Talk:McCleary v. Washington

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New article[edit]

This case and its continuing aftermath has been a BFD in the state of Washington for the past four plus years, and I've been continually flabbergasted at the sheer lack of inclusion in WP. So I finally did something about it. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can there be a dissenting opinion when there were no dissenting votes?[edit]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but the article states "The Washington Supreme Court affirmed 7-0,[3] with some justices dissenting in part on the question of continued judicial oversight."

If the vote was 7-0 to affirm then how was there a dissenting opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandpa sam (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Development[edit]

There is room to grow this article further. Some options would be to dive deeper into the origin of the case, expand the sections detailing each court opinion, more discussion over the back and fourth between the court, including the multiple failed attempts by the state legislature to pass funding and the court not finding it acceptable. There were a lot of special sessions around this, and those details could be added. Also to be added should be a section about the legislature's reforms impacts on local levy collection limits, which has caused controversy in school districts like the Seattle School District who are attempting to collect a higher amount than legally allowed by the State. I may expand on the last part soon, but figured I should replace the stub with something more fleshed out so other people could add changes if they were interested

Subzidion (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]