Since the early 1970s, frustrated education activists (including many local school officials) have turned to the courts in an effort to secure more education spending. In at least 27 states, these plaintiffs have secured court orders requiring lawmakers to appropriate more state money for schools. Our new report, Appropriation by Litigation: Estimating the Cost of Judicial Mandates for State and Local Education Spending, chronicles the impact these mandates are having on spending and taxes in these 27 states.
Since 1977, lawmakers have appropriated an additional $34 billion to assuage judges. These appropriations include increases in recurring spending, capital expenses, and money spent to settle cases out of court. To put that $34 billion price tag in context consider that:
- $34 billion is greater than $1 billion per state in court-mandated spending
- $34 billion is the equivalent of almost $1,000 per pupil (which is more than 10 percent of per pupil spending in those states)
With numbers of these magnitude we can safely conclude that, in the short-term, courts have required significant increases in appropriation for education.
Courts in some states have had a more severe impact than others, however. New York and New Jersey account for more than half the total, where courts required lawmakers to approve more than $10 and $8 billion, respectively, in new money. Ohio and Texas courts have force each state to approve $2 billion more, and courts in three other states have required additional investments that exceed $1 billion. The table below tracks the short-term fiscal impact of judicial mandates in each state.
| State | Total Spent to Comply with Judicial Mandates | Total Spent Per Pupil | Rank Per Pupil |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Jersey | $8,264,577,894 | $6,648 | 1 |
| New York | $10,567,591,325 | $3,633 | 2 |
| Connecticut | $1,527,583,067 | $2,478 | 3 |
| New Hampshire | $422,996,933 | $2,066 | 4 |
| Massachusetts | $1,437,993,080 | $1,638 | 5 |
| Maryland | $1,365,036,131 | $1,575 | 6 |
| Kansas | $720,183,954 | $1,570 | 7 |
| New Mexico | $426,651,609 | $1,332 | 8 |
| Kentucky | $722,647,284 | $1,136 | 9 |
| Ohio | $2,041,282,061 | $1,109 | 10 |
| Washington | $779,290,429 | 1,004 | 11 |
| Wyoming | $88,655,521 | 931 | 12 |
| Montana | $101,268,971 | 693 | 13 |
| Texas | $2,650,185,411 | 655 | 14 |
| Missouri | $470,615,917 | 543 | 15 |
| Arizona | $434,585,890 | 512 | 16 |
| Tennessee | $355,736,877 | 451 | 17 |
| Arkansas | $197,270,453 | 436 | 18 |
| North Dakota | $28,306,048 | 280 | 19 |
| Colorado | $197,456,446 | 273 | 20 |
| Vermont | $23,538,941 | 222 | 21 |
| Michigan | $375,482,209 | 218 | 22 |
| California | $989,000,000 | 153 | 23 |
| Idaho | $31,136,653 | 122 | 24 |
| Alaska | $13,152,701 | 98 | 25 |
| Iowa | $40,000,000 | 85 | 26 |
| North Carolina | $21,762,673 | 16 | 27 |
| Total: $34,293,988,476 | Weighted Average: $976 | ||
|
Source: Tax Foundation calculations based on data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics |
|||
This table is less than half the story, however. Did taxes go up in these states? Did long-term spending go up? Future blog posts will answer these questions, although those who want the answers now can find them in our new report.
Share this article