Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education
142 Ill. 2d 54, 153 Ill. Dec. 177, 566 N.E.2d 1283 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law establishing an electoral system for a governmental body with general governmental powers must comply with the 'one person, one vote' principle derived from the Equal Protection Clause. A voting scheme that dilutes the voting power of a class of citizens in such elections is subject to strict scrutiny and will be held unconstitutional if it is not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest.
Facts:
- In 1988, the Illinois General Assembly enacted the Chicago School Reform Act to address serious problems in the city's public school system.
- The Act created Local School Councils (LSCs) for each of Chicago's 539 public schools, decentralizing authority to the local school level.
- Each LSC was composed of the school principal and 10 elected members: six parents of currently enrolled students, two community residents, and two teachers.
- Under the Act's voting scheme, only parents of currently enrolled students could vote for the six parent members, while community residents could only vote for the two community resident members.
- In certain multi-area school districts, community residents who were not parents of enrolled students were completely disenfranchised from voting for any LSC members.
- The LSCs were granted significant powers, including the authority to select and enter into a four-year performance contract with the school principal, approve the school's budget plan, and develop a school improvement plan.
- The Act also eliminated permanent tenure for principals and subdistrict superintendents, replacing it with four-year renewable performance contracts.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of principals, a subdistrict superintendent, and registered voters/taxpayers filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, challenging the constitutionality of the Chicago School Reform Act.
- The defendants included the Chicago Board of Education and various state officials; the Mayor of Chicago and a citizens' group later intervened as defendants.
- After defendants announced their intent to file for summary judgment, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their complaint.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal.
- The defendants were granted leave to amend their answer to include a counterclaim for declaratory judgment to uphold the Act's constitutionality.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the Act was constitutional.
- The plaintiffs filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Chicago School Reform Act's voting scheme for electing local school council members, which grants greater voting power to parents of currently enrolled students than to other qualified voters in the community, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ward
Yes, the Chicago School Reform Act's voting scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause. Because the Local School Councils (LSCs) exercise general governmental functions, the 'one person, one vote' principle applies, and the Act's dilution of non-parent votes cannot survive strict scrutiny. The court reasoned that providing public education is a fundamental governmental activity, and the LSCs were given essential powers at the heart of this function, such as selecting principals and approving budgets. These powers are not those of a special-purpose district whose actions disproportionately affect one group; rather, the quality of local schools impacts the entire community, including property owners, future parents, and taxpayers. Therefore, the election scheme must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. While improving education is a compelling state interest, the voting scheme is not narrowly tailored or necessary to achieve that goal. The Act unconstitutionally provides a weighted vote to parents without demonstrating that other qualified voters are less interested or competent in school governance. Because the LSC election process is the foundation of the Act and is unconstitutional, the entire Act is unconstitutional and cannot be saved by a severability clause.
Concurring - Justice Ryan
Yes, the voting scheme is unconstitutional. The dissent's focus on measuring the specific powers of the LSCs is misplaced. The core principle is that if a legislature determines that officials of a governmental body are to be elected, the 'one person, one vote' rule applies. Education has consistently been recognized as a vital, core governmental function, not a special-interest activity like a water district. The LSCs perform an essential role in this vital governmental function. Therefore, any election for their members must adhere to equal protection standards, and a justification based on parents having a 'greater interest' is insufficient to permit vote dilution in an election concerning a core function of government.
Dissenting - Justice Clark
No, the Act's voting scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it should be evaluated under the rational basis test, which it satisfies. The LSCs fall under the exception to the 'one person, one vote' rule because they are special-purpose units of government with limited authority, not general governmental powers. Unlike the school boards in key Supreme Court cases, the LSCs cannot levy taxes, issue bonds, or enter into contracts; these general powers are retained by the Chicago Board of Education. The LSCs' functions are primarily advisory and narrowly focused, and their decisions disproportionately affect parents with children in the schools. Therefore, giving parents a greater voice is rationally related to the legitimate legislative goal of improving a failing school system. The legislature's innovative response to an educational crisis should not be struck down by substituting the court's judgment for that of the legislature.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad application of the 'one person, one vote' principle to local governmental bodies. It establishes that a body need not have the power to tax or issue bonds to be considered as exercising 'general governmental functions.' If an entity is central to a core government service like public education and has substantial powers over budget and personnel, its elections must provide equal voting power to all qualified citizens. The ruling sets a high bar for states attempting to create exceptions to this principle, limiting such exceptions to truly special-purpose districts with narrow impacts. This case serves as a crucial precedent in challenges to electoral schemes that grant weighted voting to specific interest groups within a community.
Unlock the full brief for Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education