Magee v. Boyd, 1130987, 1131020, 1131021.
| Citation | 175 So.3d 79 |
| Decision Date | 02 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 1130987, 1131020, 1131021. |
| Parties | Julie P. MAGEE and Thomas L. White, Jr., in their official capacities as Commissioner of Revenue and Comptroller of the State of Alabama, respectively v. Daniel BOYD et al. Rachell Prince et al. v. Daniel Boyd et al. Tequila Rogers et al. v. Daniel Boyd et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Luther Strange, atty. gen., Andrew L. Brasher, deputy atty. gen., and James W. Davis and William G. Parker, Jr., asst. attys. gen., for appellants Julie P. Magee and Thomas L. White, Jr., in their official capacities as Commissioner of Revenue and Comptroller of the State of Alabama, respectively.
Charles B. Paterson of Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Birmingham; W. Joseph McCorkle, Jr., of Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Montgomery; Robert W. Gall and Richard D. Komer, Institute for Justice, Virginia; and Arif Panju, Institute for Justice, Austin, Texas, for appellants Tequila Rogers, Danyal Jones, Mark Jones, Rachell Prince, Tyrone Whitehead, and Dalphine Wilson.
Robert D. Segall of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery; James H. Anderson of Jackson, Anderson & Patty, P.C., Montgomery; and John M. West and Ramya Ravindran of Bredhoff & Kaiser, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for appellees Daniel Boyd, Anita Gibson, and Quinton T. Ross, Jr.
Christopher W. Weller of Capell & Howard, P.C., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Mike Hubbard, Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives, in support of the appellants.
Marc James Ayers of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, for Del Marsh, President Pro Tempore of the Alabama Senate, in support of the appellants.
Bryan Taylor of Brom & Taylor LLC, Prattville; and Eric Baxter and Asma Uddin of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in support of the appellants.
R. Bernard Harwood, Jr., of Rosen & Harwood, P.A., Tuscaloosa, for amicus curiae Economic Development Association of Alabama, Inc., in support of the appellants Tequila Rogers et al.
Richard B. Garrett, David C. Smith, and Katherine G. Robertson, Alabama Policy Institute, Mountain Brook, for amicus curiae Alabama Policy Institute, in support of the appellants.
William W. Watts III of Pipes Hudson & Watts, Mobile; and Joshua P. Thompson and Jonathan Wood of Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California, for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation, in support of the appellants.
J. Wells Robinson, Montgomery; Geoffrey G. Slaughter of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana; and John B. Nalbandian of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for amicus curiae The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, in support of the appellants.
Edward Still, Birmingham; and Sam Heldman of The Gardner Firm, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae Historians J. Wayne Flynt, Henry M. McKiven, and J. Mills Thornton III, in support of the appellees.
William W. Sanderson of Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, P.C., Huntsville, for amici curiae School Superintendents of Alabama including superintendents of City of Madison Board of Education, Huntsville City Board of Education, Lee County Board of Education, Hartselle City Board of Education, Boaz City Board of Education, Anniston City Board of Education, Monroe County Board of Education, Choctaw County Board of Education, Decatur City Board of Education, Conecuh County Board of Education, Tallapoosa County Board of Education, Saraland City Board of Education, Opp City Board of Education, Dale County Board of Education, Dothan City Board of Education, Tuscaloosa City Board of Education, Washington County Board of Education, Bibb County Board of Education, Bullock County Board of Education, Perry County Board of Education, Walker County Board of Education, Pike County Board of Education, Morgan County Board of Education, Tuscaloosa County Board of Education, Limestone County Board of Education, Marengo County Board of Education, Etowah County Board of Education, Macon County Board of Education, and Thomasville City Board of Education, in support of the appellees.
John F. Porter III, Scottsboro, for amicus curiae Kenneth Harding, Superintendent, Jackson County Board of Education, in support of the appellees.
The three appeals in this case involve issues of first impression regarding the Alabama Accountability Act (hereinafter “the AAA”), codified at § 16–6D–1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975.
The Alabama House of Representatives approved House Bill 84 (“HB 84”), a bill relating to education, and the bill, then known as the “Local Control School Flexibility Act of 2013,” was sent to the Senate, where the Education Committee gave it a favorable report. (A copy of HB 84 is attached to this opinion as appendix A.) At that time, HB 84 authorized the establishment of innovative schools and school systems by allowing the State Board of Education (“the State BOE”) to enter into a “flexibility” contract with the school or school system that would allow for program flexibility and/or budgetary flexibility within the school or school system. The purpose of the flexibility contracts was to “advance the benefits of local school and school systems autonomy in innovation and creativity,” HB 84, Section 2(b), by exempting the schools from certain state laws, including State BOE rules, regulations, and policies, in exchange for academic and associated goals for students that improve academic outcomes and close a deficient achievement gap. HB 84 would require a local school to submit a proposed innovation plan that had been recommended by the local superintendent of education and approved by the local board of education to the State Superintendent of Education in order to qualify for “innovation” status. HB 84 authorized the State BOE to promulgate any necessary rules and regulations for implementation.
