Residents of the Cottonwood-Oak Creek, Mingus Union High and Clarkdale-Jerome school districts are heading toward a vote on consolidation of the three school districts in November, but a lawsuit filed by the MUHSD Governing Board is trying to prevent it from happening.
The lawsuit alleges that Senate Bill 1254, recent legislation passed by the Arizona State Legislature allowing a consolidation vote after only one school district votes in favor, violates the Arizona constitution, and that the consolidation vote itself is illegal, as well.
On Aug. 6, the Tuscon-based law firm Munger Chadwick, representing the pro-consolidation Committee for Better Upper Verde Valley Schools, filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that a school board lacks the legal right to challenge an election like this.
“No statutory provision grants school districts the authority to veto or otherwise interfere with electorinitiated elections addressing district mergers — or to file [or fund] lawsuits attempting to do so,” the attorneys for the committee wrote in their motion.
Also on Aug. 6, the law firm of Baskin Richards, representing Steven Yarbrough, president of the Arizona State Senate, and J.D. Mesnard, speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, filed their own response and motion to dismiss. The lawyers argued that, contrary to the claims of the MUHSD board, the relevant law passed by the Arizona Legislature is constitutional, due to the “strong presumption in favor of a statute’s constitutionality” by state courts, the general applicability of the legislation throughout the state [meaning it was not, as MUHSD argues, a “special law” targeted at only this school district], and the “legitimate legislative objective” in its passage.
At a meeting of the MUHSD Governing Board on Thursday, Aug. 9, the board voted unanimously to continue fighting the litigation, and to authorize its attorney to respond to the arguments made by the opposing lawyers.
The motion passed by the board calls upon the school district’s attorneys “to initiate and continue the litigation in CV201880188, wherein the MUHS District #4 challenges SB 1254, raising significant questions, which may include but are not limited to the following: “Can petitions be circulated in regard to a statute that does not yet exist?
“Can the Arizona Legislature potentially ignore the Arizona constitution and create a statute which does not apply equally to all citizens and union school districts in the state of Arizona?
“Can a petition have validity if the petition’s wording is ‘covered up’ or the signors are misled into signing by being told — among other things — that their signature is not in support of the petition but rather just to permit an election, when the petition language says otherwise?”
“We anticipated every one of their arguments,” James Ledbetter, a member of the MUHSD board said of the legal claims in the opposing sides’ motions. “We’re not surprised.”
“Although unnecessary, the board’s action at Thursday’s meeting was simply to approve the actual lawsuit that was filed, which could not have occurred until after the filing,” wrote Joe Kanefield, an attorney at Ballard Spahr, the law firm retained by the MUHSD board, in an email. “Contrary to the other side’s assertions, such approval was not required within 30 days of the lawsuit’s filing.”
Representatives of the Committee for Better Upper Verde Valley Schools and Munger Chadwick declined requests to comment for this article, citing the sensitivity of the ongoing litigation.
Jon Hecht can be reached at 634-8551, or email jhecht@larsonnewspapers.com
