Heated Senate debate ends with 'inexpedient to legislate' votes on major school‑funding bills
Loading...
Summary
After hours of debate over a Superior Court ruling and funding sources, the Senate voted to find certain education‑funding bills inexpedient to legislate; senators argued over constitutional obligations, projected costs (hundreds of millions), and whether the legislature must follow the court's adequacy ruling.
The Senate held an extended, often contentious debate over several education funding bills, including Senate Bill 5 82 (which would raise the base cost of an adequate education toward a court‑identified minimum) and Senate Bill 5 84 (increasing state special‑education per‑pupil funding). Committee reports characterized the fiscal implications as substantial (committee estimates cited approximately $500–538 million for base adequacy and roughly $450 million for increased special‑education funding) and recommended that both measures be found "inexpedient to legislate."
One senator, arguing for action, said the Superior Court had set a conservative minimum for base adequacy at $7,356.01 per pupil and urged the legislature to meet its constitutional obligation to fund public education. That speaker noted the Education Freedom Account program had grown quickly and drew funds from the Education Trust Fund and argued the state had found money for vouchers in recent budgets. "We are failing our constitutional obligation," the senator said, urging colleagues to consider the cost of not acting.
Opponents countered that the bills provided no specified revenue source, would create an unbalanced budget, and could shift major new costs to property taxpayers or require tax increases. Senator Murphy and others warned the bills lacked appropriations language and would create large budget gaps if adopted without an identified revenue mechanism.
After debate and several roll‑call requests, the Senate adopted motions finding the bills inexpedient to legislate by recorded votes, effectively killing the measures in this session. Recorded roll calls and vote tallies appear in the transcript for multiple procedural and final motions related to these bills.
What happens next: Because the motions finding the bills "inexpedient to legislate" were adopted, the bills do not advance in this session as written. Sponsors and committee chairs indicated continued interest in the issues — including special education funding — and noted that budgetary action would require finance committee work or alternative revenue proposals.
Quoted positions in the record come from senators on both sides of the question; the transcript also cites Judge David Ruoff's Superior Court decision as background for proponents' arguments.
