san antonio school district rodriguez argued october decided march financing public elementary secondary schools texas product state local participation almost half revenues derived largely program designed provide basic minimum educational offering every school district supplements state aid ad valorem tax property within jurisdiction appellees brought class action behalf schoolchildren said members poor families reside school districts low property tax base making claim texas system reliance local property taxation favors affluent violates equal protection requirements substantial interdistrict disparities expenditures resulting primarily differences value assessable property among districts district finding wealth suspect classification education fundamental right concluded system upheld upon showing appellants failed make compelling state interest system also concluded appellants failed even demonstrate reasonable rational basis state system held proper case examine state laws standards strict judicial scrutiny since test reserved cases involving laws operate disadvantage suspect classes interfere exercise fundamental rights liberties explicitly implicitly protected constitution pp texas system disadvantage suspect class shown discriminate definable class poor people occasion discriminations depending relative wealth families district insofar financing system disadvantages disregarding individual income characteristics reside comparatively poor school districts resulting class said suspect pp texas system impermissibly interfere exercise fundamental right liberty though education one important services performed state within limited category rights recognized guaranteed constitution even identifiable quantum education arguably entitled constitutional protection make meaningful exercise constitutional rights showing texas system fails provide basic minimal skills necessary purpose pp moreover inappropriate case invoke strict scrutiny since involves delicate difficult questions local taxation fiscal planning educational policy federalism considerations counseling restrained form review pp texas system violate equal protection clause fourteenth amendment though concededly imperfect system bears rational relationship legitimate state purpose assuring basic education every child state permits encourages participation significant control district schools local level pp powell delivered opinion burger stewart blackmun rehnquist joined stewart filed concurring opinion post brennan filed dissenting opinion post white filed dissenting opinion douglas brennan joined post marshall filed dissenting opinion douglas joined post charles alan wright argued cause appellants briefs crawford martin attorney general texas nola white first assistant attorney general alfred walker executive assistant attorney general davis pat bailey assistant attorneys general samuel mcdaniel arthur gochman argued cause appellees brief mario obledo briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed george kugler attorney general pro se stephen skillman assistant attorney general attorney general new jersey george liebmann shale stiller montgomery county maryland joined francis burch attorney general maryland henry lord deputy attorney general stephen derby assistant attorney general william baxley attorney general alabama gary nelson attorney general arizona james bond assistant attorney general evelle younger attorney general california elizabeth palmer assistant attorney general edward belasco deputy attorney general duke dunbar attorney general colorado robert killian attorney general connecticut michael ahern assistant attorney general anthony park attorney general idaho james hargis deputy attorney general theodore sendak attorney general indiana charles wells harry ice richard turner attorney general iowa george murray assistant attorney general vern miller attorney general kansas matthew dowd john johnson assistant attorneys general ed hancock attorney general kentucky carl miller assistant attorney general william guste attorney general louisiana james erwin attorney general maine george west assistant attorney general robert quinn attorney general massachusetts lawrence bench assistant attorney general charles clippert william saxton robert webster summer attorney general mississippi martin mclendon assistant attorney general john danforth attorney general missouri brook bartlett assistant attorney general clarence meyer attorney general nebraska harold mosher assistant attorney general warren rudman attorney general new hampshire louis lefkowitz attorney general new york robert morgan attorney general north carolina burley mitchell assistant attorney general helgi johanneson attorney general north dakota gerald vandewalle assistant attorney general lee johnson attorney general oregon daniel mcleod attorney general south carolina lewis argoe assistant attorney general gordon mydland attorney general south dakota kelly assistant attorney general david pack attorney general tennessee milton rice deputy attorney general vernon romney attorney general utah robert hansen deputy attorney general james jeffords attorney general vermont chauncey browning attorney general west virginia victor barone assistant attorney general robert warren attorney general wisconsin betty brown assistant attorney general john maharg james briggs richard clowes superintendent schools county los angeles et al briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed david bonderman peter van lockwood wendell anderson governor minnesota et al robert coffman wilson riles superintendent public instruction california et al roderick hills houston flournoy controller california ramsey clark john silard david long george russell harold ruvoldt albert woll thomas harris john ligtenberg zwerdling stephen schlossberg mayor city council baltimore et al george spencer san antonio independent school district norman dorsen marvin karpatkin melvin wulf paul berger joseph robison arnold forster stanley hebert american civil liberties union et al jack greenberg james nabrit iii norman chachkin abraham sofaer naacp legal defense educational fund stephen pollak ralph moore richard sharp david rubin national education assn et al john coons john serrano et al briefs amici curiae filed lawrence walsh victor bouldin richard smith guy struve republic national bank dallas et joseph cortese joseph guandolo bryce huguenin manly mumford joseph johnson joseph rudd fred rosenfeld herschel friday george herrington harry ice cornelius grafton fred benton eugene huppenbauer harold judell robert fizzell john dawson george fagin howard rankin huger sinkler robert spence hobby mccall james ellis william kiernan bond counsel justice powell delivered opinion suit attacking texas system financing public education initiated parents whose children attend elementary secondary schools edgewood independent school district urban school district san antonio texas brought class action behalf schoolchildren throughout state members minority groups poor reside school districts low property tax base named defendants state board education commissioner education state attorney general bexar county san antonio board trustees complaint filed summer impaneled january december panel rendered judgment per curiam opinion holding texas school finance system unconstitutional equal protection clause fourteenth amendment state appealed noted probable jurisdiction consider constitutional questions presented reasons stated opinion reverse decision district first texas state constitution promulgated upon texas entry union provided establishment system free schools early history texas adopted dual approach financing schools relying mutual participation local school districts state early state constitution amended provide creation local school districts empowered levy ad valorem taxes consent local taxpayers erection school buildings maintenance public free schools local funds raised supplemented funds distributed district state permanent available school funds permanent school fund predecessor established realized annexation settlement thereafter endowed millions acres public land set aside assure continued source income school support available school fund received income permanent school fund well state ad valorem property tax designated taxes served disbursing arm state educational funds throughout late first half century additionally increase state property taxes used finance program providing free textbooks throughout state recent times texas predominantly rural state population property wealth spread relatively evenly across state sizable differences value assessable property local school districts became increasingly evident state became industrialized population shifts became pronounced location commercial industrial property began play significant role determining amount tax resources available school district growing disparities population taxable property districts responsible part increasingly notable differences levels local expenditure education due time became apparent concerned financing public education contributions available school fund sufficient ameliorate disparities prior available school fund