H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, et al.
No. 2018-164
Supreme Court
2018 VT 136
On Appeal from Superior Court, Orange Unit, Civil Division October Term, 2018
Michael J. Harris, J.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
H. Brooke Paige, Pro Se, Washington, Plaintiff-Appellant.
Bernard D. Lambek of Zalinger Cameron & Lambek, PC, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee Washington Town School Board.
Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, and Philip Back, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendants-Appellees State of Vermont, et al.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund, Robinson, Eaton and Carroll, JJ.
¶ 2. In 2015, the Vermont Legislature enacted Act 46 to address a statewide trend of declining student enrollment and increased education costs. 2015, No. 46, § 1. The law was intended “to move the State toward sustainable models of educational governance” by encouraging local action to “maximize operational efficiencies through increased flexibility to manage, share, and transfer resources, with a goal of increasing the district-level ratio of students to full-time equivalent staff.” Id. § 2. To achieve this goal, Act 46 established a multi-year process for merging existing school districts into newly created districts with preferred governance structures. The law contained financial incentives for districts to voluntarily merge. Id. § 6 (providing for decreased homestead property tax rate, merger support grant, and transition facilitation grant to districts that merged before July 2017); id. § 7 (providing for decreased homestead property tax rate and merger support grant to districts that merged between July 2017 and July 2019). The law directed the State Board of Education to order districts that had not acted by November 2018 to merge or realign where necessary. Id. § 10.
¶ 3. Plaintiff is a registered voter, taxpayer, and justice of the peace in the town of Washington. In May 2017, Washington residents voted to merge the Washington school district with that of the neighboring town of Orange pursuant to Act 46. That August, plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the Secretary of State alleging that the merger vote violated Vermont and federal election laws because he and fellow Washington residents were coerced by Act 46 into voting for the merger. The Secretary dismissed the complaint, stating that administrative relief was unavailable because the merger vote was not a primary or general election in which a federal office appeared on the ballot.
¶ 4. In September 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the civil division against the State of Vermont, the Vermont Board of Education, Secretary of Education Rebecca Holcombe, Secretary of State James Condos, and the Washington Town School Board. In his amended complaint, he alleged that Act 46 deprived Washington residents of local control of education in violation of the Education Clause of the Vermont Constitution, ch. II, § 68; deprived town residents of the right to equal educational opportunities expressed in Brigham v. State (Brigham I), 166 Vt. 246, 692 A.2d 384 (1997); and impermissibly coerced voters in violation of the Vermont Constitution and state and federal election laws. He asked the court to void the merger vote and order the Washington Town School Board restored to its previous governance structure. He also asked the court to reverse the Secretary of State‘s decision dismissing his administrative complaint. He sought an award of $10,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to the Washington Town School Board, and $1.00 in damages to him for bringing this action, plus costs.
¶ 5. The State moved to dismiss plaintiff‘s complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The trial court held that plaintiff had standing as a Washington taxpayer because he alleged that as a result of the merger, Washington residents would bear an increased financial burden due to the additional costs associated with the Orange school. However, it determined that plaintiff failed to state a claim that Act 46 violated the Education Clause or the Common Benefits Clause as interpreted
¶ 6. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim that Act 46 violates
¶ 7. Standing is a necessary prerequisite to a petition for declaratory judgment. Doria v. Univ. of Vt., 156 Vt. 114, 117, 589 A.2d 317, 318 (1991). The standing requirement derives from
¶ 8. “An element of the case or controversy requirement is that plaintiffs must have standing, that is, they must have suffered a particular injury that is attributable to the defendant and that can be redressed by a court of law.” Parker, 169 Vt. at 77, 726 A.2d at 480. The standing doctrine protects the separation of powers between the branches of government by ensuring that courts confine themselves to deciding actual disputes and avoid intervening in broader policy decisions that are reserved for the Legislature. Id.
¶ 9. To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must allege injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Brigham v. State (Brigham II), 2005 VT 105, ¶ 16, 179 Vt. 525, 889 A.2d 715 (mem.). In other words, the plaintiff “must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant‘s allegedly unlawful conduct, which is likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Parker, 169 Vt. at 78, 726 A.2d at 480. The alleged injury “must be an ‘invasion of a legally protected interest,’ not a generalized harm to the public.” Id. (citation omitted) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Further, the injury “must be reasonably expected and not based on fear or anticipation.” Brod v. Agency of Nat. Res., 2007 VT 87, ¶ 9, 182 Vt. 234, 936 A.2d 1286.
