Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Morgan's avatar

With the caveat that I am not by any stretch of the imagination an attorney: I really don't understand the logic behind the argument that appellate judges should be elected statewide because their decisions affect the whole state. Can't the same thing be said about legislators, especially those who are in key positions like the Senate president? I know the analogy isn't perfect, but still, the whole idea of having local elections is to make sure that different parts of a larger entity have a say, rather than having the majority control everything.

Expand full comment
Sherman Dorn's avatar

Hank, you're granting the Superintendent too much facial validity. The key language from Proposition 203 comes from the Findings and Declarations (Section 1):

"6. Therefore it is resolved that: all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.

"7. Under circumstances in which portions of this statute are subject to conflicting interpretations, these Findings and Declarations shall be assumed to contain the governing intent of the statute."

So the purpose of initiative is for children to learn English, and that's explicitly granted interpretive authority as to the people's intent. Plausibly, the state supreme court could rule in favor of Horne. But it could also rule that given research published in the last quarter century strongly in favor of dual-language immersion, the 2019 statute eliminating 4-hour SEI and the 50-50 option approved by the Board of Education does advance Finding/Declaration #6. We just don't know now.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...