contributed money every school district rate per child although amount increased several times early fund providing per student recognizing need increased state funding help offset disparities local spending meet texas changing educational requirements state legislature late undertook thorough evaluation public education eye toward major reform committee composed educators legislators appointed explore alternative systems propose funding scheme guarantee minimum basic educational offering child help overcome interdistrict disparities taxable resources committee efforts led passage bills named committee establishing texas minimum foundation school program today program accounts approximately half total educational expenditures texas program calls state local contributions fund earmarked specifically teacher salaries operating expenses transportation costs state supplying funds general revenues finances approximately program school districts responsible unit providing remaining districts share known local fund assignment apportioned among school districts formula designed reflect district relative taxpaying ability assignment first divided among texas counties pursuant complicated economic index takes account relative value county contribution state total income manufacturing mining agricultural activities also considers county relative share payrolls paid within state lesser extent considers county share property state county assignment divided among school districts basis district share assessable property within county district turn finances share assignment revenues local property taxation design complex system twofold first attempt assure foundation program equalizing influence expenditure levels school districts placing heaviest burden school districts capable paying second program architects sought establish local fund assignment force every school district contribute education children exhaust district resources today every school district impose property tax derives locally expendable funds excess amount necessary satisfy local fund assignment foundation program years since program went operation expenditures education state well local sources increased steadily expenditures increased approximately last decade alone total public school budget rose million billion increases reflected consistently rising expenditures throughout state teacher salaries far largest item school budget increased dramatically minimum salary teachers possessing college degrees risen last years school district appellees reside edgewood independent school district compared throughout litigation alamo heights independent school district comparison least affluent districts san antonio area serves illustrate manner dual system finance operates indicate extent substantial disparities exist despite state impressive progress recent years edgewood one seven public school districts metropolitan area approximately students enrolled elementary secondary schools district situated sector san antonio residential neighborhood little commercial industrial property residents predominantly descent approximately student population negro average assessed property value per pupil lowest metropolitan area median family income also lowest equalized tax rate per assessed property highest metropolitan area district contributed education child school year local fund assignment minimum foundation program foundation program contributed per pupil total federal funds added another total per pupil alamo heights affluent school district san antonio six schools housing approximately students situated residential community quite unlike edgewood district school population predominantly anglo less negroes assessed property value per pupil exceeds median family income local tax rate per valuation yielded per pupil contribution foundation program coupled provided program district able supply per student supplemented grant federal sources alamo heights spent per pupil although school year figures provide complete statistical breakdown category aid recent partial statistics indicate previously noted trend increasing state aid significant school year foundation school program allotment edgewood per pupil increase school year indeed state aid alone equaled edgewood entire school budget local state federal sources alamo heights enjoyed similar increase foundation program netting per pupil recent figures also reveal extent two districts allotments funded required contributions local fund assignment alamo heights relative wealth required contribute local property tax collections approximately per pupil foundation grant edgewood hand paid per pupil grant appears least two districts local fund assignment reflect rough approximation relative taxpaying potential despite recent increases substantial interdistrict disparities school expenditures found district prevail san antonio varying degrees throughout state still exist disparities largely attributable differences amounts money collected local property taxation led district conclude texas dual system public school financing violated equal protection clause district held texas system discriminates basis wealth manner education provided people finding wealth suspect classification education fundamental interest district held texas system sustained state show premised upon compelling state interest issue concluded ot defendants unable demonstrate compelling state interests fail even establish reasonable basis classifications texas virtually concedes historically rooted dual system financing education withstand strict judicial scrutiny found appropriate reviewing legislative judgments interfere fundamental constitutional rights involve suspect classifications previous decisions indicated strict scrutiny means state system entitled usual presumption validity state rather complainants must carry heavy burden justification state must demonstrate educational system structured precision tailored narrowly serve legitimate objectives selected less drastic means effectuating objectives texas financing system counterpart virtually every state pass muster state candidly admits one familiar texas system contend yet achieved perfection apart concession educational financing texas defects imperfections state defends system rationality vigor disputes district finding lacks reasonable basis establishes framework analysis must decide first whether texas system financing public education operates disadvantage suspect class impinges upon fundamental right explicitly implicitly protected constitution thereby requiring strict judicial scrutiny judgment district affirmed texas scheme must still examined determine whether rationally furthers legitimate articulated state purpose therefore constitute invidious discrimination violation equal protection clause fourteenth amendment ii district opinion reflect novelty complexity constitutional questions posed appellees challenge texas system school financing concluding strict judicial scrutiny required relied decisions dealing rights indigents equal treatment criminal trial appellate processes cases disapproving wealth restrictions right vote cases district concluded established wealth suspect classification finding local property tax system discriminated basis wealth regarded precedents controlling reasoned based decisions affirming undeniable importance education fundamental right education absent compelling state justification texas system stand unable agree case significant aspects sui generis may neatly fitted conventional mosaic constitutional analysis equal protection clause indeed several reasons follow find neither analysis persuasive wealth discrimination discovered district case several courts recently struck laws quite unlike forms wealth discrimination heretofore reviewed rather focusing unique features alleged discrimination courts cases virtually assumed findings suspect classification simplistic process analysis since traditional systems financing public schools poorer people receive less expensive educations affluent people systems discriminate basis wealth approach largely ignores hard threshold questions including whether makes difference purposes consideration constitution class disadvantaged poor identified defined customary equal protection terms whether relative rather absolute nature asserted deprivation significant consequence state laws justifications classifications create subjected strict judicial scrutiny think threshold considerations must analyzed closely case comes us definitive description classifying facts delineation disfavored class examination district opinion appellees complaint briefs contentions oral argument suggests however least three ways discrimination claimed might described texas system school financing might regarded discriminating poor persons whose incomes fall identifiable level poverty might characterized functionally indigent relatively poorer others irrespective personal incomes happen reside relatively poorer school districts task must ascertain whether fact texas system shown discriminate possible bases whether resulting classification may regarded suspect precedents provide proper starting point individuals groups individuals constituted class discriminated