Cave Creek Unified School District et al. v. State of Arizona
The state is once again refusing to adequately fund education and by doing so, is in violation of its own laws. This time, the state has failed to update the school funding formula by using all of the inflation adjustments required by Proposition 301, a referendum approved by a majority of Arizona voters.
The Center brought this case in conjunction with the LaSota & Peters law firm to force the legislature to honor Arizona voters' decision to support Arizona's schoolchildren. The Center represents several school districts, the Arizona Education Association, and the Arizona School Boards Association in this case.
In 2000, the Arizona Legislature passed S.B. 1007 and portions of this law were referred to the voters for approval in Proposition 301. A majority of Arizona voters approved Prop. 301, which requires the legislature to adjust the "base level" education funding formula each year in accordance with inflation. The "base level" provides all funding for the maintenance and operations of Arizona's schools.
The legislature's 2010-2011 budget reconciliation bill, however, failed to adjust the "base level" for inflation and in fact, did not provide any increase to the base level at all. The Center's lawsuit alleged that the legislature is not only in violation of its own laws, but that its actions are unconstitutional because Proposition 301 is protected under the Voter Protection provisions of the Arizona Constitution.
On February 9, 2011, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Mangum ruled that Proposition 301 enacted by Arizona voters in 2000 did not require the Arizona legislature to annually inflate education funding for Arizona’s public schools. Judge Mangum held that Proposition 301 merely states the intention of the voters that an appropriation be made to protect schools from the effects of inflation but the Proposition by itself is not self executing. He stated that, “the voters cannot require the legislature to enact a law that provides for that appropriation.” Judge Mangum then held that the Proposition itself did not constitute an appropriation and that, therefore, Proposition 301 amounted to nothing more than a "request" by the people of Arizona that the legislature increase education funding.
On March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The Court of Appeals will hear oral argument on the case on March 14, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
Case Updates
On February 11, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Mangum refused to order the legislature to take inflation into account when funding public education. Judge Mangum arrived at this ruling even though voters passed Prop. 301 specifically requiring the legislature to do just this. Lead counsel in the case, Don Peters, along with Center Attorney Tim Hogan, believe that the judge got it wrong and vow to appeal. Hogan also adds that if the judge got it right, then the voters were the victims of a "massive fraud" perpetrated by the legislature, which itself put Prop. 301 on the ballot.
The Center was in court on February 9 arguing that the state must adjust its education funding formula every year for inflation. Despite passage of voter-approved Proposition 301, which requires the state to do just this, the legislature has willfully refused to increase education budgets in accordance with inflation.