Shofstall v. Hollins
| Decision Date | 02 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 11165,11165 |
| Citation | 515 P.2d 590,110 Ariz. 88 |
| Parties | W. P. SHOFSTALL, Superintendent, Arizona Department of Education and Member, State Board of Education; David Weisenborn, President, State Board of Education; Joseph P. Ralston, Maurice A. Marks, Paul P. Kennedy, Dwight Hudson, J. Lawrence Walkup, and O. B. Joy, Members, State Board of Education; Richard L. Harris, Member, State Board of Education and Maricopa County School Superintendent; Ernest Garfield, Treasurer of the State of Arizona; Gary Nelson, Attorney General of the State of Arizona; and John Does I through XIV, Appellants, v. Clarence HOLLINS, Individually, and Australia Hollins, his wife, Individually and as next friend of their minor children, Clarence Hollins, Jr., Gary Hollins, Janet Hollins and Paula Hollins; Carton Coleman, Induvidually, and Sarah Huckaby Coleman, his wife, Individually and as next friend or their minor child, Stevie Coleman; Hazel Huckaby, Individually, and Faye Huckaby, his wife, Individually and as next friend of their minor children, Glenda Huckaby, Michael Huckaby, Jimmy Huckaby and James Huckaby; Wiley Noble, Individually, and Ida Noble, his wife, Individually and as next friend of their minor children, Doris Noble, Johnny Noble, Billy Noble, Craig Noble and Mary Louise Noble; and Arthur McCuin, Individually and Lorenza McCuin, his wife, Individually and as next friend of their minor children, Jerry McCuin, Charles McCuin and Victor McCuin, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by James G. Bond, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellants.
Jerry Levine, Scottsdale, for appellees.
Brown Vlassis & Bain by Jack E. Brown, Phoenix, for amici curiae David Kret, Jonathan Marshall and Arizonans for Children.
Dix W. Price, Phoenix, for amicus curiae Arizona Ed. Association.
This case comes to us on appeal from the Superior Court. Pursuant to Rule 47(e), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S. we accepted jurisdiction of the appeal directly.
A civil action was filed by the Law Reform Unit of the Maricopa County Legal Aid Society, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against alleged discrimination claimed to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Arizona and United States Constitutions. Plaintiffs consist of two groups: students attending school in Roosevelt School District and taxpayers in that district. Plaintiffs claimed that the system of financing public schools in Arizona is discriminatory because of the disparity of wealth in school districts; that this disparity results in inequality in education for the students, and an unequal burden on taxpayers in the poorer districts.
Motions for summary judgment were filed. The trial court granted a summary judgment for the plaintiff-texpayers on the grounds that the system of school financing discriminated against them. The trial court further found that the plaintiff-students had not suffered injury or inequality in their right to an education and denied their motion for summary judgment.
There have been developments since this appeal was filed which tend to narrow the purview of this litigation. In the first place, the United States Supreme Court, in a decision rendered March 21, 1973, settled the question of the alleged violation of the United States Constitution. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973).
The Arizona Legislature, in Laws 1973, ch. 182, sec. 13, effective July 1, 1974, repealed the financing provisions for common and high schools. The effect of this legislative action is to reduce the need for us to meet specific and detailed contentions of defects in the current school financing system, as any court plan could not be effectuated prior to the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1974. The judgment of the trial court indicates that it was not to take effect until the close of the second session of the 31st Legislature in 1974.
We do see merit, however, in discussing the two basic contentions of the plaintiffs. The first contention regarding the plaintiff-students has in part been determined by the trial court in its finding that they had not suffered injury nor inequality in their right to an education.
Ariz.Const. art. XI, § 1, reads:
Ariz.Const. art. XI, § 6, reads in part:
'The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be established and maintained in every school district for at least six months in each year, which school shall be open to all pupils between the ages of six and twenty-one years.'
Language in some respects similar to the Arizona Constitutional provisions is to be found in other state constitutions. See art. VIII, § 1 of the Illinois Constitution, art. VII, § 1 of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St., and art. VIII, § 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.
As we see it, the Arizona Constitution mandates 'a general and uniform public school system . . .' (art. XI, § 1) and 'a system of common schools by which a free school shall be established . . .' (art. XI, § 6). The present school laws do provide for a system which is statewide and uniform. The minimum length of the school year is provided in the constitution, and the legislature has provided for a means of establishing required courses, qualifications of teachers, textbooks to be used in common schools, and qualifications of professional nonteaching personnel. A.R.S. § 15--102. The legislature has also provided statewide a general and uniform method for establishing schools in every county. A.R.S. § 15--401 et seq.
We hold that the constitution does establish education as a fundamental right of pupils between the ages of six and twenty-one years. The constitution, by its provisions, assures to every child a basic education. The United States Supreme Court, in discussing the Texas school system, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Serrano v. Priest
...provisions. (See Northshore School District No. 417 v. Kinnear (1974) 84 Wash.2d 685, 530 P.2d 178, 200--202; Shofstall v. Hollins (1973) 110 Ariz. 88, 515 P.2d 590; Thompson v. Engelking (1975) 96 Idaho 793, 537 P.2d 635; cf. Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated School System (Alaska 1975) 536 ......
-
Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Worcester
...See, e.g., Roosevelt Elementary Sch. Dist. v. Bishop, 179 Ariz. 233, 238, 877 P.2d 806 (1994), citing Shofstall v. Hollins, 110 Ariz. 88, 89-90, 515 P.2d 590 (1973) (fundamental right based on provisions requiring "the establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school sys......
-
Kukor v. Grover
...opportunity within the scope of art. X. A similar analysis was applied by the Supreme Court of Arizona in Shofstall v. Hollins, 110 Ariz. 88, 90, 515 P.2d 590, 592 (1973), in which the court held that the education clause in the constitution providing for "a general and uniform public schoo......
-
Athanson v. Grasso
...(1973). Similar suits were unsuccessful in several states. Thompson v. Engelking, 96 Idaho 793, 537 P.2d 635 (1975); Shofstall v. Hollins, 110 Ariz. 88, 515 P.2d 590 (1973); Spano v. Board of Education of Lakeland Central School District # 1, Town of Yorktown, 68 Misc.2d 804, 328 N.Y.S.2d 2......
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...population of state high court decisions on the constitutionality of school funding."). (81.) Id. at 1103-04; see Shofstall v. Hollins, 515 P.2d 590 (Ariz. 1973) (en banc); Hull v. Albrecht, 960 P.2d 634 (Ariz. 1998) (en banc); Bd. of Educ. v. Walter, 390 N.E.2d 813 (Ohio 1979); DeRolph v. ......
-
State courts and school funding: a fifty-state analysis.
...931 P.2d 391 (Alaska 1997) (S); Roosevelt Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop, 877 P.2d 806 (Ariz. 1994) (P); Shofstall v. Hollins, 515 P.2d 590 (Ariz 1973) (S); DuPree v. Alma Sch. Dist. No. 30, 651 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1983) (P); Serrano v. Priest ("Serrano II"), 557 P.2d 929 (Cal. 1976) (P......
-
The right to a "minimally adequate education" as guaranteed by the Mississippi Constitution.
...931 P.2d 391 (Alaska 1997) (challenging two school funding laws on state constitutional equal protection grounds); Shofstall v. Hollins, 515 P.2d 590 (Ariz. 1973) (basing claim on state and federal equal protection grounds); DuPree v. Alma Sch. Dist. No. 30, 651 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1983) (chall......