## Facts

- Washington voters enacted Initiative 1240 (2012), creating publicly funded charter schools operating outside many traditional school-district governance rules.
- The Washington Supreme Court previously invalidated I-1240 because it funded charter schools with constitutionally restricted “common school” funds even though charter schools were not “common schools” under the state constitution.
- In 2016, the legislature enacted a revised Charter School Act intended to cure the funding and governance defects identified in the earlier decision.
- The revised Act kept charter schools public, tuition-free, and open to all, and authorized schools through a statewide charter commission and, in some circumstances, local school boards.
- The revised Act shifted charter-school funding away from article IX, section 2 restricted common-school funds and toward other sources, including an account funded largely by lottery revenues, plus certain other nonrestricted funding streams.
- A coalition of nonprofits, unions, and individual parents/taxpayers sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting multiple facial challenges under the Washington Constitution, including education funding limits, “general and uniform” requirements, the State’s “paramount duty,” and the superintendent of public instruction’s supervisory authority.
- The trial court upheld the Act on its face except for one provision, which it held unconstitutional but severable; plaintiffs sought direct review.

## Issues

1. Whether the revised Charter School Act violates article IX, section 2 by diverting constitutionally restricted common-school funds to charter schools.
2. Whether the Act violates article IX, section 2’s requirement of a “general and uniform system of public schools.”
3. Whether the Act facially violates article IX, section 1 by undermining the State’s “paramount duty” to make ample provision for the education of all children.
4. Whether the Act violates article III, section 22 by impermissibly stripping or delegating the superintendent of public instruction’s supervision over public schools.
5. If any provision is unconstitutional, whether it is severable such that the remainder of the Act remains effective.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in part and held the Charter School Act facially constitutional except for one provision.
- The court held the Act did not unconstitutionally divert restricted common-school funds because charter schools were funded through nonrestricted sources rather than the constitutionally protected common-school fund.
- The court rejected the facial challenge under the “general and uniform” clause, concluding the constitution does not require identical governance across all public schools and that the Act preserved statewide standards and oversight.
- The court rejected the facial “paramount duty” claim, holding plaintiffs did not show the Act, on its face, prevented the State from meeting its constitutional duty to provide ample educational provision.
- The court rejected the claim that the Act unlawfully displaced the superintendent’s supervisory authority, concluding the superintendent retained supervisory functions within the broader public-school system.
- The court held the single unconstitutional provision was severable, leaving the remainder of the Act in force.

## Legal Principles

- Charter schools may operate as public schools outside the constitutional category of “common schools,” provided they are not funded with money constitutionally restricted for common schools under article IX, section 2.
- Article IX, section 2’s “general and uniform” requirement permits variation among public-school models so long as the State maintains a coherent statewide system with minimum standards and oversight.
- Article III, section 22 does not bar the legislature from assigning administrative roles to entities other than the superintendent, so long as the superintendent retains supervisory authority over matters pertaining to public schools within the statewide framework.
- A facial challenge fails absent a showing that the statute necessarily violates the constitution in all its applications under the asserted theory.
- When an education statute contains an invalid provision, Washington courts apply severability principles and will preserve the remainder when the invalid portion is not central to the statutory scheme and can be removed without defeating legislative intent.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court sustained the 2016 charter-school statute against multiple facial state-constitutional challenges, concluding that shifting funding away from restricted common-school funds cured the prior constitutional defect and that the Act preserved a general and uniform public-school system while leaving the superintendent’s supervisory role intact; only one provision was invalid and was severed.


El Centro de la Raza v. State, 428 P.3d 1143 (Wash. 2018)