On February 28, 2013, during the third reading of HB 84 on the floor of the Senate, an amendment, which made minor changes, was proposed and approved, and HB 84 was passed by the Senate. The amended version of HB 84 was then sent to the House, but the House voted to “nonconcur,” and HB 84 was sent to a conference committee of representatives and senators.
Notice was issued announcing that the conference committee would meet at 3:15 p.m. The meeting was called to order, but was immediately recessed to reconvene at 4:15 p.m. However, the meeting did not reconvene until 5:00 p.m., at which time a “substitute” version was distributed. The substitute version was 21 pages longer than the original; the name had been changed to the “Alabama Accountability Act of 2013”; and multiple new provisions had been added, including two provisions allowing for tax-credit programs. (A copy of the substitute version of HB 84 is attached to this opinion as Appendix B.) Specifically, Section 8 of HB 84 provided for a tax credit for parents of students who are zoned for a “failing school” and who choose to send their children to a nonpublic school or a nonfailing public school. The tax credits were to be paid out of the Education Trust Fund (“the ETF”).1 Section 9 provided for a tax credit that could be claimed by individuals or corporations who make contributions to “scholarship-granting organizations” for educational scholarships for students who would otherwise be attending a failing school so that the student could attend a nonpublic or nonfailing public school.
A majority of the conference committee voted in favor of the substitute version of HB 84. Subsequently, HB 84, as substituted, was sent to the House and the Senate for approval. The House and the Senate adopted the substitute version of HB 84 on February 28, 2013, the same day the substitute version was introduced. On March 14, 2013, the governor signed HB 84. On May 20, 2013, the legislature passed House Bill 658 (“HB 658”), which amended portions of the AAA. (A copy of HB 658 is attached to this opinion as Appendix C.) The amendments set out in HB 658 prohibited a public or nonpublic school from being required to enroll a particular student. The amendments also opened the scholarship program to low-income students, even if those students did not attend or were not zoned to attend a failing school. Although the amendments in HB 658 allowed low-income students in nonfailing schools to apply for scholarships, low-income students in failing schools or zoned for failing schools were given priority for the scholarships.
On April 8, 2014, the legislature passed Act No. 2014–346, its annual recodification bill, which adopts and incorporates into the Code of Alabama 1975 those general and permanent laws of the State enacted during the 2013 Regular Session as contained in the 2013 Cumulative Supplement to certain volumes of the Code and additions or deletions made by the Code commissioner for editorial purposes. (A copy of Act No. 2014–346 is attached to this opinion as Appendix D.) The AAA is now set out in § 16–6D–1 et seq.
On August 26, 2013, Daniel Boyd, Anita Gibson, and Senator Quinton Ross, Jr. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the plaintiffs”),2 sued Julie P. Magee, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Revenue, and Thomas L. White, Jr., in his official capacity as Comptroller of the State of Alabama (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the State defendants”). The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the AAA under certain provisions of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L.M.L. v. State
...... construction.'" '" Magee v. Boyd ,. 175 So.3d 79, 107 (Ala. 2015) (quoting Ex ......
-
L.M.L. v. State
...or in this Court-the main opinion makes constitutional objections for her. This Court does so based on decisions such as Magee v. Boyd, 175 So.3d 79 (Ala. 2015), and State v. Giorgetti, 868 So.2d 512 (Fla. 2004), which, the Court says, require it to construe statutes in a manner that avoids......
-
E.L.Y. v. State
...not read on three different days and, therefore, violates the three-readings requirement of the Alabama Constitution.4 In Magee v. Boyd, 175 So.3d 79, 114 (Ala. 2015), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed a similar argument:"In the present case, it is clear that the substitute version of HB ......
-
League of Women Voters of Honolulu v. State
...substitution or amendment was made.").28 It also includes minority states with an "original purpose" provision. See, e.g., Magee v. Boyd, 175 So.3d 79, 114 (Ala. 2015) (holding that "an amended bill or a substitute bill, if germane to and not inconsistent with the general purpose of the ori......
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...reviewed this Court for abuse of that discretion. QBE Ins. Corp. v. Austin Co., Inc., 23 So. 3d 1127, 1131 (Ala. 2009)." Magee v. Boyd, 175 So. 3d 79, 138 (Ala. 2015). f. Review of rulings by special masters Pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 53(e)(2), a trial court accepts findings of a referee o......