SAN LUIS VALLEY — Do all students in Colorado get a “thorough and uniform” public education? Do school districts all receive enough money to educate their students at the level the state requires?

The State Supreme Court did not answer these questions in a recent opinion, but they did determine in a four to three decision that individuals and school districts could sue the state to determine the above questions.

It all started August 24, 2005 when Anthony Lobato filed a suit against the state. The suit argued that the school finance system violated the “thorough and uniform” public education mandate; statewide educational standards and goals were enacted without determining that schools had the resources to make them possible; and that the school finance system did not provide sufficient monies so state standards and goals can be met.

Over 40 parents and the 14 San Louis Valley school districts joined the Lobatos’ as plaintiffs in the suit. The State of Colorado, the Colorado State Board of Education, the Commissioner of Education of the State of Colorado, and the state governor were listed as the defendants.

On March 2, 2006, Judge Michael A. Martinez, District Court of Denver, dismissed the lawsuit on grounds of “lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.”

In his decision Martinez also wrote that he agreed with the defendants that “Plaintiff school districts, as political subdivisions of the State, lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Public School Finance Act of 1994.”

The Plaintiffs took the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, Division IV.

In a decision dated January 24, 2008, the lower court decision was upheld.

“We conclude,” Judge Webb wrote in his decision, “that as political subdivisions, the school districts lack standing, and that the parents’ challenge to the adequacy of school financing is a nonjusticiable political question.”

A nonjusticiable “political question” is one that cannot to be decided in a court of law.

The Colorado Supreme Court was the next stop for the case.

“The plaintiffs claim that the system is severely underfunded and allocates funds on an arbitrary and irrational basis,” the majority opinion is explained in their decision. “The Court holds that these challenges are justiciable and that the plaintiffs must be given the opportunity to prove their claim.”

The three dissenting justices wrote that their decision was based on the Colorado Constitution.

“The Colorado Constitution directs the General Assembly to ‘provide for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state,’ placing discretionary education questions in Colorado squarely and solely within the legislative ambit,” they wrote.

A date for a new trial at the District Court level has not yet been determined.