Local officials warn of possible lawsuit in wake of Alaska governor's education funding veto
Then-Rep. Grier Hopkins, D-Fairbanks, speaks on the floor of the Alaska House, Wednesday, May 18, 2022. Hopkins is now the mayor of the Fairbanks North Star Borough. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
One day after Gov. Mike Dunleavy made a precedent-setting veto by cutting funding for the state's public school education formula, a group of city and borough leaders denounced the decision during a joint news conference, with some saying that they expect a lawsuit to challenge it.
'Everybody needs to start talking about what a lawsuit looks like,' said Rozlyn Grady-Wyche, a member of the Mountain View Community Council in Anchorage.
Caroline Storm, of the Coalition for Education Equity, has been talking about a lawsuit for more than a year. On Friday, she said the coalition 'will file or be a partner in a lawsuit before next session, because it doesn't seem that between the Legislature and the governor, that they are capable of meeting their constitutional obligation to adequately fund public education.'
State lawmakers this year voted for a bill that increases the base student allocation, core of the state's per-student funding formula, by $700 per student, overriding a Dunleavy veto in the process.
But that formula is subject to the state's annual budget process, in separate legislation. If the formula is a bucket, the budget decides how full that bucket is.
Until now, lawmakers and the governor have filled that bucket to capacity each year. This year, one of Dunleavy's vetoes took $200 per student from that bucket, cutting about $50.6 million statewide.
For municipal officials, it's a significant problem because the ordinary local budget process is over, meaning that they will have to reopen their budgets and make additional cuts to public education.
In some cases, those cuts will come atop school closures — including in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Kodiak and the Kenai Peninsula Borough — and other cuts that were already planned.
'It's a crisis for our state, and that's why we're all here today,' said Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Grier Hopkins during the joint news conference.
On Thursday night, the Anchorage School Board voted to implement an immediate hiring freeze while it addresses the veto.
The board had budgeted for a $560 BSA increase, thinking it was being cautious. Now that there's a $500 increase instead, ASD facing a $4.3 million budget gap.
'I cannot even imagine where $4.3 million is going to come from,' said Margo Bellamy, vice president of the ASD board.
Kenai Peninsula Borough Mayor Peter Micciche, R-Soldotna, said the veto has a 'fairly significant impact' in his borough, where voters may be asked to pick up the slack.
'This is essentially a tax shift. It's the state not meeting a constitutional expectation requirement, if you will,' he said.
Penny Vadla, treasurer of the Kenai Peninsula Borough school board, said the impacts in her area will be largest in sparsely populated places.
'We're closing theaters, we're losing library aides in some places where that means that library in a small school will close down,' she said. 'The impact on larger schools is that they might become larger without the capacity to put more students in that building.'
State legislators could override Dunleavy's cuts, but Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, and Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, said they don't expect that lawmakers will be available until the 2026 Alaska Legislature begins in January.
'I'll certainly be getting on my phone and hitting the streets to urge our legislators here, in the borough, the Interior delegation, to override the veto,' Hopkins said.
Micciche was critical of legislators' slow pace.
Before becoming mayor, Micciche served as Senate president. Lawmakers, and particularly the presiding officers of the House and Senate, should have already scheduled a special session to consider a veto override, he said.
'You knew that there was going to be a second swipe by the governor,' Micciche said.
If the Legislature stays on the sidelines, that would leave legal action as the only recourse for Alaskans seeking a quick reversal of the governor's action.
Any legal argument is expected to revolve around the question of whether or not the governor's veto violates the Alaska Constitution's education clause.
'The Alaska Constitution clearly states that the legislators shall, by general law, establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the state, so that language creates a constitutional obligation to provide adequate and equitable public education,' said Grady-Wyche.
'If the state fails to meet this obligation by consistently underfunding schools, closing essential programs and/or making access inequitable across regions, it can be legally challenged in court,' she said.
Storm, of the Coalition for Education Equity, has been watching the governor and Legislature closely for years and talking with other education groups in the meantime. The coalition is a nonprofit that has successfully sued to increase state school funding in the past.
Storm said she sees a national pattern at work, with conservative and limited-government groups and officials attempting to favor charter schools over traditional public schools.
'This is a coordinated attack on public education as a whole, as part of a national trend, or as Project 2025 — one hundred percent — and parents need to really start thinking about what's going to happen when public education goes away, and what that means for their kid, because it's not going to be pretty,' she said.
Storm wasn't in the news conference with municipal officials, who focused on the local consequences of funding — or not — public education.
Micciche, who said he's 'not a courtroom guy,' cautioned that any lawsuit comes with risks: What happens if the plaintiffs lose?
