OKLAHOMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE

OKLAHOMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE
2007 OK 30
158 P.3d 1058
Case Number: 103702
Decided: 05/08/2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma Education Association; Independent School District No. I-07 of Rogers County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Foyil Public Schools; Independent School District No. I-41 of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Western Heights Public Schools; and Independent School District No. I-05 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Jenks Public Schools, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
State of Oklahoma, ex rel. The Oklahoma Legislature; Senator Mike Morgan, In His Official Capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma State Senate; and Representative Todd Hiett, In His Official Capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Oklahoma Legislature, Defendants/Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE DANIEL L. OWENS, PRESIDING

¶0 Plaintiffs brought suit against the State of Oklahoma and its legislative leaders asking the court to declare that the Oklahoma Legislature has failed to adequately fund common education in violation of Okla. Const. art. I, § 5 and art. XIII, § 1, and has failed to fund the State Public Common School Building Equalization Fund in violation of Okla. Const. art. X, § 32. The plaintiffs assert that by its failure to adequately fund common education, the Legislature has violated Oklahoma students' constitutional rights to a uniform, adequate education and has injured the plaintiffs because the funding is insufficient for them to provide a basic, adequate education as established by statutory standards. The defendants filed motions to dismiss. The district court granted the motions and dismissed the suit with prejudice finding (1) the plaintiffs lack standing, (2) the issues present non-justiciable political questions, (3) a judicial determination of the issues would violate the separation of powers provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, and (4) the legislative leaders are immune from suit. This Court retained the appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Joe E. White, Jr., White & Weddle, P.C., and Richard Bryan Wilkinson, Oklahoma Education Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the appellants.
Neal Leader, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Martha R. Kulmacz, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the appellee the Oklahoma Legislature.
Cheryl Purvis, Oklahoma State Senate, and Lee Slater, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the appellee Senator Mike Morgan, President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate.
Amy Alden and Jennifer J. Butts, Oklahoma House of Representatives, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellee Representative Todd Hiett, Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

TAYLOR, J.

I. ISSUES

¶1 The questions before this Court are (1) have the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show that they have standing to assert violations of the rights of Oklahoma students based on the Oklahoma Constitution, (2) do the plaintiffs have a constitutional and statutory duty to provide Oklahoma's students with a basic, adequate education, and (3) do the substantive issues before for this Court present a non-justiciable, separation of powers question. We answer the first two questions in the negative and the third question in the affirmative.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶2 This appeal presents only questions of law. This Court reviews questions of law under a de novo standard

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 The Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) and three school districts, Foyil,3 Western Heights,4 and Jenks5 (plaintiff school districts), brought suit against the Oklahoma Legislature; Senator Mike Morgan, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma State Senate; and Representative Todd Hiett, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The OEA stated that it was bringing the suit in its corporate capacity and on behalf of its individual members and the students they serve. The members of the OEA are employees of Oklahoma school districts. The plaintiff school districts likewise stated that they were bringing the suit on their own behalf. However, no Oklahoma students are parties to this suit.

¶4 The plaintiffs challenge the current level of funding for common education. In their amended petition, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants, by inadequately funding education, are (1) depriving Oklahoma school children of a constitutional right to a uniform opportunity to receive a basic, adequate education according to the standards set by the Oklahoma Legislature and (2) depriving Oklahoma school districts of the ability to fulfill their constitutional and statutory obligations to meet the contemporary educational standards established for every child.

¶5 In the plaintiffs' five claims for relief, they seek a declaration that the Legislature's failure to adequately fund common education violates article I, section 5;6 article X, section 32;7 article XIII, section 1;8 and article II, section 79 of the Oklahoma Constitution. They posit that the Legislature's alleged inadequate funding has deprived educators of the opportunity to provide a basic, adequate education to Oklahoma's children, denied Oklahoma students the right to a uniform, basic education, and violated the students' due process and equal protection rights. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the unfunded cost of meeting statutory educational standards exceeds one billion dollars and the unfunded capital needs of Oklahoma school districts exceeds three billion dollars. The plaintiffs ask the court to order the Legislature to design, formulate, adopt, properly and adequately fund, and maintain a comprehensive system of educational funding which affords each child in Oklahoma an equal opportunity for a basic, adequate education and to retain jurisdiction in this matter until the Legislature has implemented such an educational funding system.

¶6 The defendants moved for dismissal on several grounds. The two dispositive grounds are (1) the plaintiffs lack standing and (2) the petition presents a non-justiciable political question which is closely tied to the separation-of-powers doctrine.

