Judges raising taxes

On Tuesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that Gov. Chris Christie had cut education funding too deeply at a number of poor, largely urban school districts, and ordered the state to bolster classroom spending at those campuses by $500 million. A lawsuit brought by the Education Law Center last year had sought $1.6 billion in funding restorations.

Debating, enacting and revising fiscal policy is at the core of legislative and executive branch functions. When the judiciary can arbitrarily decide a certain dollar figure can compensate for the shortcomings of various union-dominated educational bureaucracies, archaic compensation structures, student attendance and discipline problems and the dozens of other factors that affect student achievement, we’ve got a serious separation-of-powers problem.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision will offer encouragement to some parties within Nevada’s education establishment who’d love similar help from state courts to augment K-12 spending. Nevada is one of only five states that have not faced lawsuits challenging their education spending.

Teacher unions, liberal advocacy groups and legislative Democrats claim Gov. Brian Sandoval’s education budget does not provide enough money to “adequately” fund schools. But the Nevada Constitution does not specify that schoolchildren are entitled to limitless spending at their schools. The Legislature and the governor decide what amount of money is adequate while taking into consideration the state budget’s other needs and Nevada’s economic condition.

The Nevada Supreme Court learned a lesson about interfering in legislative and executive business through its widely ridiculed 2003 Guinn v. Legislature decision. Nevada’s high court should not repeat New Jersey’s mistake.