Lobato lawsuit plaintiffs file amended complaint in Denver District Court

The plaintiffs in the Lobato v. State of Colorado school funding lawsuit filed an amended complaint in Denver District Court March 1. The amended suit argues that Colorado's constitutional requirement for a "thorough and uniform system of free public schools" creates a "substantive" right to which "procedural amendments must yield," e.g., TABOR. The new complaint comes at a time when the Legislature is considering huge cuts in K-12 spending.

CEA, along with CASE (Colorado Association of School Executives) and CASB (Colorado Association of School Boards), has helped support the lawsuit commonly referred to as the "adequacy funding lawsuit." The amended complaint adds additional plaintiffs -- both parents and school districts -- to further highlight how Colorado's school funding crisis has reached catastrophic levels since the case was first filed in 2005.

The Colorado Supreme Court issued an important decision last October, sending the suit back to the lower court that dismissed it. The high court's ruling meant that the parents from eight districts in Colorado (14 in the San Luis Valley) will get their day in court to prove that Colorado's public school finance system is grossly underfunded and unconstitutional.

The parents initiated the suit in 2005 against the State, the State Board of Education, and Governor Bill Owens. They alleged that our schools have been so underfunded that school children are denied an adequate education in violation of the state constitution. The lack of funding, the plaintiffs claim, affects all students and districts, particularly those from lower income families, ethnic and racial minorities, non-English speakers, and students with disabilities.

In March 2006, a Denver District Court judge ruled against the plaintiffs, concluding the current funding system meets the requirements of Amendment 23, is not subject to court review, and that districts have no standing to sue the state. An Appeals Court panel upheld that decision. The State then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the adequacy of the state's education system is a political question the Legislature should decide. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove their claims at trial in District Court.

Read more about the people behind the lawsuit.