TALLAHASSEE --- Reversing course from a decision last year, a fiercely divided appeals court Wednesday said charter schools are entitled to a cut of tax dollars that Palm Beach County voters approved in 2018 for more-traditional public schools.
The 7-4 ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal said wording in a referendum that excluded charter schools from receiving a share of increased property-tax revenues violated state law. The decision reversed a 2-1 decision by a panel of the court in April.
Through of majority, concurring and dissenting opinions Wednesday, judges battled about the issues, with one dissent describing parts of the majority opinion as 鈥渏udicial hocus pocus鈥� and 鈥渂ait and switch.鈥�
The 2018 referendum asked voters to approve a property-tax increase for issues such as school safety and teacher pay, saying the money would be 鈥渄edicated for operational needs of non-charter district schools.鈥� Charter schools are public schools that are typically operated by private entities.
After voters approved the ballot measure, two charter schools, Academy for Positive Learning and Palm Beach Maritime Academy, and two parents filed a lawsuit against the Palm Beach County School Board arguing that charter schools were entitled to a portion of the money.
After the April panel ruling against the charter schools, the issue went before the full appeals court in what is known as an 鈥渆n banc鈥� proceeding. Wednesday鈥檚 majority opinion said charter schools could not be shut out of the voter-approved funding because of part of state law that said charter-school students 鈥渟hall be funded as if they are in a basic program or a special program, the same as students enrolled in other public schools in the school district.鈥�
The opinion also said that the wording in the ballot measure that prevented charter schools from receiving money was 鈥渟everable鈥� --- essentially meaning that it can be disregarded --- and that the rest of the referendum could remain in 鈥渇ull force and effect.鈥�
鈥淪evering and striking the 鈥榥on-charter鈥� limitation from the 2018 referendum still accomplishes the 2018 referendum鈥檚 intent to generate additional revenue 鈥榯o fund school safety equipment, hire additional school police and mental health professionals, fund arts, music, physical education, career and choice program teachers, and improve teacher pay.鈥� The only difference is that a portion of those funds must be shared with charter schools,鈥� said the 17-page majority opinion shared by Chief Judge Spencer Levine and Judges Dorian Damoorgian, Burton Conner, Alan Forst, Mark Klingensmith, Jeffrey Kuntz and Edward Artau.
But dissenting judges lambasted the majority for deciding that the referendum could remain in effect and for deciding to take up the case en banc.
They argued, in part, that allowing the referendum to remain in effect violates the will of voters, who thought they were casting ballots on a measure that would exclude funding for charter schools. Judge Robert Gross described it as an act of 鈥渏udicial hocus pocus鈥�
鈥淩ather than taking that principled approach and acknowledging the only proper remedy is the referendum鈥檚 invalidation, the majority has instead rewritten the referendum and pulled a bait-and-switch upon the voters of Palm Beach County,鈥� Gross wrote in a dissent joined by Judges Martha Warner and Melanie May. 鈥淏y judicial fiat, the majority has imposed a levy for the benefit of charter schools that the voters never approved 鈥榖y local referendum or in a general election鈥� as required (by a section of state law).鈥�
In a separate dissent, Judge Cory Ciklin pointed to the majority 鈥渋gnoring the will of 528,089 Palm Beach County voters who participated in a countywide election. Not this court nor the School Board nor the charter schools can legally agree to severing and striking the non-charter limitation from the 2018 referendum as if the sanctity of voter intent is of no concern and one that can be blithely cast aside as nothing more than an unimportant annoyance.鈥�
But Klingensmith, in an opinion concurring with the majority, wrote that Palm Beach County School Board had made clear that it thought the disputed charter-school part of the referendum could be severed.
鈥淚 share the concerns raised by my dissenting colleagues about judges re-writing voter referendums, and acknowledge their condemnation of court-sanctioned voter disenfranchisement,鈥� Klingensmith wrote. 鈥淗owever, it should be emphasized that the drafters of the ballot language in question --- the elected representatives overseeing the Palm Beach County School District --- have expressly indicated to this court that it is, and was, their intention (through severability) that this court address any legal flaws inherent in the language, and to do so without striking down the entire referendum. This court is rarely presented with such a clear and unquestionable expression of a drafter鈥檚 intent as we have in this case.鈥�
Funding for charter schools has long spurred debate in the Legislature. Amid the Palm Beach County legal fight, Republican lawmakers in 2019 passed a measure that said charter schools should get a proportionate amount of such property-tax dollars for operational needs. But the 2019 change was not retroactive, and Wednesday鈥檚 decision focused on state law as it stood in 2018.
