First, the Seattle Times continues to try to use smoke and mirrors on their readers on this issue.
Their latest editorial's headline says "A charter schools victory at the state Supreme Court." The reality?
It was a decision by a King County court (although, yes, it is very likely to head to the Supreme Court).
This, like Lynne Varner's statement in her opinion piece that it is the Gates' puppet charter group that will review charter applications, is a gross error that should be correct and yet, the Times is allowing both to stand.
Very bad journalistic form and it points to their agenda in both reporting and editorializing.
I also want to put in Charlie's very cogent statement on the ruling which is exactly how I read it as well (and, as he points out, has not been refuted by the state attorney general's office):
Just to be completely clear, the judge specifically ruled that charter schools - when and if they are created - will not be common schools.
This ruling - which is not disputed by the state attorney general or the Seattle Times - means that charter schools cannot be funded with any of the money designated for common schools. That money includes capital funds for school construction and all of the operating funds that the state legislature has ever approved for public schools in the past.
The judge made it clear that the legislature - if they wanted to provide funding for charter schools - would have to make special provision for them. Again, that ruling is not disputed by the state attorney general, by charter school supporters in the state legislature or by the Seattle Times.
All of the supporters of I-1240 claimed that charter schools would be common schools, and the judge has ruled that they are not. That proved false one of the primary assertions of the initiative's supporters. That's worthy of mention.
Finally, the judge said that there may be other elements of the new law that are unconstitutional but that it is too soon to try those provisions because they haven't happened yet. She made it very clear that they could (and should) be tried once they have occurred.
The judge didn't invalidate the law all at once, but she made it clear that this law is very, very much at risk of being invalidated piece by piece.