¶ 10. A plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to establish his or her standing “[o]n the face of the complaint.” Town of Cavendish v. Vt. Pub. Power Supply Auth., 141 Vt. 144, 147–48, 446 A.2d 792, 794 (1982). “Because standing is a necessary component of the court‘s subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot be waived, and its absence can be raised at any time.” Unifund CCR Partners v. Zimmer, 2016 VT 33, ¶ 19, 201 Vt. 474, 144 A.3d 1045. Whether plaintiff has standing is a legal question that we review without deference to the decision of the trial court. Taylor v. Town of Cabot, 2017 VT 92, ¶ 9, _ Vt. _, 178 A.3d 313.
¶ 11. We addressed the issue of standing to challenge a state education law in Brigham II, 2005 VT 105. In that case, a group of public-school students and a group of taxpayers from the towns of Whitingham, Wilmington, and Andover challenged the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1997, also known as Act 60. The students alleged that Act 60 failed to protect their right to an equal educational opportunity under the Vermont Constitution because it left their schools with less money to fund instruction and curriculum or make necessary renovations. The taxpayers alleged that they paid disproportionately high state and local education taxes compared to similarly situated taxpayers of other Vermont towns. They also alleged that because the State was inadequately funding education under Act 60, they were forced to pay higher education taxes than other taxpayers who owned property of the same value and had identical adjusted gross incomes. We held that both the students and taxpayers met the elements of standing because they had adequately alleged that the law injured them personally and their injuries would be redressed if they prevailed on the merits of their claims. Id. ¶ 17.
¶ 12. Here, plaintiff alleged that he is a resident and taxpayer of the town of Washington; has faithfully attended town meetings and school-board meetings since becoming a resident in 1988; and currently serves as a justice of the peace in the town. He asserted that the Act 46 merger will subject Washington residents to higher education costs and school taxes and make them responsible for the rehabilitation of the Orange Village School, while depriving them of the ownership of their town school and the sole right to make educational decisions for their students. In an exhibit attached to his amended complaint—an informational pamphlet regarding the Washington-Orange merger that he prepared—he claimed that the Washington school business manager stated that Orange and Washington would equally share the cost of education under a merger, and that Orange‘s 2017 school budget is about $350,000 greater than Washington‘s. Accordingly, he asserted, the merger would result in Washington taxpayers paying approximately $175,000 more than they would have otherwise.2 He further alleged that Act 46‘s incentives will create disparities in funding between towns, thereby denying equal educational opportunities in violation of our decision in Brigham I.
¶ 13. Accepting these allegations as true, they are insufficient to give plaintiff standing. It is undisputed that plaintiff is neither a public-school student nor a parent of a public-school student enrolled in a school subject to Act 46. He therefore is not personally affected by the law‘s alleged
¶ 14. The trial court found, however, that plaintiff had standing to bring this action as a Washington taxpayer because he alleged that Washington residents would bear an additional financial burden as a result of the merger. This was error. “Although taxpayer suits in Vermont are generally recognized as appropriate vehicles for seeking relief from official action, to have standing a plaintiff must still demonstrate that she has either sustained some direct loss or that municipal assets have been improperly wasted.” Baird v. City of Burlington, 2016 VT 6, ¶ 21, 201 Vt. 112, 136 A.3d 223 (quotation omitted). This case does not involve a challenge to a town‘s use of municipal assets.3 Cf. Taylor, 2017 VT 92, ¶ 12 (holding that town residents had municipal-taxpayer standing to challenge town‘s use of municipal funds). Rather, plaintiff seeks to challenge a state law based on his taxpayer status. He accordingly must show that he will suffer a direct financial injury as a result of the legislation. See Schievella v. Dep‘t of Taxes, 171 Vt. 591, 592, 765 A.2d 479, 481 (2000) (mem.) (holding plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of homestead-property-tax-adjustment statute where complaint did not allege those provisions would affect plaintiffs’ property-tax liability now or in future); Doremus v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429, 434 (1952) (explaining that taxpayer seeking to challenge state statute must show “direct injury“); N.Y. State Teachers Ret. Sys., 60 F.3d at 110 (“State taxpayers, like federal taxpayers, do not have standing to challenge the actions of state government simply because they pay taxes to the state.“).
¶ 15. Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege on the face of his complaint that he has been or will be directly injured in a cognizable way by Act 46. Unlike the taxpayers in Brigham II, he does not allege that he pays disproportionately high state and local education taxes compared to similarly situated taxpayers of other Vermont towns, or that he pays higher education taxes than other taxpayers who own property of the same value and have identical adjusted gross incomes. His allegation that as a result of the merger, Washington residents as a whole will be subjected to higher education costs and school taxes is insufficiently specific to confer standing on plaintiff.
¶ 16. Plaintiff argues in the alternative that he has standing to bring this action as a justice of the peace because
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
Associate Justice