Do courts matter? Public school finance reform in Texas, Kentucky, and North Dakota

This project examines the experience of three state supreme courts in dealing with their respective legislatures and executives regarding the issue of public school finance equity reform. I present and analyze case studies of state supreme court involvement in the political and policy process of school funding reform in Texas, Kentucky, and North Dakota in order to define the role that each state supreme court played in its state's debates, and to judge the success of each court in assuming its role. I then use the case study evidence to critique current scholarship on court effectiveness. My methodology combines documentary research with a total of ninety-two semi-structured interviews with policymakers and observers across the three states.;The Texas experience shows a state supreme court attempting to "negotiate" with the political branches, suggesting possible solutions to the problems of school finance but not mandating any particular outcome. The Texas court kept the "negotiations" going through rapid and serial court orders and a threat of harsh sanctions against the state legislature for non-compliance.;In Kentucky, by contrast, the state supreme court took on the role of "path-breaker," issuing a comprehensive order directing the political branches to completely rebuild the state's failing public education system, not just the funding mechanism, a decision unequalled in scope in the history of court-led school finance reform.;The North Dakota case study examines a third and less forceful role for a state supreme court, that of "shadow." The court upheld the constitutionality of the state's public school finance system but warned the legislature that future rulings could be different if changes were not made.;I argue that each of these state supreme courts were able to achieve some degree of effectiveness in persuading the political branches to act. However, the extent of court success significantly depended both upon the self-chosen role of the court and upon political and environmental factors over which the court possessed relatively little control. I conclude that although there are different paths to court-ordered reform, courts do matter.