Students First Opinions
Supreme Court Opinion No. 1: Roosevelt v. Bishop
1994 ruling that because the then-present scheme was the source of disparities, it was not in compliance with Arizona Constitution Article XI ยง1. This Article requires the legislature to enact appropriate laws to finance education in the public schools in a way that does not create substantial disparities among schools, communities or districts.
Supreme Court Opinion No. 1: Roosevelt v. Bishop(link is external)
Supreme Court Opinion No. 2: Hull v. Albrecht
1997 ruling that the proposed legislation did not meet the requirements of Article XI because: it is itself the cause of continued substantial disparities among districts; the legislature may not delegate to the districts the responsibility to provide adequate capital facilities; and Article XI mandates adequate capital facilities statewide.
Supreme Court Opinion No. 2: Hull v. Albrecht(link is external)
Supreme Court Opinion No. 3: Hull v. Albrecht
1998 ruling that the proposed Students FIRST Act of 1998 violates the requirements of the Arizona Constitution to provide a general and uniform public school system due to the provisions establishing the bonding prohibition, compressed assessment ratios and the opt-out option.