Dec. 2 – The New Mexico Supreme Court on Monday issued an order remanding a decades-old school finance case back to a district court, asking for a review of the state’s system for allocating capital dollars.
The case, originally filed in 1998 by the Zuni school board as well as students and parents, questions whether the way the state provides money for school facilities violates the New Mexico Constitution, which establishes a system for “adequate” education for children required statewide.
The problem is that New Mexico’s complex method of using local, state and federal dollars to run schools has changed significantly in the 26 years since the lawsuit was filed.
The Zuni Public School District is reviewing the Supreme Court order to “make an informed decision on how to proceed,” Superintendent Randy Ann Stickney wrote in an email Monday.
If a lawsuit accusing the state of failing to provide adequate public education sounds familiar, you might think of the landmark Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico, in which a judge ruled that New Mexico had failed its low-income , Native American and disabled students, as well as English-speaking students. The Zuni case was a precursor to the 2014 Yazzie/Martinez lawsuit.
New Mexico funds K-12 public schools with a mix of federal, state and local dollars, largely through an enrollment-based formula. The state also provides matching funds for local mill fees or property taxes for capital projects.
However, the Zuni School Board argued that the funding system was unfair, writing in its original complaint, “The District had and continues to have an inadequate tax base and otherwise little ability to raise significant funds for capital improvements.”
In October 1999, Judge Joseph L. Rich of the 11th Judicial District issued a partial summary judgment agreeing with this interpretation and requiring the state to “implement a uniform financing system for capital improvements.”
“A school district’s ability to finance capital improvements is based largely on the value of property located within the district that is subject to tax,” Rich wrote in the 1999 ruling.
The decision brought major legislative changes to school facilities financing, including the implementation of a “standards-based process” to allocate financial facilities and technology, according to a July Legislative Finance Committee report.
The case in district court — which now includes more than 400 separate documents — has dragged on for years, amid changes in school funding and appeals processes.
In 2020, Judge Louis E. DePauli Jr. of the 11th Judicial District issued a final judgment, compelling the state to implement a financing system that “does not create substantial disparities.”
That verdict was certified for review by the state Supreme Court in 2023.
In their order issued Monday, the justices decided that the case is moot because the “legal system declared unconstitutional no longer exists.”
Nevertheless, they referred the case to Judge Jarod K. Hofacket of the 6th Judicial District for further proceedings to test the current school financing system.
