The Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the state is in contempt for violating a January court order, which required that state lawmakers produce a plan with clear timelines for how they'll adequately fund education. In a hearing just last week, counsel for the state legislature was hauled before the court to explain why they shouldn't be found in contempt. But the state's arguments failed, and the court says lawmakers may now face "sanctions and other remedial measures."

Rather than imposing immediate sanctions, however, the court will allow lawmakers one more legislative session to put things right before issuing any punishment.

After a 2012 court case we all know as McCleary, the court found that the state was failing in its constitutionally described "paramount duty" to make "ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders." The court gave them until 2018 to fully comply, but also required actual progress be made over the intervening period. After multiple court orders to produce plans and timelines for better funding, and based on reports that the state was not making adequate progress, the court finally ran out of patience and dragged them into the Temple of Justice.

The five-page ruling is a great read if you have the time; it clearly explains the history of McCleary and then it destroys the state's wimpy arguments for why they shouldn't be in trouble for not doing their jobs. Like this:

The State assured the court that a contempt order is not necessary to get the legislature's attention, that school funding is the number one issue on the legislature's agenda, and that the 2015 session will provide the best opportunity to take meaningful action on the matter.

The court has no doubt that it already has the legislature's "attention." But that is not the purpose of a contempt order. Rather, contempt is the means by which a court enforces compliance with its lawful orders when they are not followed. [...]

These orders are not advisory or designed only to get the legislature's "attention"; the court expects them to be obeyed even though they are directed to a coordinate branch of government.

And this:

The State suggests that one measure of whether a finding of contempt is warranted is whether an order has been repeatedly violated. Assuming that is a consideration, the current order is only the latest order that the court has issued since its decision in McCleary. It directed the State to provide its detailed plan in December 2012, prior to the 2013 legislative session, and it has repeatedly emphasized that the State is engaged in an ongoing violation of its constitutional duty to K-12 children. The State, moreover, has known for decades that its funding of public education is constitutionally inadequate.

They add that the court has been forced into action, since to "stand idly by" while the legislature ignores lawful court orders "would be to abdicate the court's own duty as a coordinate and independent branch of the government." But they also say that "in the interest of comity and continuing dialogue between the branches of government," they'll let the state have 2015 to demonstrate some meaningful progress—otherwise, the court will reconvene and impose sanctions.

I've gone ahead and written a shorter version if you don't want to read all that:

Dear Lawmakers,

WOULD YOU LIKE SOME ICE FOR ALL THOSE BURNS??? HEY-O!
But really, in all seriousness, we're giving you one more chance. Don't fuck it up.

Love,
The Temple of Justice

We say what we've been saying for a while now: Lock 'em up, Supremes.