Yesterday's ruling that the state needs to provide more money for public education set off a chorus of responses. Here’s a round-up of several reactions.
Governor Chris Gregoire
“Along with the Legislature, I’ve worked hard to ensure that every student across our state is afforded a quality education. It’s what our children deserve, and what our economy requires. I’m pleased today’s ruling by the Supreme Court recognizes our significant work to improve our education system, and acknowledges the critical reforms now being implemented.
“With that said, the Court ruled we must do more – and I agree. The Court made it clear – the Legislature, and all of us as a state, must provide dependable funding to implement the reforms we have worked so hard to develop. This ruling reinforces my call for a half-penny sales tax increase to invest in education. If we don’t, we take a step backward and not only threaten a violation of the court’s ruling, but make it more difficult for students to gain the skills and knowledge needed to compete in today’s global economy.”
Attorney General Rob McKenna (who defended the State)
“The state appealed this case to the Supreme Court to receive clarification and direction to guide the Legislature in meeting its constitutional duty — and this decision is helpful. We’re pleased the Court continues to recognize the primary role of the Legislature in determining how to meet its constitutional duty and that the Court recognizes the Legislature’s progress in fulfilling the state’s obligation in passing its 2009 education reforms.”
Washington Education Association (one of the plaintiffs in the case)
"Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what WEA and its partners in the Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS) have argued for so long: Public education in Washington is woefully underfunded. And this means students and schools can no longer bear the impact of further cuts to public education funding.
"The decision by the Court, coming just days before the start of the 2012 legislative session, clearly puts the responsibility for correcting the underfunding where it belongs: The state legislature. The legislature can no longer punt on full funding for public education. The legislature needs to act immediately to remedy this injustice against our children and students."
Rep. Marko Liias (D)
"It is appropriate that I was reading to a class of second graders at the same time the Supreme Court announced the state is not meeting our commitment to fully fund education. I look forward to working with my colleagues to raise the revenue it will take to give our kids the education they deserve!"
Rep. Cathy Dahlquist (R)
“As a member of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, there is an ongoing discussion about how much the state is spending on certain agencies. Most recently, the Puget Sound Partnership was the subject of our review. We have spent millions on this agency since its inception in 2007, which has not outlined or achieved a single benchmark to improve the water quality in the Puget Sound. Meanwhile, the governor and majority party are all too quick to cut education funding, then tell taxpayers they can ‘buy back’ their kids’ schooling through a $500 million dollar tax increase. These budget games are irresponsible and indefensible."
Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe (D)
“The Supreme Court has affirmed what we already knew, that we must reform basic education and pay for it,” said McAuliffe. “Through HB 2261 and HB 2776 the Legislature recognized society is demanding more from our students, so we created an enhanced program of basic education to provide them with the opportunities they need to succeed. However, we can’t reach this goal alone. We now need the public’s support of new revenue to achieve full implementation of these reforms.”
Rep. Glenn Anderson (R)
“I have been advocating for several years now that the state should fund education first in the budget. This court ruling goes right to the heart of the matter: If we do not fund education first, it becomes a political football. This is evident in the governor’s current budget proposal in which she cuts education then comes out telling taxpayers they can only ‘buy back’ her education funding cuts if they approve a half billion dollar tax hike. This approach is clearly emotional extortion to hold our children’s future hostage so other tough decisions don’t have to be made. When times are so tough and so many personal sacrifices are being made, it’s offensive to suggest such an alternative."
Yakima Herald-Republic Editorial Board
"The decision, and court oversight, may reflect not so much judicial activism as judicial impatience with a Legislature that has identified problems and enacted reforms but has not backed up its action with adequate funding. The state's increasing reliance on federal grants and local levy dollars has to stop, the justices said. The court didn't spell out what the Legislature has to do, only that lawmakers have to do something."
League of Education Voters
"The decision validates what parents, students, teachers and principals have known for a long time: The state is not meeting its duty to fund the basic education every student in Washington is entitled to."
Washington State Republican Party Chairman Kirby Wibur
“The state Supreme Court ruled this morning that the state is failing in its paramount duty to adequately and uniformly fund our schools. This fiasco comes after Democrats have controlled the governor’s office for 27 straight years, while also controlling the Senate and House for 18 and 20 of those years, respectively. Their failure to prioritize state spending on our kids and our future economic health is exactly why we need fresh thinking in Olympia, starting with Rob McKenna as our next governor.”
Freedom Foundation Education Reform Fellow Jami Lund
"The Court has clearly concluded that the state has 'transitioned from a seat-based education system to a performance-based education system' and needs to do the same with the funding formulas.
"The Court appears to want to see a funding system which provides enough for the student learning targets the legislature has set, but also a system which shows a relationship between the results and the mechanisms used to fund those results.
"For those of us who seek varieties of approaches to meeting students’ needs, this finding is promising. If the state were to find ways to fund student success independent of the measures of bureaucracy (hours, ratios, staffing levels), then these ways would not violate the ruling.
"This ruling affirms notions of funding student success more directly, evaluating programs and employees in terms of student success, and even focusing on teacher performance incentives rather than teacher education."
We recently sat down with former Justice Richard Sanders and discussed his judicial philosophy, his approach for interpreting the constitution, several memorable cases he worked on, and finally, the last days of his 2010 campaign.
Justice Tom Chambers, the Supreme Court's Renaissance man, announced recently that he won't seek another term on the high court's bench. The Seattle Times has the story 
In 2011, the Supreme Court of Washington issued opinions in 117 cases, down from 140 in 2010. The Court continues to enjoy a high level of agreement: 59 percent of all decisions were unanimous (including unanimous-in-result-only opinions and per curiam opinions). This is up from 54 percent in 2010.