'You can get a ruling; it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to get an outcome,' he said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Onion
4 hours ago
- The Onion
Christian Faith An Important Part Of Who Senator Pretends To Be
WASHINGTON—Stressing that the facade informs nearly every aspect of his daily life, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told reporters Thursday that his Christian faith is an important part of who he pretends to be. 'Whether I'm delivering a speech calling for theocracy in front of dozens of cameras or talking to my children at the kitchen table about God's separate roles for men and women, I mean it when I say the mask I wear in public is the same one I wear at home,' said the 45-year-old lawmaker, who confirmed that Christianity has been the foundation of his public-facing identity ever since he was a shameless young prep school student with his sights set on Yale Law School. 'The power of telling people you pray is incredible. My Christian faith is a pretense that's only grown stronger as I've aged. It's so strong that, sometimes, I almost forget it's all an act.' At press time, Hawley added that he is grateful to represent all of his Christian constituents through the faith he uses as a guise to seek power.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
The real youth drug crisis is marijuana
Despite America's often-toxic politics, our legislators can still come together and fight the good fight: Look at the Youth Substance Use Prevention and Awareness Act, a new bipartisan Senate bill much needed in the battle to keep drugs away from kids. And what drugs are kids consuming today? It may come as a surprise, but today's youth are more likely to become addicted to ultra-high-potency marijuana than even alcohol. In an era of mass marijuana legalization, normalization and acceptance, it's the elephant in the room consuming the next generation. Marijuana consumption jumped among 12-17-year-olds from 3.4 million users in 2020 to 3.8 million in 2023. It is the drug most used by that age group. And these kids are not using yesterday's weed. The market has been flooded with dangerously high-potency THC products often disguised in colorful packaging and sold in forms that look like candy. That's why the bill, introduced in May by Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), is so crucial. Yes, it does not specifically focus on preventing kids from using marijuana. But the approach it takes will nonetheless empower people fighting that battle. The bill would build out a Justice Department program to help state and local governments battle the rising tide of illicit drug use among the young by expanding grants to fund fact- and evidence-based public service announcements at the local and state level — ads aimed at stopping the next generation of users before they start. The legislation as written takes a hard-headed approach to delivering results, baking in reporting requirements on ad effectiveness, the research driving each PSA and the ways in which the problems on the ground in the relevant market inform the ads. Evidence-based policy backed up with public accountability is a win for everyone. And a quick spin through only the recent bad news about marijuana and the health risks it poses to kids will outline just what America needs to prevent. A May study from a program of the Public Health Institute, which looked at nearly 100,000 adolescents, revealed that kids living in cities and counties where marijuana storefronts and/or delivery are banned were much less likely to have had a recent diagnosis of a psychotic disorder than kids who lived closer to them. Data from European researchers published in March suggests marijuana drives up the risk of schizophrenia and psychosis, and that this elevated risk is doubled for teens. The prevalence of youth-friendly delivery systems makes prevention pushes all the more urgent. In April, Canadian researchers published a study showing that provinces where edibles and extracts were legalized saw a 26 percent increase in overall teen marijuana use. These are only the latest thuds in an endless drumbeat around the physical and mental risks marijuana carries, risks that kids above all need to know about. They provide an abundance of material for the PSAs the bill would help launch and show how specious the claims by advocates that drug use among kids today is harmless. The opposite is true — there were nearly 900,000 marijuana-related emergency room visits in 2023, more than there were for opioids. So it's imperative that Congress pass this bill and President Trump sign it. The bill is laudable and important, especially given the avalanche of counter-messaging on 'safe' drug use (some of which, horrifyingly, comes from taxpayer-sponsored PSAs in places like New York City). The way forward requires more drug use PSAs that take the ad fight national. A strong, youth-focused national campaign that centers the terrible harms marijuana does would help keep the issue top of mind for kids everywhere (and could make it a bigger issue for their parents, come national elections). The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy should relaunch a national prevention campaign along the lines of the defunct, powerful teen-targeted federal communications push from the 90s. But ad campaigns, no matter how brilliant and effective, can't reach every vulnerable adolescent and young adult. For people who slip through the prevention cracks, Washington must make sure that legal marijuana is not precision-engineered to max out psychoactive delivery with every hit, bite or sip. It is time to hold the industry accountable and exercise the existing power of the FDA to take products off the shelves. So, kudos to the senators for taking this important step. Now it's time for their colleagues and the U.S. House to get on board. Kevin Sabet is the founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana.
Los Angeles Times
13 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges — from Trump
The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: 'Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them.' The reports say nothing about an 'immediate' cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear 'how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs.' The budget bill 'would do just that,' he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund — actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one — more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. 'Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund,' Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. 'The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing.' Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because 'benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers,' notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, 'more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances.' In the U.S., he writes, 'immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals.' The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will 'increase the funding shortfall.' All told, 'the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook.' A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers — so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or 'going broke' in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income — the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans — at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that?
