It is a very informative summary of the lawsuit and the state's lack of movement including the historical context. The gist of their response is captured in the following words from the summary.
Plaintiffs’ post‐budget filing respectfully requested that the Washington Supreme Court take that harder path of Constitutional enforcement. For example, an Order that (hopefully) puts legislators’ perennial excuses and foot‐dragging to an end by making it unmistakably clear that:
- The State did not demonstrate “steady progress” funding reforms promised under ESHB 2261, and did not show “real and measurable progress” achieving full Article IX, §1 compliance by 2018.
- The 2012 budget’s failure to make that required progress is Constitutionally unacceptable.
- The Court will therefore take firm action (which legislators might not like) if the 2013 budget fails to make significant progress (1) fully funding reforms under ESHB 2261, and (2) achieving full Article IX, §1 compliance by 2018.
It will be interesting to see how the Court will respond.