Fact:
Section
201
is
the
authority
for
the
Legislature
to
act
on
all
matters
of
education
policy,
not
just
spending
decisions.
Fact:
The
proposed
amendment
says
the
State
is
liable
for
the
satisfaction
of
this
new
standard.
Fact:
Suits
brought
against
the
State
will
be
filed
in
Hinds
County
Chancery
Court
if
42
passes.
What
does
this
mean?
If
42
passes,
a
single
judge
will
be
empowered
to
sit
in
judgment
of
whether
our
Stateincluding
Legislators,
districts,
schools
and
educatorsis
satisfying
the
newly
created
adequate
and
efficient
standard.
This
new
power
given
to
the
judiciary
is
almost
entirely
legislative
in
nature
and
is
not
limited
by
the
amendment
to
funding
decisions.
It
distorts
bedrock
concepts
like
representative
government
and
separation
of
powers.
Proponents
who
emphasize
the
right
to
appeal
in
response
to
these
arguments
are
missing
the
point.
The
primary
problem
with
42s
power
shift
is
not
which
judge
or
judges
will
be
making
these
judgments;
it
is
that
judges
will
be
making
legislative
decisions
at
all.
These
same
proponents
fail
to
address
the
practical
concerns
of
how
an
appellate
court
will
review
entirely
subjective
policy
decisions
made
by
a
lower
court,
the
potential
for
a
sue
and
settle
scheme
that
would
prevent
appellate
review,
or
what
judicial
control
of
education
would
do
to
Supreme
Court
races
in
Mississippi.
Voters
should
know
that
in
any
such
appeal,
the
ultimate
outcome
may
turn
largely
on
the
Chancellor's
findings
of
fact,
which
are
presumed
correct
and
will
not
be
second-guessed
by
our
appellate
courts
unless
clearly
erroneous.
Thus,
one
Chancellor
--
for
whom
the
overwhelming
majority
of
Mississippians
cannot
vote
--
will
wield
enormous
power
over
education
decisions,
notwithstanding
that
the
Chancellor's
decision
may
be
appealed.
Another
recent
argument
is
that
42
somehow
preserves
local
control
over
schools,
particularly
line
item
spending
within
school
districts.
While
we
think
it
is
self-
evident
that
consolidating
power
over
our
schools
in
the
judiciary
is
not
a
recipe
for
greater
local
control,
it
warrants
pointing
out
that
the
argument
on
school
district
level
spending
is
a
straw
man.
Opponents
of
42
have
not
suggested
that
the
court
will
engage
in
budget
writing,
but
rather,
that
the
court
will
have
the
ability
to
dictate
how
much
money
a
district
receives,
along
with
important
policy
issues.
Additional
legal
arguments
will
no
doubt
be
raised
with
great
fervor
over
the
next
several
days.
The
takeaway
voters
should
remember
is
that
the
discretion
being
transferred
to
the
courts
is
extremely
broad
in
scope.
If
42
passes,
lawyers
will
spend
the
next
several
decades
fighting
over
the
interpretation
of
the
amendment
and
will
steadily
seek
to
expand
the
authority
exercised
by
the
court
and
the
taxpayers
will
be
footing
the
bill.
Jim
Herring,
Former
Member
of
Miss.
Lyles
Robinson,
Attorney
at
Law
Court
of
Appeals
Bridgeforth
Rutledge,
Attorney
at
Law
Rep.
Mark
Baker,
Attorney
at
Law
Stewart
Rutledge,
Attorney
at
Law
Michael
Dawkins,
Attorney
at
Law
Jenna
Simmons,
Attorney
at
Law
Trey
C.
Dellinger,
Attorney
at
Law
Matt
Simmons,
Attorney
at
Law
Jeremy
England,
Attorney
at
Law
Rep.
Jeff
Smith,
Attorney
at
Law
Spence
Flatgard,
Attorney
at
Law
Ben
Sones,
Attorney
at
Law
Rep.
Andy
Gipson,
Attorney
at
Law
Andy
Taggart,
Attorney
at
Law
Russell
Latino,
Attorney
at
Law
Brad
Touchstone,
Attorney
at
Law
Philip
Levy,
Attorney
at
Law
Sen.
Michael
Watson,
Attorney
at
Law
Sen.
Chris
McDaniel,
Attorney
at
Law
E.
Steve
Williams,
Attorney
at
Law
Richard
G.
Norris,
Attorney
at
Law
Cory
Wilson,
Attorney
at
Law
Sharon
Plunkett,
Attorney
at
Law
The
names
listed
above
do
not
imply
endorsement
of
this
letter
by
any
institution,
association,
business
or
firm
with
which
any
such
person
is
affiliated.