Mendoza v. State of Calif., No. 105 481 (Cal. Super., L.A. Cty. Dec. 21, 2007)
A California state court has ruled that the recently enacted state law, AB 1381, giving the mayor of Los Angeles partial control over the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) violates several provisions of the state constitution. A coalition led by LAUSD and including the League of Women Voters, the California School Boards Association (CSBA), the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, the district’s two PTA groups, and several parents filed suit challenging the act.
The court first found that the transfer of "management and control" of LAUSD to the Mayor’s Partnership, the Council of Mayors, and the Southeast Cities School Coalition completely deprived the school board of the ability to control or influence the actions or decisions of the Partnership, violating provisions of article IX of the constitution that establish a system of common schools managed and controlled locally by appointed or elected school boards. None of the entities or individual members making up the new organizations are either "authorities" within the public school system or "officers of the public schools" as those terms are used in article IX, the court concluded. AB 1381 also violates article IX because it is a special law that addresses only LAUSD; rather than an exercise in legislative authority to "classify" school districts, it simply singles out LAUSD for separate and different organizational treatment, without articulating any rational scheme.
The court also found that the act violates both articles IX and XI of the constitution by interfering with the right of voters of a chartered city to "determine in the first instance whether their local schools will be governed by an elected or an appointed school board." Under that section, the voters of Los Angeles had chosen to have LAUSD governed by an elected board. Because AB 1381 violates the Los Angeles City charter, it necessarily violates article IX, the court held. The act violates XI by infringing on the "home rule" authority guaranteed Los Angeles voters. Lastly, the court concluded that AB 1381 deprives citizens who reside in one of the school attendance areas subject to direct mayoral control of both their fundamental right to vote and their right to equal protection of the laws, thereby violating articles II and I of the state constitution. At a minimum, the court concluded, the act unconstitutionally dilutes the voting strength of citizens in these areas, because the overwhelming majority of votes for mayor will be cast by voters who do not reside in these areas.
Mendoza v. State of Calif., No. 105 481 (Cal. Super., L.A. Cty. Dec. 21, 2007)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: In striking down the law in its entirety, the court noted that test scores in LAUSD have risen at 150% of the state average in recent years and that LAUSD currently is fourth in the state in the percentage of schools that met or exceeded their "Academic Performance Index" growth targets, California’s basic measurement of academic progress. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s office is appealing the ruling, and the appeals court has granted an expedited hearing, directing the mayor to file his initial arguments on January 16. For reactions, background on the dispute, and additional information and position statements from the California School Boards Association (CSBA), see the links below. See also the commentary by NSBA Executive Director Anne Bryant highlighting reasons to be cautious of mayoral takeovers and calling instead for more comprehensive collaboration.]
Los Angeles Times
By Howard Blume & Joel Rubin
[Full story]
Los Angeles Times
By Staff
[Full story]
[NSBA School Law pages on L.A. takeover dispute]
[CSBA information page on L.A. takeover dispute]
District Administration
By Anne L. Bryant
[Full article]