prior cases shared two distinguishing characteristics impecunity completely unable pay desired benefit consequence sustained absolute deprivation meaningful opportunity enjoy benefit griffin illinois progeny invalidated state laws prevented indigent criminal defendant acquiring transcript adequate substitute transcript use several stages trial appeal process payment requirements case found occasion de facto discrimination indigency totally unable pay transcripts case emphasized constitutional violation shown state provided adequate substitute full stenographic transcript britt north carolina gardner california draper washington eskridge washington prison board likewise douglas california decision establishing indigent defendant right counsel direct appeal dealt defendants pay counsel resources way gaining representation douglas provides relief burdens paying criminal defense relatively speaking great insurmountable deal relative differences quality counsel acquired less wealthy williams illinois tate short struck criminal penalties subjected indigents incarceration simply inability pay fine disadvantaged class composed persons totally unable pay demanded sum cases touch question whether equal protection denied persons relatively less money designated fines impose heavier burdens held fines must structured reflect person ability pay order avoid disproportionate burdens sentencing judges may often consider defendant ability pay circumstances guided sound judicial discretion rather constitutional mandate finally bullock carter invalidated texas requirement primary elections relevant classifying facts found previous cases present size fee often running thousands dollars least one case high effectively barred potential candidates unable pay required fee system provided reasonable alternative means access ballot inability pay occasioned absolute denial position primary ballot appellees first possible basis describing class disadvantaged texas system discrimination class definably poor persons might arguably meet criteria established prior cases even cursory examination however demonstrates neither two distinguishing characteristics wealth classifications found first support charge system discriminates poor appellees made effort demonstrate operates peculiar disadvantage class fairly definable indigent composed persons whose incomes beneath designated poverty level indeed reason believe poorest families necessarily clustered poorest property districts recent exhaustive study school districts connecticut concluded clearly incorrect contend poor live poor districts thus major factual assumption serrano educational financing system discriminates poor simply false connecticut defining poor families bureau census poverty level connecticut study found surprisingly poor clustered around commercial industrial areas areas provide attractive sources property tax income school districts whether similar pattern discovered texas known basis record case assuming poorest people defined reference level absolute impecunity concentrated poorest districts second neither appellees district addressed fact unlike foregoing cases lack personal resources occasioned absolute deprivation desired benefit argument children districts relatively low assessable property values receiving public education rather receiving poorer quality education available children districts assessable wealth apart unsettled disputed question whether quality education may determined amount money expended sufficient answer appellees argument least wealth involved equal protection clause require absolute equality precisely equal advantages indeed view infinite variables affecting educational process system assure equal quality education except relative sense texas asserts minimum foundation program provides adequate education children state providing years free education assuring teachers books transportation operating funds texas legislature endeavored guarantee welfare state whole people shall least adequate program education meant minimum foundation program education state repeatedly asserted briefs fulfilled desire assures every child every school district adequate education proof offered trial persuasively discrediting refuting state assertion two reasons absence evidence financing system discriminates definable category poor people results absolute deprivation education disadvantaged class susceptible identification traditional terms suggested appellees district may embraced second third approach second might characterized theory relative comparative discrimination based family income appellees sought prove direct correlation exists wealth families within district expenditures therein education along continuum poorer family lower dollar amount education received family children principal evidence adduced support claim affidavit submitted professor joel berke syracuse university educational finance policy institute district relying major part upon affidavit apparently accepting substance appellees theory noted first positive correlation wealth school districts measured terms assessable property per pupil levels expenditures second found similar correlation district wealth personal wealth residents measured terms median family income fact correlations sustained might argued expenditures education equated appellees quality education dependent personal wealth appellees theory still face serious unanswered questions including whether bare positive correlation higher degree correlation necessary provide basis concluding financing system designed operate peculiar disadvantage comparatively poor whether class size diversity ever claim special protection accorded suspect classes questions need addressed case however since appellees proof fails support allegations district conclusions professor berke affidavit based survey approximately school districts texas findings previously set margin show wealthiest districts sample highest median family incomes spend education several poorest districts lowest family incomes devote least amount money education remainder districts districts composing almost sample correlation inverted districts spend next money education populated families next lowest median family incomes districts spending least highest median family incomes evident even conceptual questions answered favorably appellees factual basis exists upon found claim comparative wealth discrimination brings us third way classification scheme might defined district wealth discrimination since correlation indicated evidence district property wealth expenditures may argued discrimination might found without regard individual income characteristics district residents assuming perfect correlation district property wealth expenditures top bottom disadvantaged class might viewed encompassing every child every district except district assessable wealth spends education alternatively suggested justice marshall dissenting opinion post class might defined restrictively include children districts assessable property falls statewide average median artificially defined level however described clear appellees suit asks extend exacting scrutiny review system allegedly discriminates large diverse amorphous class unified common factor residence districts happen less taxable wealth districts system alleged discrimination class defines none traditional indicia suspectness class saddled disabilities subjected history purposeful unequal treatment relegated position political powerlessness command extraordinary protection majoritarian political process thus conclude texas system operate peculiar disadvantage suspect class recognition fact never heretofore held wealth discrimination alone provides adequate basis invoking strict scrutiny appellees relied solely contention also assert state system impermissibly interferes exercise fundamental right accordingly prior decisions require application strict standard judicial review graham richardson kramer union school district shapiro thompson question whether education fundamental right sense among rights liberties protected constitution consumed attention courts commentators recent years brown board education unanimous recognized education perhaps important function state local governments said context racial discrimination lost none vitality passage time compulsory school attendance laws great expenditures education demonstrate recognition importance education democratic society required performance basic public responsibilities even service armed forces foundation good citizenship today principal instrument awakening child cultural values preparing later professional training helping adjust normally environment days doubtful child may reasonably expected succeed life denied opportunity education opportunity state undertaken provide right must made available equal terms ibid nothing holds today way detracts historic dedication public education complete agreement conclusion panel grave significance education individual society doubted importance service performed state determine whether must regarded fundamental purposes examination equal protection clause justice harlan dissenting application strict scrutiny law impinging upon right interstate