Capitol Confidential ? NYSUT will file legal challenge to tax cap today

The state?s teachers union will file a legal challenge to the two-percent cap on property tax increases, contending the 2011 law ?locks in and perpetuates funding inequities between affluent and low-wealth school districts.?

?We believe very strongly in the principle that every student, no matter where they live or go to school, should have the opportunity to receive a quality public education,? said NYSUT President Dick Iannuzzi said in a statement. ?In challenging the constitutionality of the tax cap, we are fighting for that principle, just as we are fighting for the democratic principles of ?one person, one vote? and for the right of citizens, through local control of their schools, to determine for themselves how much they want to spend on their own community?s schools.?

NYSUT lawyers plan to file their suit in Supreme Court in Albany County later this morning, a union aide said. Officials there lobbied against the tax cap when it was proposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, as well as earlier iterations of the legislation backed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Cuomo has lauded the cap, which forces school districts to win the support of 60 percent of voters if they increase the amount of their budget that comes from property taxes by more than two percent between school years. The measure also applies to municipal entities like counties and towns, but their 60 percent ?override? can come in a vote of elected officials.

NYSUT?s legal action has been long rumored, and Cuomo has said he stands by the law, which has kept tax increases in check. He also says the cap is designed to set a benchmark for budget discussions, and direct public discourse away from large tax increases and toward talk of sharing services or cutting spending.

?If you think you?re going to come to Albany to raise taxes, forget it. Stay home,? Cuomo?s top aide, Larry Schwartz, told legislators who ran against the cap.

NYSUT?s suit will challenge the law on seven grounds, including a charge that the cap prevents poorer districts from raising the resources they need to provide a sound, basic education mandated by the State Constitution. NYSUT also alleges that the 60-percent threshold should be struck down because it contradicts legal cases setting a one-man, one-vote standard of representation.

A list of NYSUT?s seven causes of action is below. I?ll update with legal papers once they?re filed:

First Cause: The state Constitution guarantees all schoolchildren the right to a sound, basic education ? the foundation of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case. It also guarantees that school boards and voters can provide enhanced educational opportunities beyond the minimum and can address inequality through local control of spending. The tax cap unconstitutionally deprives students of that right by limiting the ability of school districts and taxpayers to address funding inequities. With its arbitrary tax cap, the state has locked in existing funding disparities between school districts by limiting the ability of districts and their taxpayers to address these inequities by exercising ?substantial local control.?

Second Cause: Funding disparities between school districts exist because of differences in assessed property value from district to district. The Court of Appeals has recognized the state Constitution guarantees the ability of voters to set the levels of taxation properly to meet the needs of their school districts ? the concept of ?substantial local control.? The Court of Appeals has held that local control is the ?only rational basis? underpinning New York?s inequitable school finance system. The tax cap unconstitutionally strips away the ability of school districts and their taxpayers to exercise local control and address funding deficiencies.

Third Cause: The right of school districts and voters to provide educational opportunity to school children is a liberty interest protected by the New York and U.S. constitutions. The tax cap infringes upon this liberty interest, and therefore denies equal protection of the law, by allowing voters in districts with greater taxable wealth to raise more revenue than those in low wealth districts.
Fourth Cause: The tax cap violates the equal protection clauses of the state and U.S. constitutions by treating school districts and school district voters unequally from local government voters and non-education funding proposals. The suit notes most towns, villages and cities are comprised of a supervisor or mayor, and four council members or trustees. Thus, the overwhelming majority of non-education local governments can exceed the tax cap with a 3-2 vote that satisfies the supermajority requirement mathematically, but in reality is nothing more than a mere simple majority. Yet, adopting a school budget exceeding the tax cap requires a 60 percent supermajority of all voters.

Fifth Cause: The tax cap?s requirement of a 60 percent supermajority is undemocratic and violates the one-man, one-vote protection of both the state and federal constitutions. Under the tax cap, a voter who casts a ballot in favor of exceeding the tax cap has only two-thirds the voting power of a voter who votes against the proposal.

Sixth Cause: The tax cap violates voters? right to equal protection under the law by diminishing their voting power based on their desire to increase education funding. The 60 percent supermajority requirement classifies and treats unequally voters who support ? and would benefit from ? increased education funding. The votes of those who favor exceeding the tax cap are given two-thirds the weight of those who oppose exceeding the cap, violating equal protection under the law.

Seventh Cause: Voting is free expression protected by the state constitution and First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. When a school district proposes a cap-exceeding budget, the tax cap requires the district to include on the ballot a notice that is not neutral and is meant to discourage voters from approving a proposal to exceed the cap. In addition, the tax cap imposes adverse funding consequences where super majorities are not achieved in two votes. This ?poison pill? has a chilling effect on the free expression and voting rights of taxpayers who wish to increase school funding above the tax cap.

Here?s a copy of the complaint:

130220 Nysut Tax Cap Suit by JimmyVielkind

Source: http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/179030/nysut-will-file-legal-challenge-to-tax-cap-today/

Blue Moon August 2012 Eddie Murphy Dead Democratic National Convention 2012 myocardial infarction What Is Labor Day jersey shore Pasquale Rotella