Arizona school funding ruled unconstitutional by state judge
Why it matters: If the ruling withstands a planned appeal, the Arizona Legislature will have to provide substantial new funding for school facilities and other capital needs at some point in the future.
The big picture: Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dewain Fox ruled in a major lawsuit that the funding system violates the Arizona Constitution's requirement that the state establish "a general and uniform public school system."
Yes, but: The ruling isn't likely to be the final word. Senate President Warren Petersen, who intervened as a defendant, will appeal, a Senate spokesperson told Axios.
Attorney Danny Adelman of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, who led the case for the plaintiffs, said it'll likely be several years before the matter is fully resolved.
Flashback: In 1994, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in Roosevelt vs. Bishop that Arizona's system for funding capital needs — including buildings, buses, technology and books — violated the state constitution's requirement that there be a "general and uniform" school system.
Because districts relied on taxes based on property value, the system left districts in less wealthy areas short on funding.
To comply with that ruling, the Legislature created the Students FIRST program, which added building renewal grants and funding for new school construction and for districts that exhausted other resources.
A group of school districts and education organizations sued the state in 2017, arguing that it hadn't met its obligations from the Roosevelt vs. Bishop ruling. The case finally went to trial in May 2024.
Zoom in: On paper, Students FIRST rectified the funding disparities, Fox wrote in his ruling. But in reality, the state hasn't provided sufficient funding for school facilities.
Districts can obtain additional funding through bonds and budget overrides, but those are at voters' whims.
As a result, many schools are forced to operate with deficient facilities for months or years while they await funding.
Adelman told Axios that districts have lost between $6 billion and $7 billion over the past 25 years or so.
Between the lines: While disparities in districts' ability to raise money through voter-approved bonds and overrides aren't unconstitutional, inadequate funding leaves some unable to meet their needs without them.
"In short, Arizona has returned to a system that forces districts to rely largely on local property taxation to fund their capital needs, and as such, property value is crucial to a district's ability to fund its schools," Fox wrote, comparing it to the system that the Arizona Supreme Court struck down in the original Roosevelt case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
20 minutes ago
- Politico
Judge plans Wednesday ruling on Alina Habba's authority as New Jersey's top prosecutor
But the Trump administration on July 22 fired Grace, with Bondi posting on social media that the department 'does not tolerate rogue judges.' Two days later, Trump withdrew his nomination of Habba as U.S. attorney, and she resigned her position as interim U.S. attorney. She was then appointed first assistant U.S. attorney, allowing her to automatically take on the acting role. Bondi also said she made Habba 'Special Attorney to the Attorney General,' which she said gave her the authority of a U.S. attorney. The Trump administration argues that Habba began the job March 28, which started the 120-day clock, and so the judges did not have a vacancy to fill when they chose Grace to replace her. In court, Trump administration attorneys added some clarity to Habba's start date, noting that her immediate predecessor, John Giordano, had continued signing orders as interim U.S. attorney until March 28 and that Habba's first day of pay was March 29. They characterized Trump's announcement, made in a social media post, as a 'directive' to Pam Bondi to appoint Habba. Brann suggested that maneuver to keep Habba in charge of the office as special attorney would render the law on appointing U.S. attorneys 'pointless' since a person could do the job indefinitely without Senate confirmation. 'Even if you believe [the law] is ambiguous — and I don't think it is — going to the legislative history is a death knell,' Brann said, referring to a Senate report made during the passage of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act in 1998. The distinction between Habba's role as acting U.S. attorney and special attorney is important because the acting position can only serve 120 days, while there's no time limit for a special attorney. Nevertheless, later in the hearing, Brann said, 'It's very likely that Alina Habba is going to end up down the road as the United States attorney of the district of New Jersey.' He did not elaborate on his reasoning. The defendants challenging Habba's authority argued in part that her nomination by Trump made her ineligible to serve in the acting role under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. 'There is no support for a finding that withdrawal of the nomination would remove someone from the bar,' said Giraud attorney Thomas Mirigliano. But Henry Whitaker, counselor to the attorney general, said the language of the law is written in the present tense. 'At that moment,' he said, referring to the Trump administration's legal maneuvering, 'there was no pending nomination.' 'This is not circumvention,' Whitaker said. 'It is simply a way for the executive branch to have officials temporarily serving the functioning of the office.' The two sides also debated whether the Trump administration could stack 120-day interim appointments. 'It can't be the case ... that the attorney general can terminate an interim appointment on day 119 and then appoint another person?' said Gerry Krovatin, an attorney for Pina. 'That could go on forever.'