IV. STANDING

¶7 The burden is on the party invoking a court's jurisdiction to establish its standing to seek relief in the court.10 To establish standing, the plaintiff must show (1) a concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the alleged misconduct, and (3) a protected interest "within a statutorily or constitutionally protected zone."11

¶9 The OEA claims associational standing to seek relief on behalf of Oklahoma's students and on behalf of its members based on its members' standing

A. Standing to Assert Injury to Oklahoma Students

¶10 When ruling on a pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the trial court, and subsequently the reviewing court, "must construe the petition in favor of the complaining party."14 If the plaintiff alleges facts which are sufficient to establish standing, then the case proceeds to the next stage.15 A party's standing may be examined at any stage of the proceedings, and the party seeking relief has a greater burden at later stages in the case than in defending a pretrial motion to dismiss.16

¶12 The plaintiffs assert injury to the rights of Oklahoma's students. The OEA has not established that any of its members are Oklahoma students. Although some of the members of the OEA may be parents of Oklahoma students, this is insufficient to establish the OEA's standing to assert injury to the students' rights. The OEA has failed to meet its burden to show that any of its members have a right of their own to assert injury to the rights of Oklahoma's students. As the OEA's members cannot vicariously assert injury to the constitutional rights of Oklahoma's students, neither can the OEA. The OEA has failed to meet the first prong of the test for associational standing as to this claim.

¶13 The OEA relies on the fact that in Oklahoma Education Association v. Nigh,

B. Standing to Assert Harm to the Plaintiff School Districts
and to OEA Members

¶16 The plaintiffs allege that the plaintiff school districts must comply with unfunded or partially-funded legislative mandates or risk sanctions or other penalties. When a party does not rely on a particular statute or constitutional provision authorizing suit, the question of standing depends on whether the party has "alleged a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy."

¶17 Without pointing to any specific provision, the plaintiffs assert that school districts and teachers are constitutionally and statutorily required to provide students with a uniform, adequate education. Article XIII, section 1 and article I, section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution imposes on the Legislature the duty to "establish and maintain a system of free public schools." The school districts and their boards are but the vehicles which the Legislature uses to carry out this constitutional duty.

V. Political Question

¶18 Even though the plaintiffs do not have standing to assert the violation of the constitutional rights of Oklahoma students, we address whether we are presented with a non-justiciable political question. Generally, a motion to dismiss a petition is without prejudice and subject to leave to file an amended petition.

¶19 Our state's constitution divides governmental powers among the three branches of government. The Oklahoma Constitution at article IV, section 1 states:

The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.

This provision prohibits one branch of the government from controlling or subjecting another branch to coercive influences either directly or indirectly.

¶20 Except for the reservation of the power of initiative and referendum, the state's policy-making power is vested exclusively in the Legislature.

¶22 In Fair School Finance Council of Oklahoma, Inc. v. State,

¶23 Likewise, fiscal policy is exclusively within the Legislature's power. Article V, section 55 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests the Legislature with the function of appropriating funds. It provides:

No money shall ever be paid out of the treasury of this State, nor any of its funds, nor any of the funds under its management, except in pursuance of an appropriation by law, nor unless such payments be made within two and one-half years after the passage of such appropriation act, and every such law making a new appropriation, or continuing or reviving an appropriation, shall distinctly specify the sum appropriated and the object to which it is to be applied, and it shall not be sufficient for such law to refer to any other law to fix such sum.

¶24In Calvey v. Daxon,

This Court has no authority to consider the desirability, wisdom, or practicability of fiscal legislation. It is not our prerogative to question the sagacity of the expressed policy. Whether an act is wise or unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory or whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result are matters for legislative determination. This Court, may not, based on its perception of how the State should conduct its business dealings, direct legislative decision making.

¶25 The legislature has the exclusive authority to declare the fiscal policy of Oklahoma limited only by constitutional prohibitions.

VI. Conclusion

¶26 The plaintiffs have failed to allege facts which would give them standing to assert a violation of Oklahoma students' constitutional rights. Questions of fiscal and educational policy are vested in the Legislature, and its wisdom in these areas is not within the scope of this Court's review.

¶27 We have previously taken judicial notice of the immeasurable social, psychological and economic value of an education in contemporary society.

AFFIRMED.

Winchester, C.J., Lavender, Opala, Watt, Taylor, Colbert, JJ., concur.

Edmondson, V.C.J., Hargrave, Kauger, JJ., concur in result.

FOOTNOTES

1 Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 OK 51, ¶ 18, 138 P.3d 826, 381.

2 Gladstone v. Bartlesville Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 30, 2003 OK 30, ¶ 5, 66 P.3d 442, 445.

3 Foyil Public Schools is also known as Independent School District No. 1-07 of Rogers County, Oklahoma.

4 Western Heights Public Schools is also known as Independent School District No. 1-41 of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

5 Jenks Public Schools is also known as Independent School District No. 1-05 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

6 Article I, section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides:

Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control; and said schools shall always be conducted in English: Provided, that nothing herein shall preclude the teaching of other languages in said public schools.

