SCGOP News Update

Introduction & context: the fight re‑ignites

For decades, New Hampshire’s education funding regime has been controversial: the state provides a base adequacy subsidy per pupil (statutorily determined), while the bulk of school costs fall to local property taxpayers. Carsey School+2NH Journal+2

Recently, the state Supreme Court confirmed that the current base appropriations are constitutionally deficient — yet declined to force an immediate payment change. New Hampshire Bulletin+3NH Journal+3NH School Funding Fairness Project+3 Meanwhile, lower courts (in Rand v. State) have reinforced that local property taxes are being overburdened, calling parts of the model unconstitutional. NH Business Review+1 This week, new procedural and political developments make this fight even more urgent.

What changed this week is less a new ruling than a sharpening of pressure: lawmakers and interest groups are actively positioning for the next legislative session, and legal counsel in both suits have signaled forthcoming motions or appeals. Some media and think tanks (e.g. NH Journal) are pushing for legislative remedies already to be drafted.

The core tension here: who pays more, when, and how fast — the state, the local tax base, or a shared hybrid — all under constitutional pressure.

---

Key actors and voices

• Andru Volinsky / NH School Funding Fairness Project — veteran Claremont‑era litigator. He argues the state has no viable defense for its low base adequacy, and will press for full enforcement. NH Journal+3NH School Funding Fairness Project+3NH Journal+3
• State defense / Attorney General’s office — the state argues the definition of “adequate” should be narrow, excluding costs like transport, buildings, and special services. NH School Funding Fairness Project+3NH School Funding Fairness Project+3NH Business Review+3
• Legislature (especially House & Senate education / finance committees) — they hold the purse strings and can propose or resist adjustments to adequacy, but have historically dragged their feet.
• Local school boards and taxpayers — in Claremont/Sullivan County and similar communities, the pressure is immediate; some districts are already cutting programs.
• NH Journal / Damien Fisher — provides investigative angle and political pressure, shaping public understanding and accountability. NH Journal+2NH Journal+2
• NEA‑NH and other educator advocacy groups — celebrating the court rulings as vindication, using momentum to push for faster funding increases. neanh.org

A representative quote (from Fisher):

“The state underfunds adequacy, and that’s the core ruling in a very complicated decision.” NH Journal

And from Gov. Ayotte’s office after the Supreme Court ruling:

“The court reached the wrong decision … We are evaluating the ruling to determine next steps.” NH Journal

---

Fiscal and legal stakes — the numbers

• Current base adequacy subsidy: ~$4,100 per pupil (statutory). NH Journal+2NH Journal+2
• Court‑supported floor: Lower courts have suggested a figure of $7,356.01 per pupil as the minimum to be constitutional. NH School Funding Fairness Project+3NH Business Review+3New Hampshire Bulletin+3
• State underpayment / burden on locals: In fiscal testimony, critics say the state “downshifts” over $2 billion annually to local property taxpayers. NH Journal+1
• Constitutional stakes: The Supreme Court has affirmed the Legislature’s duty to determine cost and fund adequate schooling, and criticized inaction (but restrained its own remedial power). NH Journal+2NH School Funding Fairness Project+2
• Risk for local districts: If the state rejects a court’s remedy or delays, local districts may face program cuts, teacher layoffs, or increased borrowing just to meet minimum educational standards.
• Litigation and appeals costs: The State has reportedly spent over $1.08 million in outside counsel defending base adequacy arguments in related litigation. NH School Funding Fairness Project

Thus, the fight is not just academic — it’s a multi‑hundred-million-dollar (if not billion-dollar) shift in burden, with constitutional legitimacy in the balance.

---

What happens next — timeline & decision points

• Rand v. State (Rockingham Superior Court): Ruoff’s decision (Aug 2025) declared the state model unconstitutional but did not mandate immediate change. Expect appeals to the Supreme Court. NH Business Review+1
• ConVal / Claremont case (State Supreme Court ruling, July 1, 2025): The majority held that the base aid is unconstitutionally low, but reversed the order of immediate funding. NH Journal+3NH Journal+3NH School Funding Fairness Project+3
• Possible next motions: parties may seek rehearing, clarifications, or remand to trial courts under new instructions.
• Legislative session (2026–2027): the Legislature will face immense pressure to craft a funding revision, likely tied to the biennial budget.
• Public comment / hearings: education and finance committees may hold hearings in early 2026; districts may submit cost studies.
• Interim remedies: some districts may demand escrowed funds, or local injunctions to prevent cuts while litigation proceeds.

Venue & dates to watch:

• Supreme Court docket schedule (likely late 2025 or early 2026)
• House & Senate education committee hearings (first quarter 2026)
• Budget drafting windows (late summer / fall 2026)

If the Supreme Court declines to enforce stricter remedies, the Legislature may wriggle out of near-term compliance. But district plaintiffs and taxpayer groups will push to lock in stricter mandates.

---

Counter‑arguments & risks

• Judicial overreach / separation of powers: Critics argue that courts forcing spending infringe on the Legislature’s prerogative. The Supreme Court itself declined to order immediate payments in the ConVal decision. NH Journal+1
• Affordability & fiscal constraints: Some argue that raising base aid to $7,300+ per pupil (or more) would require massive tax increases or cuts elsewhere — and that current funding already makes NH a high education spender per capita. Carsey School+3NH Journal+3New Hampshire Bulletin+3
• Distortion of local control: Some defenders contend that increased state control or mandates will suppress local flexibility in curriculum, hiring, or infrastructure choices.
• Uncertainty in cost models: The state defense points out that the plaintiffs’ proposed cost models may inflate inputs (e.g., including building maintenance, transportation) beyond what constitution requires. NH School Funding Fairness Project+1
• Budgetary credibility & gimmicks: If the Legislature promises future increases but delays funding, litigation may continue in cycles — leading to perpetual uncertainty.