Count 3

Count 3.  The manner in which California has chosen to raise and disburse state and local tax revenues creates disparities in spendable funds between school districts that are irrational and constitute hostile and oppressive discrimination against all students who happen to live in school districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, or are in Foster Care. Hostile and oppressive discrimination is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and is also a violation of Article I § 7 of the California Constitution and Article 4 § 16 commonly known as the equal protection of the laws of California's Constitution.


1.     In the US Supreme Court Case San Antonio v Rodriguez [40] the court stated:


"The case represents far more than a challenge to the manner in which Texas provides for the education of its children. We have here nothing less than a direct attack on the way in which Texas has chosen to raise and disburse state and local tax revenues." (Emphasis Added) "The broad discretion as to classification possessed by a legislature in the field of taxation has long been recognized. . . . [T]he passage of time has only served to underscore the wisdom of that recognition of the large area of discretion which is needed by a legislature in formulating sound tax policies. . . " 

Ibid. [41]   "It has . . . been pointed out that in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification. Since the members of a legislature necessarily enjoy a familiarity with local conditions which this Court cannot have, the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes. . . ."  (emphasis added) Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 87-88 (1940). See also Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356 (1973); Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 445 (1940).  

The California Legislature has a constitutionally mandated duty to enact legislation that upholds the California Constitution as defined by Article 4 of the California Constitution.

The State Legislature has a constitutional mandate supported by case law, to provide every child in the state with substantially equal opportunity to achieve a quality education.  "... equality of educational opportunity requires that all school districts possess an equal ability in terms of revenue to provide students with substantially equal opportunities for learning." The Court defined that to be the same opportunity to obtain high quality staff, program expansion and variety, beneficial teacher-pupil ratios and class sizes, modern equipment and materials, and high-quality buildings. [Serrano v. Priest 18 Cal. 3d 748]

By setting the Base Grant artificially low, the State Legislature is intentionally underfunding those districts that have a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, or are in Foster Care. The Legislature is, as a matter of law, depriving all students in these districts of their fundamental right to achieve equality of educational opportunity simply because of where they happen to live, and irrespective of their individual wealth, race and ethnicity. Under Rodriquez, such a system is a violation of the Equal Protection clause to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

The State Government is in fact, using AB - 97 to promote a political agenda to redistribute wealth, rather than educate students. Such use of the State's education funding system constitutes invidious discrimination, and is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.