determine first what article IX, section 1 requires and then decide whether the Alliance has provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no set of circumstances under which the legislature’s statutory special education funding process could satisfy the minimum due under article IX, section 1. ¶9 Under an “as applied” challenge, the party challenging the statute contends that the statute, as actually applied, violated the constitution. Tunstall, 141 Wn.2d at 223 (citing Turay, 139 Wn.2d at 417 n.27). Thus, under an “as applied” challenge, the Alliance must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislature failed to adequately fund special education in their districts, forcing them to rely on levy funds. See Seattle Sch. Dist., 90 Wn.2d at 497-510 (<HOLDING>). ¶10 On September 30, 2004, the Alliance sued
holding that the state may not require districts to use local levy funds to make  ample provision s  for education because it is not a dependable and regular tax source quoting wash const art ix  1 holding removal of city councilman governed by minn const art 13  2 1857 identical predecessor to minn const art 8  5 holding that property tax was a state tax and was thus disproportionate unreasonable and unfair because of discrepancies in tax rates of up to 400 between school districts holding a nexus to the united states is not required and noting the venue provision comports with us const art iii  2 cl 3 holding that it may not