travel admonished irtually every state statute affects important rights shapiro thompson view degree judicial scrutiny state legislation fluctuated depending majority view importance interest affected gone far toward making ibid indeed assuming legislative role one lacks authority competence justice stewart response shapiro justice harlan concern correctly articulates limits rationale employed equal protection decisions today pick particular human activities characterize fundamental give added protection contrary simply recognizes must established constitutional right gives right less protection constitution demands emphasis original moving state state appellees exercising constitutional right classification serves penalize exercise right unless shown necessary promote compelling governmental interest unconstitutional emphasis original lindsey normet decided last term firmly reiterates social importance critical determinant subjecting state legislation strict scrutiny complainants case involving challenge procedural limitations imposed tenants suits brought landlords oregon forcible entry wrongful detainer law urged examine operation statute stringent standard mere rationality tenants argued statutory limitations implicated fundamental interests particularly important poor need decent shelter right retain peaceful possession one home ibid justice white analysis opinion instructive denigrate importance decent safe sanitary housing constitution provide judicial remedies every social economic unable perceive document constitutional guarantee access dwellings particular quality recognition right tenant occupy real property landlord beyond term lease without payment rent absent constitutional mandate assurance adequate housing definition relationships legislative judicial functions emphasis supplied lesson cases addressing question plain province create substantive constitutional rights name guaranteeing equal protection laws thus key discovering whether education fundamental found comparisons relative societal significance education opposed subsistence housing found weighing whether education important right travel rather answer lies assessing whether right education explicitly implicitly guaranteed constitution eisenstadt baird dunn blumstein police dept chicago mosley skinner oklahoma education course among rights afforded explicit protection federal constitution find basis saying implicitly protected said undisputed importance education alone cause depart usual standard reviewing state social economic legislation appellees contention however education distinguishable services benefits provided state bears peculiarly close relationship rights liberties accorded protection constitution specifically insist education fundamental personal right essential effective exercise first amendment freedoms intelligent utilization right vote asserting nexus speech education appellees urge right speak meaningless unless speaker capable articulating thoughts intelligently persuasively marketplace ideas empty forum lacking basic communicative tools likewise argue corollary right receive information becomes little hollow privilege recipient taught read assimilate utilize available knowledge similar line reasoning pursued respect right vote exercise franchise contended divorced educational foundation voter electoral process reality conform democratic ideal depends informed electorate voter cast ballot intelligently unless reading skills thought processes adequately developed need dispute propositions long afforded zealous protection unjustifiable governmental interference individual rights speak vote yet never presumed possess either ability authority guarantee citizenry effective speech informed electoral choice may desirable goals system freedom expression representative form government doubted indeed goals pursued people whose thoughts beliefs freed governmental interference values pursued implemented judicial intrusion otherwise legitimate state activities even conceded identifiable quantum education constitutionally protected prerequisite meaningful exercise either right indication present levels educational expenditures texas provide education falls short whatever merit appellees argument might state financing system occasioned absolute denial educational opportunities children argument provides basis finding interference fundamental rights relative differences spending levels involved true present case charge fairly made system fails provide child opportunity acquire basic minimal skills necessary enjoyment rights speech full participation political process furthermore logical limitations appellees nexus theory difficult perceive instance education distinguished significant personal interests basics decent food shelter empirical examination might well buttress assumption among ineffective participants political process derive least enjoyment benefits first amendment appellees thesis cast serious doubt authority dandridge williams supra lindsey normet supra carefully considered arguments supportive district finding education fundamental right liberty found arguments unpersuasive one respect find particularly inappropriate case subject state action strict judicial scrutiny present case another basic sense significantly different cases applied strict scrutiny state federal legislation touching upon constitutionally protected rights prior cases involved legislation deprived infringed interfered free exercise fundamental personal right liberty see skinner oklahoma supra shapiro thompson supra dunn blumstein supra critical distinction cases one us lies texas endeavoring respect education justice brennan writing katzenbach morgan expresses well salient point complaint congress unconstitutionally denied diluted anyone right vote rather congress violated constitution extending relief effected others similarly situated federal law question restrict deny franchise effect extends franchise persons otherwise denied state law need decide whether challenged limitation relief effected permissible deciding question principle calls closest scrutiny distinctions laws denying fundamental rights inapplicable distinction challenged appellees presented limitation reform measure aimed eliminating existing barrier exercise franchise rather deciding constitutional propriety limitations reform measure guided familiar principles statute invalid constitution might gone farther legislature need strike evils time reform may take one step time addressing phase problem seems acute legislative mind emphasis original clear reasons stated accord prior decisions case challenged state action must subjected searching judicial scrutiny reserved laws create suspect classifications impinge upon constitutionally protected rights need rest decision however solely inappropriateness test century adjudication equal protection clause affirmatively supports application traditional standard review requires state system shown bear rational relationship legitimate state purposes case represents far challenge manner texas provides education children nothing less direct attack way texas chosen raise disburse state local tax revenues asked condemn state judgment conferring political subdivisions power tax local property supply revenues local interests appellees intrude area traditionally deferred state legislatures often admonished interferences state fiscal policies equal protection clause broad discretion classification possessed legislature field taxation long recognized passage time served underscore wisdom recognition large area discretion needed legislature formulating sound tax policies pointed taxation even fields legislatures possess greatest freedom classification since members legislature necessarily enjoy familiarity local conditions presumption constitutionality overcome explicit demonstration classification hostile oppressive discrimination particular persons classes madden kentucky thus stand familiar ground continue acknowledge justices lack expertise familiarity local problems necessary making wise decisions respect raising disposition public revenues yet urged direct either alter drastically present system throw property tax altogether favor form taxation scheme taxation whether tax imposed property income purchases goods services yet devised free discriminatory impact complex arena perfect alternatives exist well impose rigorous standard scrutiny lest local fiscal schemes become subjects criticism equal protection clause addition matters fiscal policy case also involves persistent difficult questions educational policy another area lack specialized knowledge experience counsels premature interference informed judgments made state local levels education perhaps even welfare assistance presents myriad intractable economic social even philosophical problems dandridge williams complexity problems financing managing statewide public school system suggests one constitutionally permissible method solving within limits rationality legislature efforts tackle problems entitled respect jefferson hackney even basic questions area scholars educational experts divided indeed one major sources controversy concerns extent demonstrable correlation educational expenditures