School facilities funding case going to trial after years of delays

Catch up quick: In 1994, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in Roosevelt v. Bishop that Arizona's system for funding capital needs like buildings, buses, technology and books violated the state constitution's requirement that there be a "general and uniform" school system.

• Because school districts relied on taxes based on property value, the system left districts in less wealthy areas short of funding.
• To comply with the court's ruling, the Legislature created the Students FIRST program, which added building renewal grants, funding for new school construction and funding for districts that have exhausted other resources.

Yes, but: A group of school districts and education organizations sued the state in 2017, arguing that it hadn't met its obligations from the Roosevelt v. Bishop ruling.

Driving the news: The trial begins Tuesday in Maricopa County Superior Court and is scheduled to run through June 25.

• Attorney Danny Adelman of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said it's taken so long to go to trial because it's an "enormous case" that required an extensive discovery process. He said the COVID-19 pandemic also caused delays.
• The case was scheduled to go to trial last year, but newly elected Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes sought a delay so they could get up to speed and see if it could be resolved out of court.
• They were unable to reach a settlement.

Zoom in: Capital funding that was added following the 1994 ruling has been repeatedly cut by lawmakers, the education groups argued when they filed the lawsuit.

• Districts that need money not being provided by the state can raise it through voter-approved bonds and budget overrides.

• But poorer districts with less property wealth have less ability to raise money that way, and even in some wealthier districts voters are simply unwilling to approve bonds and overrides, said Chuck Essigs, of the Association of School Business Officials, one of the groups that originally sued.

Between the lines: Adelman said last year that the state's failure to abide by the 1994 ruling has caused districts a loss of nearly $6 billion. But he tells Axios that even if the districts win the current case, the court won't order the state to provide a specific dollar amount.

• Rather, the court would declare the current system unconstitutional and order the state to fix it, he said.
• That could result in a drawn-out process to craft a solution, Adelman said, but "they fixed it once, so they really know how to do it if they want to."

The other side: An attorney for House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, who intervened in the case and are taking the lead in defending the state, did not return a message from Axios, and the legislative leaders declined to comment through their spokespeople.