There's far too much political grandstanding over California's budget crisis without state schools chief Jack O'Connell getting into the act with a frivolous lawsuit.

O'Connell, who is expected to file his suit by week's end, will ask the state Supreme Court to suspend the constitutional requirement that any spending plan be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. His lawsuit is patterned after a successful action in Nevada, where a Republican governor persuaded the state Supreme Court to suspend a similar constitutional requirement. The Nevada ruling allows the legislature to pass a budget containing tax increases with a simple majority vote of each house.

Apart from its theatrical transparency, O'Connell's legal ploy isn't likely to persuade California's high court.

First, this court is not about to fiddle with the constitution just because the schools chief deems the current budget deadlock to be an emergency, particularly when the Senate may be close to passing a spending plan.

Second, were the court to side with O'Connell, it in effect would be directing the Legislature to spend money. Given the philosophical view of this court, that isn't going to happen.

O'Connell's legal reasoning is that schools should take precedence over the two-thirds approval rule because the state constitution considers education to be a priority. This is evidenced, he would argue, by voters' approval of an initiative guaranteeing schools 42 percent of the general fund budget. Thus he contends school funding requirements supersede the two-thirds rule, which also is contained in the state constitution.

This lawsuit, which casts lawmakers as defendants, already has had the desired political effect. Education groups promptly applauded O'Connell's announcement, while Gov. Gray Davis and Treasurer Phil Angelides clambered aboard the bandwagon. Both promised to join O'Connell's suit if a budget isn't approved in the near future.

After all, you cannot go wrong by championing 6 million kids. Never mind whether it has any legal merit. It's the thought that counts, especially in politics.

If O'Connell is serious about school funding, he should focus his legal offensive where it could make a difference. His lawyers should challenge a recent high court ruling that the state must approve a budget before the release of funds for such programs as class-size reduction, special education and drug prevention. At stake is some $628.5 million in payments, or about 23 percent of this month's total outlays for schools.

Schools need a spending plan that permits districts to make informed decisions about their resources. Political grandstanding distracts attention from that necessity.