quality education assumed correlation underlying virtually every legal conclusion drawn district case related questioned relationship cost quality equally unsettled controversy proper goals system public education question regarding effective relationship state boards education local school boards terms respective responsibilities degrees control undergoing searching ultimate wisdom related problems education likely divined time even scholars earnestly debate issues circumstances judiciary well advised refrain imposing inflexible constitutional restraints circumscribe handicap continued research experimentation vital finding even partial solutions educational problems keeping abreast conditions must remembered also every claim arising equal protection clause implications relationship national state power federal system questions federalism always inherent process determining whether state laws accorded traditional presumption constitutionality subjected instead rigorous judicial scrutiny maintenance principles federalism foremost consideration interpreting pertinent constitutional provisions examines state action difficult imagine case greater potential impact federal system one us urged abrogate systems financing public education presently existence virtually every state foregoing considerations buttress conclusion texas system public school finance inappropriate candidate strict judicial scrutiny considerations relevant determination whether system conceded imperfections nevertheless bears rational relationship legitimate state purpose question next turn attention iii basic contours texas school finance system traced outset opinion describe detail system operates facts bear directly upon demands equal protection clause apart federal assistance texas school receives funds state local school district statewide average roughly comparable amount funds derived source state contribution minimum foundation program designed provide adequate minimum educational offering every school state funds distributed assure one teacher compensated minimum salary every students school district supportive personnel provided one principal every teachers one special service teacher librarian nurse doctor etc every teachers superintendents vocational instructors counselors educators exceptional children also provided additional funds earmarked current operating expenses student transportation free textbooks program administered state board education central education agency also responsibility school accreditation monitoring statutory standards reflected increase funds allotted edgewood school district last three years state financial contribution education steadily increasing none texas school districts however content rely alone funds foundation program virtue obligation fulfill local fund assignment every district must impose ad valorem tax property located within borders fund assignment designed remain sufficiently low assure district ability provide enriched educational program every district supplements foundation grant manner districts local property tax contribution insubstantial edgewood supplement per pupil districts local share may far exceed even total foundation grant part local differences attributable differences rates taxation degree market value category property varies assessed value greatest interdistrict disparities however attributable differences amount assessable property available within district districts property valuable property greater capability supplementing state funds large measure additional local revenues devoted paying higher salaries teachers therefore primary distinguishing attributes schools districts lower ratios higher salary schedules basic outline texas school financing structure differences expenditure levels occasioned disparities property tax income appellees claim children less affluent districts made subject invidious discrimination district found state failed even establish reasonable basis system results different levels expenditure disagree reliance state well local resources texas system comparable systems employed virtually every state power tax local property educational purposes recognized texas least since growth commercial industrial centers accompanying shifts population began create disparities local resources texas undertook program calling considerable investment state funds foundation grant theory upon texas legislators educators based bills product pioneering work two new york educational reformers george strayer robert haig efforts devoted establishing means guaranteeing minimum statewide educational program without sacrificing vital element local participation thesis represented accommodation two competing forces articulated professor coleman history education since industrial revolution shows continual struggle two forces desire members society educational opportunity children desire family provide best education afford children persistence attachment government lowest level education concerned reflects depth commitment supporters part local control means professor coleman suggests freedom devote money education one children equally important however opportunity offers participation decisionmaking process determines local tax dollars spent locality free tailor local programs local needs pluralism also affords opportunity experimentation innovation healthy competition educational excellence analogy relationship federal system seems uniquely appropriate justice brandeis identified one peculiar strengths form government state freedom serve laboratory try novel social economic experiments area social concern stands profit multiplicity viewpoints diversity approaches public education appellees question propriety texas dedication local control education contrary attack system precisely view provide level local control fiscal flexibility districts appellees suggest local control preserved promoted financing systems resulted equality educational expenditures doubt true reliance local property taxation school revenues provides less freedom choice respect expenditures districts others existence inequality manner state rationale achieved alone sufficient basis striking entire system mcgowan maryland may condemned simply imperfectly effectuates state goals dandridge williams must financing system fail appellees suggest methods satisfying state interest occasion less drastic disparities expenditures might conceived state action impinges exercise fundamental constitutional rights liberties must found chosen least restrictive alternative cf dunn blumstein shelton tucker also well remember even districts reduced ability make free decisions respect much spend education still retain present system large measure authority available funds allocated enjoy power make numerous decisions respect operation schools people texas may justified believing systems school financing place financial responsibility hands state result comparable lessening desired local autonomy may believe along increased control purse strings state level go increased control local policies appellees urge texas system unconstitutionally arbitrary allows availability local taxable resources turn happenstance see justification system allows contend quality education fluctuate basis fortuitous positioning boundary lines political subdivisions location valuable commercial industrial property scheme local taxation indeed existence identifiable local governmental units requires establishment jurisdictional boundaries inevitably arbitrary equally inevitable localities going blessed taxable assets others local wealth static quantity changes level taxable wealth within district may result number events local residents influence instance commercial industrial enterprises may encouraged locate within district various actions public private moreover local taxation local expenditures unconstitutional method providing education might equally impermissible means providing necessary services customarily financed largely local property taxes including local police fire protection public health hospitals public utility facilities various kinds perceive justification severe denigration local property taxation control follow appellees contentions simply never within constitutional prerogative nullify statewide measures financing public services merely burdens benefits thereof fall unevenly depending upon relative wealth political subdivisions citizens live sum extent texas system school financing results unequal expenditures children happen reside different districts say disparities product system irrational invidiously discriminatory texas acknowledged shortcomings persistently endeavored without success ameliorate differences levels expenditures without sacrificing benefits local participation texas plan result hurried legislation certainly product purposeful discrimination group class contrary rooted decades experience texas elsewhere major part product responsible studies qualified people giving substance presumption validity texas system entitled lindsley natural carbonic gas important remember every stage development constituted rough accommodation interests effort arrive practical workable solutions metropolis theatre city chicago