By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD — The state’s request for a superior court judge to reconsider his decision in the Rand education funding case has been denied by Judge David Ruoff.

In his decision released Monday, Ruoff rejected the state’s claim his Aug. 18, 2025, ruling is insufficient in connecting the alleged injury and the remedy sought by the plaintiffs, the court erred in finding local property taxes become state taxes when covering adequate education costs, and the opinion conflicts with a recent Supreme Court ruling.

Instead Ruoff concluded “the State’s underfunding of Constitutional Adequacy forces local communities to bridge some portion of the gap with local taxes assessed at varying rates. As the plaintiffs have proven that current State education levels are constitutionally insufficient, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its conclusion that the plaintiffs have standing to seek redress under Part II, Article 5.”

The denial allows the state to appeal the August decision to the state Supreme Court.

In the Rand case, the plaintiffs claimed the state has failed to pay for the cost of a constitutionally guaranteed adequate education, and has forced school districts to use local property taxes at varying rates to make up the difference.

They claim when local property taxes are used to pay for an adequate education, they are used to fulfill the state’s obligation and as state taxes, they must be uniform in rate. 

The court agreed with the plaintiffs that state adequacy aid, about $4,200 per student, is insufficient to cover the cost as is the state’s differential aid — $2,185 per student — for special education services.

The state had argued the Supreme Court found that the state education funding scheme with the statewide property tax was not unconstitutional, but Ruoff said that addressed the use of excess money collected by property wealthy communities, while his order concerned using local property taxes to pay for the state’s obligation to provide and pay for an adequate education.

“The present funding scheme is different from the one at issue in Claremont II insofar as the present scheme purports to provide the funds necessary to meet Constitutional Adequacy. The plaintiffs proved at trial, however, that Adequacy Funding levels are insufficient for this purpose. The plaintiffs further proved that total State funding for education is insufficient to meet the demands of Constitutional Adequacy, and thus some portion of the State’s education-related constitutional obligations is being funded through local property taxes,” Ruoff wrote.

The plaintiffs own and pay taxes on property in communities with high property tax rates, he wrote, and are harmed by the system.

The state claimed local communities could opt out of paying the difference, but  Ruoff notes, “While it is the State’s obligation to meet the demands of Constitutional Adequacy, the State has downshifted that obligation to the local school systems via statutes and regulations that require schools to satisfy this standard. As Adequacy Funding is insufficient (standing alone or coupled with other State education funding sources) for schools to meet Constitutional Adequacy, the State’s underfunded mandate directly forces local communities to bridge the gap with local funds.”

And he said that converts a portion of local property taxes into an unconstitutional state tax.

Ruoff notes that the plain language of the statute at issue contemplates that adequacy funding alone will be sufficient for schools to meet the demands of constitutional adequacy.

The state argued it provides other sources of money to help offset the cost of an adequate education, but Ruoff said the laws the state cites do not direct the funds to that specific purpose.

He notes the ConVal Decision upheld by the Supreme Court finding the state has failed its constitutional obligation to pay for an adequate education, addressing only base adequacy, while the Rand case addressed insufficient state aid for both base adequacy and special education services.

Ruoff’s August decision was the third in the two education funding lawsuits brought by the ConVal School District and others claiming the state has failed to pay for an adequate education, and the Rand suit claiming the education funding system was unconstitutional because it depends on local property taxes with wildly varying rates to pay the state’s share of the cost of an adequate education and the cost of special education services as state taxes have to be uniform in rates.

The Supreme Court upheld the ConVal decision but on a 3-2 vote decided not to enforce the ruling’s requirement that the state pay $7,356 per pupil or about an additional $500 million.

The Supreme Court overturned Ruoff’s decision that allowing property wealthy communities to retain excess Statewide Education Property Tax receipts violates the constitution because it creates varying rates, but upheld a provision prohibiting assigning negative school tax rates in unincorporated places to avoid paying the statewide property tax.

With Monday’s ruling rejecting the state’s request to reconsider his ruling on the Rand case finding the school education funding system unconstitutional because it forces cities and towns to pay for the state’s share of an adequate education and special education services with varying property tax rates, the state is expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Despite the rulings, the legislature has yet to act to address any of the decisions.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.