– Editorial – - Supreme court made the right call on school voucher case
By Editorial Board
You have to trust the process.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court made the right call recently, in refusing to take up a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s long-running school choice program.
The action had nothing to do with the merits of the case or the importance of the issue at hand, but rather, was a reaffirmation that the court of final appeal shouldn’t be the first step for people wishing to make substantive change in state government.
With increasing regularity, groups from across the spectrum have sought to wield the supreme court as a partisan weapon. The individuals and groups view the court’s broad powers to overturn legislation as a club, to enact their will, rather than recognizing the courts work best, when they work as a surgeon’s scalpel does, to cut out specific offending areas.
Simply put, the high court’s primary role is to decide on questions of law, not on questions of politics.
The court has clouded this distinction between law and politics in the past, by allowing high-profile lawsuits to jump to the proverbial front of the line, rather than serving as the review body, only after the cases have worked their way through the system.
In this case, the lawsuit argues that the state’s revenue limit and funding mechanism for voucher school programs and charter schools, violate the Wisconsin Constitution’s declaration, that public funds be spent for public purposes. The lawsuit also argues that the vouchers defund public schools, do not allow for adequate public oversight and do not hold private schools to the same standards as public schools.
These complaints about voucher school programs, particularly lack of accountability through public oversight of how the funds are spent, are nothing new. Since the beginnings of the state’s first voucher “experiment” in Milwaukee, in 1990, opponents have expressed those concerns.
The issues involved are important ones and the concerns of the proponents should get their day in court, just not today, and not starting at the Supreme Court.
As one could infer from its name, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the state. As such, it is the court that has the final word on cases justices chose to review.
The way the process is supposed to work, is a lawsuit is brought at the local circuit court level, where evidence is presented, briefs are submitted and lawyers make their legal arguments, either for or against a specific action. The judge looks at the law, looks at precedents set by higher courts and issues a ruling. Most of the time, when the circuit court judge issues a ruling, the case is done.
If either of the parties feels the judge’s ruling was wrong, they may file with the state appeals court to correct that error. A three-judge panel reviews briefs and makes a ruling. If the parties still feel the ruling was wrong, then they may bring it to the state Supreme Court, which has the option of letting the lower court rulings stand or taking up the case.
The process is important in winnowing the wheat from the chaff and allowing justices to focus on the specific points of law that need to be addressed. While starting at what should be the ending appeals to people’s desire for instantaneous gratification, it undermines the process and further politicizes the courts.
Members of the Courier Sentinel editorial board include publisher Carol O’Leary, general manager Kris O’Leary and Star News editor Brian Wilson.