one also must remember system challenged peculiar texas state essential characteristics texas plan financing public education reflects many educators half century thought enlightened approach problem perfect solution unwilling assume level wisdom superior legislators scholars educational authorities especially alternatives proposed recently conceived nowhere yet tested constitutional standard equal protection clause whether challenged state action rationally furthers legitimate state purpose interest mcginnis royster hold texas plan abundantly satisfies standard iv light considerable attention focused district opinion case california predecessor serrano priest cal cautionary postscript seems appropriate questioned constitutional judgment reached district approved dissenting brothers today occasion texas elsewhere unprecedented upheaval public education commentators concluded whatever contours alternative financing programs might devised approved result avoid beneficial one nothing simple constitutional issues involved cases nothing simple certain predicting consequences massive change financing control public education devoted thoughtful attention practical ramifications cases found clear dependable answers scholarship reflects unqualified confidence desirability completely uprooting existing system complexity problems demonstrated lack consensus respect whether may said assurance poor racial minorities children overburdened school districts benefited abrogation traditional modes financing education unless substantial increase state expenditures education across board event likelihood open considerable question groups stand realize gains terms increased expenditures reside districts presently spend relatively low levels districts benefit redistribution existing resources yet recent studies indicated poorest families invariably clustered impecunious school districts appear random chance racial minorities concentrated districts additionally several research projects concluded financing alternative designed achieve greater equality expenditures likely lead higher taxation lower educational expenditures major urban centers result exacerbate rather ameliorate existing conditions areas practical considerations course play role adjudication constitutional issues presented serve highlight wisdom traditional limitations function consideration initiation fundamental reforms respect state taxation education matters reserved legislative processes various violence values federalism separation powers staying hand hardly need add action today viewed placing judicial imprimatur status quo need apparent reform tax systems may well relied long heavily local property tax certainly innovative thinking public education methods funding necessary assure higher level quality greater uniformity opportunity matters merit continued attention scholars already contributed much challenges ultimate solutions must come lawmakers democratic pressures elect reversed footnotes san antonio independent school district whose name case still bears one seven school districts san antonio metropolitan area originally named defendants pretrial conference district issued order dismissing school districts case subsequently san antonio independent school district joined plaintiffs challenge state school finance system filed amicus curiae brief support position properly convened questions district jurisdiction direct appealability judgment trial delayed two years permit extensive pretrial discovery allow completion pending texas legislative investigation concerning need reform public school finance system supp wd tex supp district stayed mandate two years provide texas opportunity remedy inequities found financing program however retained jurisdiction fashion remedial order state failed offer acceptable plan tex art general diffusion knowledge essential preservation rights liberties people shall duty legislature state make suitable provision support maintenance public schools legislature shall early practicable establish free schools throughout state shall furnish means support taxation property tex const art amended art gammel laws texas see tex art interpretive commentaries report governor committee public school education challenge chance hereinafter governor committee report tex art see also interpretive commentary governor committee report various sources revenue available school fund cataloged report adequacy texas schools prepared texas state board education hereinafter texas state bd tex art amended see interpretive commentary governor committee report texas state bd supra coons clune sugarman private wealth public education cubberley school funds apportionment state population clustered metropolitan centers governor committee report committee must still bills texas state bd supra still supra noted period median expenditure schools enrollment approximately per year period survey conducted state board education concluded texas best educational advantages offered state present may median cost per year per pupil average daily attendance texas state bd supra general laws texas reg sess pp per student general spec laws texas reg sess pp per student general spec laws texas reg sess pp still supra complete history adoption texas foundation program see still supra see also governor committee report texas research league public school finance problems texas interim report school year state aid program accounted public school funds local taxation contributed provided federal funds texas research league supra governor committee report present school districts texas texas research league supra committee found school districts levying local tax support education committee supra texas state board education survey found common independent school districts levying local property tax texas state bd supra committee supra governor committee report texas research league supra years average expenditure current operating expenses increased period capital expenditures increased per pupil governor committee report acts art tex educ code ann see generally governor committee report berke carnevale morgan white texas school finance case wrong search remedy educ family income figures based census statistics available school fund technically provides second source state money fund continued years past see text accompanying nn supra distribute uniform grants every district state fund allotted per pupil however available school fund contribution always subtracted district entitlement foundation program plays significant role educational finance today federal assistance ameliorating effect difference school budgets wealthy poor districts district rejected argument made state consider effect federal grant assessing discrimination claim state renewed contention map bexar county included record shows edgewood alamo heights among smallest districts county approximately equal size yet figures indicate edgewood student population four times alamo heights factor obviously accounts significant percentage differences two districts property values expenditures alamo heights many students educate edgewood per pupil assessed property value approximately rather expenditures therefore considerably lower figures quoted vary slightly utilized district opinion trivial differences apparently product reliance slightly different statistical data relied upon although foundation program made significantly greater contributions school districts last several years apparent alamo heights enjoyed larger gain sizable difference alamo heights edgewood grants due emphasis state allocation formula guaranteed minimum salaries teachers higher salaries guaranteed teachers years experience possessing advanced degrees therefore alamo heights greater percentage experienced personnel advanced degrees receives state support regard texas program unlike presently existence number coons clune sugarman supra dollars given districts already spend per pupil foundation formulas described ibid formula however viewed absolute terms percentage disparity two texas districts diminished substantially state aid alamo heights derived almost times much money local taxes edgewood state aid grants district lowered ratio approximately two one alamo heights little twice much money spend per pupil combined state local resources texas research league supra economic index determines county share total local fund assignment based complex formula conceived foundation program instituted see text supra frequently suggested texas researchers formula altered several respects provide accurate reflection local taxpaying ability especially urban school districts governor committee report texas research league texas public school finance majority exceptions interim report berke carnevale morgan white supra district relied findings presented affidavit submitted professor berke syracuse university sampling texas school districts demonstrated direct correlation amount district taxable property level expenditures study found partial correlation district median family income expenditures study also shows relatively districts extremes inverse correlation percentage minorities expenditures categorized equalized property values median family income revenue