Call for appeal is premature

RE: THE Dec. 21 editorial: State should appeal court’s education spending decision

The Albuquerque Journal’s rationale for appealing Judge Sarah Singleton’s ruling on the inadequacy of the current New Mexico education system is like advising a restaurant patron to complain to the chef about a perfectly tasty and satisfying entrée because of the hypothetical possibility that the as-yetunserved dessert may not be to the diner’s liking. Fortunately, the legal system does not require such bizarre behavior. If a future remedial order from Singleton goes too far, or in the wrong direction, the state can appeal that remedial order. At this point, Singleton has shown appropriate deference to the Legislature and governor by permitting them to propose a remedy to the constitutional violations demonstrated at trial. Yes, Singleton will review that proposal, and plaintiffs will have the opportunity to comment, but providing elected leaders first shot at devising a remedy shows respect for the constitutional role of those leaders.

That the Journal can conjure possible nightmare scenarios with respect to remedy is no reason to appeal Judge Singleton’s liability determination — supported by hundreds of pages of fact findings and legal conclusions following a lengthy trial — that the current system violates students’ rights under the New Mexico Constitution to an adequate and equitable education. The Journal offers no reason to question that liability determination. An appeal now, rather than waiting to see what the ordered remedy may be, simply delays the creation and implementation of any remedy — all to the irreparable detriment of New Mexico’s current school children. THOMAS A. SAENZ President and General Counsel, MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund)