Looming court battles over the education of poor students and legislative and congressional district boundaries could be added to the list of issues lawmakers will face during the special session.

House Speaker Jake Flake calls Tim Hogan’s lawsuit on behalf of at-risk students in poor school districts “one of the most serious things we’ve seen come down the pike.”

Mr. Flake, R-Dist. 5, told the House Republican caucus on Oct. 21 that Attorney General Terry Goddard is asking for $1.2 million to hire legal experts for the state’s defense in the case that was filed in 2001.

Noting that a decision against the state might cost up to $500 million a year, Mr. Flake said, “This is something we can’t afford to lose.”

Mr. Flake and Senate President Ken Bennett, R-Dist. 1, are negotiating with Governor Napolitano to include the supplemental funding in the call for the special session that started Oct. 20.

IRC Lawsuit

Mr. Flake and Mr. Bennett also are asking that additional funding for the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) be included in session.

Mr. Flake told House Republicans the IRC needs the money for a court battle on a lawsuit filed by the Arizona Minority Coalition For Fair Redistricting, a group that alleges some of the IRC’s new districts are not competitive.

“Unless we can get the governor to put additional funding in the call to fight the lawsuit, the commission will have to fold, and the judge will make the decisions,” said Mr. Flake. “Many of us could find ourselves in a different district.”

Ms. Napolitano is considering expanding the call to include the IRC matter, her office said.

However, legislators from both sides of the aisle are critical of the IRC and complain that the IRC may have wasted the money they had for legal services. Rep. Karen Johnson, R-Dist. 18; Rep. Deb Gullett, R-Dist. 11; House Minority Leader John Loredo, D-Dist. 13; and Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Dist. 15, say IRC spending needs closer scrutiny.

Mr. Loredo called for an audit of the IRC. “The Legislature should not spend more of our tax dollars until the auditor general shines the light of fiscal accountability on the commission,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Independent Redistricting Commission will go to court to try to obtain additional funding. The IRC filed a petition for special action before the Arizona Supreme Court Oct. 16 seeking additional funds so the commission can defend the legislative and congressional district boundaries it drew in 2002.

At issue is whether the Independent Redistricting Commission will be able to receive any more funds than the $6 million that the state Constitution provides.

The Independent Redistricting Commission was created through an amendment to the Constitution that voters approved in 2000. The change took the task of drawing political boundaries in the state out of the hands of the Legislature and gave it to the newly created Redistricting Commission.

Article 4, Part 2, Section 18 of the Arizona Constitution states, in part, “The treasurer of the state shall make $6,000,000 available for the work of the Independent Redistricting Commission pursuant to the year 2000 census.”

On Oct. 9, State Treasurer David Petersen rejected a request from the IRC for an additional $4.2 million to pay for expected legal fees. The trial in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the district lines, whose plaintiffs include a number of Democrats and members of minority groups, is set to begin Nov. 12. The plaintiffs contend that the commission violated the state Constitution by failing to draw enough districts that would give Democrats and members of minority groups better chances of electing their candidates.

The Independent Redistricting Commission announced earlier this month that it had already spent all but about $75,000 of the $6 million appropriated to it when the commission began operations in 2001.

School District Lawsuit

Mr. Hogan, who is executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, filed his lawsuit in September 2001 listing as plaintiffs seven school districts across the state. The number of plaintiffs has since been reduced to five.

In his suit, Mr. Hogan claims there are 200,000 students in the state who are at-risk of failing because of their poverty and the barriers that poverty creates.

“The data we have on this is just horrific,” he said in an interview when he filed the suit. “This is one instance in which the AIMS test has really been useful because it is giving us a good picture of what is going on.”

His lawsuit asks that the state provide programs and funding needed by the students “to acquire the basic education that is guaranteed them by the Arizona Constitution.”

The suit is Mr. Hogan’s third aimed at changing the basic principles of funding education.

In Roosevelt vs. Bishop, filed in 1991, Mr. Hogan was successful in obtaining a state Supreme Court decision declaring school capital financing unconstitutional because poorer districts could not afford the facilities they needed. The decision led to the creation of the Students FIRST program.

Mr. Hogan also filed Flores vs. State of Arizona in which a federal judge ruled that funding for English learner programs was inadequate. The state is currently having a study done to help determine what funding levels might be appropriate. —