districts districts districts districts districts although correlations respect family income race appear exist extremes although affiant methodology questioned see goldstein interdistrict inequalities school financing critical analysis serrano priest progeny rev nn insofar correlations relevant constitutional thesis presented case may accept basic thrust see infra defense reliability affidavit see berke carnevale morgan white supra police dept chicago mosley dunn blumstein shapiro thompson graham richardson loving virginia mclaughlin florida see dunn blumstein supra cases collected therein brief appellants ibid tr oral arg reply brief appellants griffin illinois douglas california harper virginia bd elections mcdonald board election bullock carter goosby osser see cases cited text infra serrano priest cal van dusartz hatfield supp robinson cahill super milliken green rehearing granted complaint appellees purported represent class composed persons poor reside school districts low value property third amended complaint app yet appellees defined term poor reference absolute functional level impecunity see text infra see also brief appellees tr oral arg appellees proof trial focused comparative differences family incomes residents wealthy poor districts endeavored apparently show exists direct correlation personal family income educational expenditures see text infra district may relying notion relative discrimination based family wealth citing appellees statistical proof emphasized districts rich property also highest median family income poor property districts poor income oral argument brief appellees suggest description personal status residents districts spend less education critical case view texas system impermissibly discriminatory even relatively poor districts contain poor people brief appellees tr oral arg indications district opinion adopted theory district discrimination opinion repeatedly emphasizes comparative financial status districts early opinion describes appellees class composed children throughout texas live school districts low property valuations mayer city chicago williams oklahoma city gardner california roberts lavallee long district iowa draper washington eskridge washington prison board note statistical analysis school finance decisions winning battles losing wars yale appellees possible theories wealth discrimination founded assumption quality education varies directly amount funds expended therefore difference quality two schools determined simplistically looking difference expenditures matter considerable dispute among educators commentators see nn infra bullock carter mayer city chicago draper washington douglas california committee supra indeed even though local funding long significant aspect educational funding state always viewed providing acceptable education one primary functions see texas state bd supra brief appellants reply brief appellants educational financing system might hypothesized however analogy wealth discrimination cases considerably closer elementary secondary education made available state able pay tuition assessed pupil clearly defined class poor people definable terms inability pay prescribed sum absolutely precluded receiving education case present far compelling set circumstances judicial assistance case us today texas undertaken good deal provide education afford provided considers adequate base education children attempted though imperfectly ameliorate state funding local assessment program disparities local tax resources also recognized median income statistics may define precision status individual families within given district dependable showing comparative wealth discrimination also examine factors average income mode concentration poor families district cf jefferson hackney ely legislative administrative motivation constitutional law yale simon school finance decisions collective bargaining future finance systems yale supra studies also questioned existence dependable correlation district wealth measured terms assessable property collective wealth families residing district measured terms median family income ridenour ridenour serrano priest wealth kansas school finance rev argued exists kansas almost inverse correlation districts highest income per pupil low assessed value per pupil districts high assessed value per pupil low income per pupil davis taxpaying ability study relationship wealth income california counties challenge change school finance nat educational assn conf school finance note yale supra see also goldstein supra indeed precisely plaintiffs serrano priest defined class purported represent plaintiff children claim represent class consisting public school pupils california except children school district affords greatest educational opportunity school districts within california cal see also van dusartz hatfield appellees however avoided describing texas system one resulting merely discrimination districts per se since never questioned state power draw reasonable distinctions political subdivisions within borders griffin county school board prince edward county mcgowan maryland salsburg maryland harper virginia bd elections kras see justice marshall dissenting opinion post see serrano priest supra van dusartz hatfield supra robinson cahill super coons clune sugarman supra goldstein supra vieira unequal educational expenditures minority views serrano priest mo rev comment educational financing equal protection laws rev note public school financing cases interdistrict inequalities wealth discrimination rev guest oregon mitchell opinion brennan white marshall dandridge williams lingering question constitutional foundation holding shapiro dandridge applied test reviewing maryland maximum family grant provision afdc program federal district held provision unconstitutional applying stricter standard review course reversing lower distinguished shapiro properly ground case found state interference constitutionally protected freedom interstate travel refused apply test despite contemporaneous recognition goldberg kelly welfare provides means obtain essential food clothing housing medical care eisenstadt struck massachusetts statute prohibited distribution contraceptive devices finding law failed satisfy even lenient equal protection standard nevertheless dictum recited correct form equal protection analysis conclude massachusetts statute impinges upon fundamental freedoms griswold connecticut statutory classification merely rationally related valid public purpose necessary achievement compelling state interest ibid emphasis original dunn fully canvasses voting rights cases explains made clear citizen constitutionally protected right participate elections equal basis citizens jurisdiction emphasis supplied constitutional underpinnings right equal treatment voting process longer doubted even though noted harper virginia bd elections right vote state elections nowhere expressly mentioned see oregon mitchell douglas brennan white marshall jj bullock carter kramer union school district williams rhodes reynolds sims gray sanders mosley struck chicago antipicketing ordinance exempted labor picketing prohibitions ordinance held invalid equal protection clause subjecting careful scrutiny finding ordinance narrowly drawn stricter standard review appropriately applied since ordinance one affecting first amendment interests skinner applied standard close scrutiny state law permitting forced sterilization habitual criminals implicit opinion recognition right procreation among rights personal privacy protected constitution see roe wade see red lion broadcasting fcc stanley georgia lamont postmaster general since right vote per se constitutionally protected right assume appellees references right simply shorthand references protected right implicit constitutional system participate state elections equal basis qualified voters whenever state adopted elective process determining represent segment state population see supra often pursued entirely legitimate interest assuring intelligent exercise franchise katzenbach morgan devices literacy tests age restrictions right vote see ibid oregon mitchell restrictions found promote intelligent use ballot without discriminating racial ethnic minorities previously deprived equal educational opportunity upheld use compare lassiter northampton county bd elections oregon mitchell supra black douglas harlan brennan white marshall jj stewart gaston county see schoettle equal protection clause public education rev vieira supra comment tenant interest representation proposal national tenants association tex rev katzenbach morgan involved challenge registered voters new york city provision voting rights act prohibited enforcement state law calling english literacy tests voting law suspended residents puerto rico completed least six years education school country even though language instruction english upheld questioned provision act claim discriminated education obtained schools ones designated federal legislation cf meyer nebraska pierce society sisters hargrave kirk supp md vacated see schilb kuebel mcdonald board election see bell gap pennsylvania carmichael southern coal coke allied stores ohio bowers urge present system