April 14, 2007: AB 1381 Ruled Unconsitutional by Appeals Court
The Second Appellate District Court of Appeal ruled AB 1381 unconsitutional. In a unanimous ruling, the Justices stated:
"We conclude that the Romero Act is an unconstitutional attempt to do indirectly what the Legislature is prohibited from doing directly. The Legislature cannot overrule the LAUSD’s voters’ determination that their Board is to be elected rather than appointed, nor may it transfer authority over part of the school system to entities outside of the public school system. We will therefore affirm the trial court’s issuance of a writ of mandate preventing the enforcement of the Romero Act."
A copy of the complete ruling is available here.
Dec. 21, 2006: AB 1381 was ruled unconsitutional.
Statements by Board President Canter and Superintndent Brewer are available here.
A copy of the ruling is available here.
Background:
On Tuesday, October 10 2006, a group of plaintiffs joined the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to file a petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief in the Superior Court of Los Angeles to settle constitutional questions raised by AB 1381.
A Los Angeles Times Opinion Piece from Boardmember David Tokofsky is here.
A press release from the plaintiffs is available here.
A press release from the California School Boards Association is here.
A statement from Superintendent Romer and Board President Canter can be downloaded here.
A copy of the complaint can be downloaded here.
A copy of the the final text of AB 1381 can be downloaded here.
Questions and Answers:
Who filed the suit?
The named plaintiffs for this action are:
- 6 LAUSD Parents
- An LAUSD Teacher
- Diane Watson, Member of Congress and former LAUSD Boardmember
- 10th and 31st District PTAs
- League of Women Voters of Los Angeles
- CA School Boards Association, Education Legal Alliance
- Association of CA School Administrators
- Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, and
- Los Angeles Unified School District
Why was the suit filed?
The litigation seeks to clarify three Constitutional questions raised by AB 1381.
- Article IX, Sec. 6 of the CA Constitution states that no “part of the Public School System shall be, directly or indirectly, transferred from the Public School System or placed under the jurisdiction of any authority other than one included within the Public School System.” Mayors and City Councils are not part of the “Public School System” as defined by the constitution so it would appear that authority over schools cannot be transferred to them.
- The second legal challenge raised in this action concerns violations of the Charters of the City of Los Angeles and other cities in the “Council of Mayors” because supervision of schools is not an enumerated power in those charters.
- The third Constitutional issue raised is a violation of the Equal Protection and Voting Rights of LAUSD Residents. The State Constitution states that no person may be denied equal protection of the laws and further guarantees that citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. AB 1381 changes the rights of electors to select the people who govern their schools without a vote of those electors and in doing so may violate the rights of LAUSD parents.
What impact will this litigation have on schools?
AB 1381 is scheduled to take affect on January 1, 2007. The litigation will attempt to resolve the constitutional all issues prior to that date. The Board and Superintendent will continue to work with all community stakeholders to provide the best education possible for LAUSD students while this litigation is decided.