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
What states are doing in the battle over congressional maps as Texas pursues plan President Donald Trump sought
A partisan move by Texas to redraw its congressional maps in the middle of the decade to secure five more GOP seats in the U.S. House set off a clamor to replicate the effort in statehouses controlled by both parties. So far, though, only California has taken steps toward redistricting. Changing congressional maps in a bid to ensure one party's victory over another — called gerrymandering — has typically been done more furtively. But President Donald Trump's call for Texas to redraw the maps to better ensure that Republicans retain control of the House in the 2026 elections has blown the lid off the practice. Here is a rundown of what states are doing. Democratic lawmakers who left Texas have scuttled a special session on redistricting but appear set to end their standoff after nearly two weeks. The Republican majority adjourned their special session Friday morning in Austin. Gov. Greg Abbott quickly called another, though there still were not enough Democrats present. The minority caucus members have said they would return to Texas provided California Democrats move forward with their own new maps. Past efforts by Democrats to abscond and deny Republicans a quorum similarly only delayed the passage of bills, but didn't quash them. Abbott has said he will keep calling new special sessions, if necessary. State Rep. Jon Rosenthal, a Democrat from Houston, told The Associated Press this week that their protest was about raising awareness. 'They may still pass these maps, but we're going to do everything we can to awaken America,' he said. In response to Texas, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday that the state will move forward with redrawing congressional maps aimed at putting five more Democrats into the U.S. House. The proposed maps, which are expected to be released Friday, are an attempt to counterbalance Texas' and Trump's plan to add five Republican seats. Newsom has been outspoken about retaliating if Texas's redistricting takes effect, telling Trump this week in a letter that the president was 'playing with fire.' Unlike Texas, however, California has an independent commission that handles redistricting after the census each decade, which is typically when districts are reshaped to account for population shifts. Any changes would first need the approval of state lawmakers and voters. State lawmakers plan to officially declare a special election next week. At Trump's urging and partly in response to California's threats, Missouri's Republican majority is preparing for a special session on congressional redistricting A document obtained by The Associated Press shows the state Senate has received a $46,000 invoice for software licenses and staff training for redistricting. While Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe hasn't officially announced a special session, Republican House Majority Leader Alex Riley told the AP it is 'pretty likely' to happen. Riley added that he has had discussions with White House staff about it. Republicans hold six of Missouri's eight congressional seats. The party could target a Democratic-held district in Kansas City to pick up another seat. In justifying the redistricting, Missouri Republicans accused neighboring Illinois of rigging its maps and pointed to a draft proposal circulating in California. New York, similar to California, has an independent commission that changes the political maps only after every census. But state Democrats introduced legislation to allow mid-decade redistricting. Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said that if Texas proceeds, 'we must do the same.' But the soonest new maps could be in place would be for the 2028 elections. That is because the proposal would require an amendment to the state constitution, a change that would have to pass the Legislature twice and be approved by voters. While Republicans control the Legislature, Democrats turned to the courts to try to force a redrawing of congressional district boundary lines before the 2026 midterms. Two lawsuits were filed in July after the liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court — without explanation — previously declined to hear challenges directly. Maryland House Majority Leader David Moon, a Democrat, says he will sponsor legislation to trigger redistricting if Texas or any other state holds redistricting ahead of the census. Republican state House Speaker Daniel Perez said his chamber will take up redistricting this year through a special committee. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has told the public to 'stay tuned' and has reiterated his support for the state joining the redistricting fray. A law in Republican-led Ohio requires new political maps before the 2026 midterm elections. The GOP holds 10 of its 15 House seats already and could try to expand that edge. Vice President JD Vance said he spoke with Republican Gov. Mike Braun last week, as the redistricting melee intensified, but both politicians remained mum about the discussions. Braun, who would have to call a special session to draw new maps, has said he expects a 'broad conversation' with legislative leaders on the move's constitutionality and said no commitments have been made. Republicans face more limited possibilities of squeezing out another GOP seat in Indiana. Republican U.S. representatives outnumber Democrats 7-2 in the state already. Republican state Senate President Ty Masterson didn't rule out trying to redraw the state's four congressional districts, one of which is held by the state's sole Democrat House representative. The Legislature's GOP-supermajority could do so early next year, which would put the new lines in place before the June 1 candidate filing deadline.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
DOJ gives Boston and other sanctuary cities an ultimatum
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has put Boston on notice: Cooperate with the Trump administration's immigration crackdown or else. Why it matters: Boston is one of 32 cities the Trump administration is going after for having policies that restrict local police cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Driving the news: Bondi gave Boston Mayor Michelle Wu until Tuesday to send a response confirming her "commitment to complying with federal law," per a letter she sent to Wu this week. The letter asks Wu to identify specific initiatives the city is taking to eliminate sanctuary policies. What they're saying:"Any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court," Bondi wrote on X Thursday, announcing the "demand letters." The other side:"Unlike the Trump administration," Wu said in a statement to Axios, "Boston follows the law." Wu defended the city's policies to a congressional panel in March. She said barring police cooperation with federal immigration agents who don't have a warrant fosters trust between crime victims, witnesses and police, among others.
