Published: Thursday, April 21, 2011, 8:30 AM Updated: Thursday, April 21, 2011, 5:31 PM
EnlargeFormer Attorney General Peter Verniero waits for the beginning of a hearing in the Abbott vs. Burke school funding case before the New Jersey Supreme Court in Trenton. (John O'Boyle/The Star-Ledger)Abbott vs. Burke school funding hearing gallery (18 photos)
TRENTON — Back off.
That was the Christie administration’s message today to the state Supreme Court as New Jersey’s legendary battle over the state’s obligations to its poorest students was renewed in nearly two hours of arguments.
With former Supreme Court Justice Peter Verniero leading the charge, the Christie administration basically told the state’s highest court it should step aside and let the other two branches of government handle school funding.
Verniero said the court should tread lightly in a high stakes battle that could blow a $1.7 billion hole in Gov. Chris Christie’s proposed budget if it decides he violated the constitution by slashing funding last year.
"Before the court injects itself, it has to be absolutely certain that the violations that occurred are of a significant magnitude to justify its involvement," said Verniero.
Lawyers for the state’s poorest students countered that the court should act to preserve New Jersey’s constitutional obligation to them.
And Associate Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, who wrote the opinion approving the school funding formula the state is trying to back away from, at one point told Verniero the state’s plan for education can’t be "whatever we think we can afford."
Justices did not say when they will issue their opinion.
The hearing, the latest round in the long-running case of Abbott v. Burke, touched on many of the state’s most controversial topics, including the achievement gap between rich and poor students and whether the state should bring back an income tax surcharge on millionaires.
Although the governor has pledged to avoid tax increases to balance the budget, Associate Justice Barry Albin pointed out that the state gave up additional revenue by not renewing the so-called "millionaires tax."
Abbot v. Burke arguments touch on the millionaires tax debateOn Wednesday the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Christie's education budget cuts in regards to previous rulings of Abott v. Burke. Here Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin questions attorney and former justice Peter Verniero on the idea of the millionaires tax. (NJN Pool feed)Watch videoCentral to today’s arguments was the very issue of the court’s involvement. Ordering more school funding would jeapordize the state’s ability to balance the budget, another constitutional obligation, Verniero said.
"We cannot, in the name of the constitution, violate the constitution itself," he said.
Verniero said Christie and lawmakers deserve "breathing room" when dealing with the state’s precarious fiscal situation. Justices contested his arguments at every turn, with Albin at one point saying he was "cherry picking" facts.
David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, focused on a report issued last month by Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, who was asked by the Supreme Court to study the impact of Christie’s budget cuts.
Doyne concluded the cuts disproportionately harmed at-risk students, violating the state’s educational obligations.
"It’s entirely appropriate for the court to weigh in when there is a constitutional breach," Sciarra said after the hearing.
The question of the Supreme Court’s role in state government is also being debated outside of the courtroom. Christie has repeatedly said justices have overstepped their bounds by influencing policy and budget decisions best left to the governor and the Legislature.
James Harris, president of the New Jersey NAACP, who attended the hearing, said the court has repeatedly intervened because elected officials haven’t fulfilled promises to schoolchildren.
"The state has consistently proven it’s not willing to provide for constitutional guarantees," he said. "What is the purpose of the court except to decide disputes?"
The 30-year-old Abbott v. Burke case has gone through so many twists and turns that Sciarra and the state argued positions practically opposite from the ones they took two years ago.
Then, Sciarra said the funding formula devised by the Corzine administration, which sent money to poor students across the state rather than focusing on the 31 so-called Abbott districts, was the wrong approach. Albin today pointed out he fought it "tooth and nail."
Sciarra said he’s accepted the formula: "Frankly, we’re happy that at-risk students in other districts are going to get the help they need."
Attorney David Sciarra speaks after Supreme Court hears Abbott v. BurkeOn Wednesday the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Christie's education budget cuts in regards to previous rulings of Abott v. Burke. After the arguments, attorney David Sciarra spoke the press. Sciarra spoke on behalf of the former "abbot districts" in Wednesday's hearing. (Video by Michael Monday/The Star-Ledger)Watch videoMeanwhile, Verniero said the state didn’t need to fully comply with the formula to provide a constitutional education. LaVecchia said that’s a shift from when the state treated the formula like "tablets from the mountain," and the court approved it based on the state’s promise to provide full funding. "I don’t see how you can stand before us and take a different position," she said.
The case was heard by only five justices. As in previous cases, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, who was counsel to Gov. Jon Corzine when the funding formula was developed, recused himself. Associate Justice Virginia Long, who sat on previous school fudning hearings, was also absent. No reason was given.
Also missing was Assistant Attorney General Nancy Kaplen, who had led the state’s case before Verniero was brought in last month. A spokesman said Kaplen will retire after 26 years.
Previous coverage:
No comments:
Post a Comment