit the Attorney General ‘must exercise judgment and discretion, which will not be controlled by other authorities’ It was within the discretion of the Attorney General, not that of the Comptroller, to decide whether to appeal a case in which the State had experienced an adverse judgment in the trial court.”

Abbott’s communications director, Matt Hirsch, wrote back in response at the time:

“In typical Democrat fashion, Sen. Davis continues to focus on the past and wants the courts to decide public policy issues rather than the Legislature. Greg Abbott’s goal is fixed firmly on the future. As Governor, he will lead a transformation in education that will get Texas schools out of the courts and empower teachers, principals and parents to provide a better education for our children.”

Abbott sent out a statement this past week to that effect, as well: Davis is focused on the past; let’s move forward.

Lynn Moak, of Moak, Casey & Associates, is an education expert who sat on the witness stand during the past phase of the school finance trial.

While not an attorney, Moak said settling the school finance trial seemed extremely unlikely — and not just because such a move would be unprecedented.

Settling would involve coming to terms with what the plaintiffs are demanding. That could mean more money for school finance. And it’s the Legislature that needs to come back together to make that kind of decision.

Davis did say she wanted a special session for the Legislature to resolve school finance.

“You could do a lot of good things,” Moak said. “But they would have to be ratified by the Legislature.”

Reprinted with permission from the San Angelo Standard-Times.