7 Article X, section 32 provides:

For the purpose of providing buildings for school districts, there is hereby established a State Public Common School Building Equalization Fund in which shall be deposited (1) such monies as may be designated or provided for such purpose by the Legislature, other than ad valorem taxes, and (2) the proceeds of all property that shall fall to the State by escheat and penalties for unlawful holding of real estate by corporations; provided, that if such disposition and use of money from any such sources shall be declared invalid, the validity of other provisions of this section shall not be affected thereby. The State Public Common School Building Equalization Fund shall be administered by the State Board of Education, until otherwise provided by the Legislature. Such Fund shall be used to aid school districts in acquiring buildings, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the administering agency, unless otherwise provided by law, and the amount paid therefrom to or for any school district shall be determined by a formula established by the Legislature. The administering agency is authorized to accept grants-in-aid from the federal government for building purposes.

8 Article XIII of the Oklahoma Constitution deals with education. Section 1 provides: "The Legislature shall establish and maintain a system of free public schools wherein all the children of the State may be educated."

9 Article II, section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

10 Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 1994 OK 148, ¶ 8, 890 P.2d 906, 910.

11 Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 9 v. Glass, 1982 OK 2, ¶ 10, 639 P.2d 1233, 1237.

12 OEA does not claim any injury in its own right which would show that it has standing aside from associational standing to bring this suit. The OEA seems to assert that its members have standing as taxpayers and citizens but fails to provide any argument or support in its briefs for this position. Thus OEA's position that it has standing because its members have standing as taxpayers and citizens is deemed abandoned. Okla. City Urban Renewal Auth. v. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2005 OK 2, n. 9, 110 P.3d 550, 555 n. 9.

13 Okla. Pub. Employees Ass'n. V. Okla. Dept. of Cent. Serv., 2002 OK 71, ¶ 9, 55 P.3d 1072, 1077.

14 Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 9 v. Glass, 1982 OK 2 at ¶ 10, 639 P.2d at 1237.

15 Id.

16 Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc., 1994 OK 148 at ¶ 8, 890 P.2d at 910.

17 Hendrick v. Walters, 1993 OK 162, ¶ 5, 865 P.2d 1232, 1237.

18 Id., at n. 14, 865 P.2d at 1236, n. 14.

19 The most serious, countervailing policies may provide exceptions to this rule. Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of Okla., 1990 OK 58, ¶ 31, 807 P.2d 774, 788. The United States Supreme Court has stated an exception when non-parties may suffer injury from the outcome but have no effective way to preserve their rights. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611 (1973). Another exception is where a statute has been challenged as violating the First Amendment for facial overbreadth. Id. at 611-614.

20 Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 611; Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of Oklahoma, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 31, 807 P.2d 774, 788.

21 1982 OK 22, 642 P.2d 230.

22 See United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 38 (1952). OEA alleges that one of its strategic objectives "is to secure commitment to the intrinsic value of public education in Oklahoma, promote public education as a basic right and increase Oklahoma's financial investment in public schools." While this is a lofty objective, we question whether OEA's attempt to represent students for additional educational funding does not directly conflict with the OEA's role in representing school employees for salary and benefits increases before the Oklahoma Legislature and school boards.

23 See Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 611; Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of Oklahoma, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 31, 807 P.2d 774, 788.

24 Bradbury v. Okla. State Bd. of Chiropody, 1971 OK 130, ¶ 10, 490 P.2d 246, 248.

25 Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 9 v. Glass, 1982 OK 2 at ¶ 8, 639 P.2d at 1237.

26Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Wright, 1927 OK 474, ¶ 37, 261 P. 953, 957.

27 Bd. of Educ. v. Cloudman, 1939 OK 297, ¶ 23, 92 P.2d 837, 841.

28 This leaves the issue of whether this Court has the authority to direct fiscal legislation to adequately fund statutory mandates placed on local school districts. This issue calls into question the express constitutional commitment of fiscal policy issues to the Legislature. The plaintiffs admit in their brief "that the Oklahoma Legislature is free to exercise its 'legislative discretion' and ignore legislatively enacted goals for the improvement of public education" and we agree.

29 See 12 O.S.2001, §§ 2012(G), 2017.

30 In re Okla. Dept. of Transp. for Approval of not to Exceed $100 Million Okla. Dep't of Transp. Grant Anticipation Notes, Series 2002, 2002 OK 74, ¶ 8, 64 P.3d 546, 549; see O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 530-531.

31 Okla. Const. art. IV, § 1.

32 Okla. Const. art. IV, § 1; art. V, § 55; art. XIII, § 1; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, State Question No. 598, 1989 OK 93, ¶5, 776 P.2d 556, 557.

33 Okla. Const. art. XIII, § 1; Musick v. State ex rel. Miles, 1938 OK 603, ¶ 15, 90 P.2d 631, 634.

34 Musick, 1938 OK 603 at ¶ 15, 90 P.2d at 634.

35 Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Hodge, 1947 OK 220, ¶ 2, 183 P.2d 575, 579.

36 1987 OK 114, 746 P.2d 1135.

37 Id. at ¶ 62, 746 P.2d 1135, 1150.

38 Id.

39 Id.

40 2000 OK 17, ¶ 21, 997 P.2d 164, 171-172 (footnotes omitted).

41 Id.

42 Okla. Const. art. IV, § 1.