invalidated offer little guidance type school financing replace likely result rejection existing system statewide financing public education funds derived taxation property adoption expansion sales income taxes see simon supra authors private wealth public education supra suggest alternative scheme known district power equalizing simplest terms state guarantee particular rate property taxation district receive stated number dollars regardless district tax base finance subsidies poorer districts funds taken away wealthier districts higher property values collect stated amount given rate place weigh arguments district power equalizing beyond noting commentators disagreement whether feasible work indeed whether violate equal protection theory underlying appellees case president commission school finance schools people money bateman brown reflections serrano priest urban brest book review stan rev goldstein supra wise school finance equalization lawsuits model legislative response yale rev soc action silard white intrastate inequalities public education case judicial relief equal protection clause rev controversy received considerable attention among notable authorities sides following jencks inequality silberman crisis classroom office education equality educational opportunity coleman report equality educational opportunity mosteller moynihan eds guthrie kleindorfer levin stout schools inequality president commission school finance supra swanson relationship challenge change school finance nat educational assn conf school finance see results texas governor committee statewide survey goals education state governor committee report see also goldstein supra schoettle supra authorities cited supra allied stores ohio bowers brennan concurring katzenbach morgan harlan dissenting texas expended approximately billion education little billion came minimum foundation program texas research league supra tex educ code ann et seq see supra committee supra uniform statewide assessment practice texas commercial property example might assessed market value one county another governor committee report berke carnevale morgan white supra texas research league supra texas regard unlike one commentator observed disparities expenditures appear largely explained variations teacher salaries simon supra previously noted see text accompanying supra extent quality education varies expenditure per pupil debated inconclusively thoughtful students public education agree correlation point providing recognized essentials facilities academic opportunities issues greatest disagreement include effect quality education ratios higher teacher salary schedules office education supra state funding texas designed assure average one teacher every students considered favorable ratio standards whether minimum salary per year sufficient texas attract qualified teachers may debatable depending major part upon location school district appear empirical data support advantage particular ratio document existence dependable correlation level public school teachers salaries quality classroom instruction intractable problem dealing teachers salaries absence time satisfactory techniques judging ability performance relatively school systems merit plans kind result teachers salaries usually increased across board way tends reward least deserving basis deserving salaries usually raised automatically basis length service according predetermined steps extending periods president commission school finance supra recently hawaii state maintained purely educational program however state amended educational finance statute permit counties collect additional funds locally spend amounts schools rationale recent legislative choice instructive question today existing law counties precluded anything area even spend funds desire corrective legislation urgently needed order allow counties go beyond state standards provide educational facilities good people counties want willing pay allowing local communities go beyond established minimums provide people encourages best features democratic government haw sess laws act see text accompanying supra strayer haig financing education state new york thorough analysis contribution reformers prior subsequent history educational finance see coons clune sugarman supra coleman foreword strayer haig supra vii new state ice liebmann brandeis dissenting justice white suggests dissent texas system violates equal protection clause means selected effectuate interest local autonomy fail guarantee complete freedom choice every district places special emphasis statutory provision establishes maximum rate per valuation local school district may tax school maintenance tex educ code ann maintenance rate edgewood case litigated district per barely allowable rate tax rate per see supra equalized rate maintenance retirement bonds appellees claim ceiling presently bars desired tax increases edgewood texas district therefore constitutionality statutory provision us must await litigation case properly presented cf hargrave kirk supp md vacated justice marshall dissenting opinion state asserted interest local control mere sham post offered legitimate justification excuse interdistrict inequality addition asserting local control preserved possibly better served systems consideration find irrelevant purpose deciding whether system may said supported legitimate reasonable basis dissent suggests texas lack good faith may demonstrated examining extent state already maintains considerable control state told regulates minute details local public education including textbook selection teacher qualifications length school day assertion genuine local control exist texas simply supported abundantly refuted elaborate statutory division responsibilities set texas education code although policy decisionmaking supervision certain areas reserved state authority management control public elementary secondary schools squarely placed local school boards tex educ code ann among innumerable specific powers local school authorities following power eminent domain acquire land construction school facilities power hire terminate teachers personnel power designate conditions teacher employment establish certain standards educational policy power maintain order discipline including prerogative suspend students disciplinary reasons power decide whether offer kindergarten program vocational training program program special education handicapped power control assignment transfer students power operate maintain school bus program see also pervis lamarque ind school supp sd tex reversed nichols aldine ind school tex civ app local school boards also determine attendance zones location new schools closing old ones school attendance hours within limits grading promotion policies subject general guidelines recreational athletic policies myriad matters routine school administration seriously doubted texas education remains largely local function preponderating bulk decisions affecting schools made executed local level guaranteeing greatest participation directly concerned theme greater state control funding lead greater state power respect local educational programs policies recurrent one literature financing public education professor simon thoughtful analysis political ramifications case one likely consequences district decision increase centralization school finance increase extent collective bargaining teacher unions state level suggests subjects bargaining may include many items teaching loads class size curricular program choices questions student discipline selection administrative personnel matters traditionally decided heretofore local level simon supra see coleman struggle control education education social policy local control education bowers housego dyke eds conant child parent state unless local community school board control purse little real feeling community schools fact local schools howe anatomy revolution saturday review axiom american politics control power follow money hutchinson taxes tate administration taxation first step toward state control functions supported taxes irrespective whether one regards prospects detrimental whether agrees consequence inevitable certainly doubted rational basis concern part parents educators legislators never doubted propriety maintaining political subdivisions within never found equal protection clause per se rule territorial uniformity mcgowan maryland see also griffin county school board prince edward county salsburg maryland cf board education muskogee oklahoma alternative calls significant increases expenditures education whether financed increases property taxation sources tax dollars income sales taxes certain encounter political barriers time nearly every state locality suffering fiscal demands services kinds burgeoning weary taxpayers already resisting tax increases considerable reason question whether decision nullifying present state taxing systems result marked increase financial commitment education see senate select committee equal educational opportunity toward equal educational opportunity comm print berke callahan serrano priest milestone millstone school finance pub simon supra texas calculated billion additional school funds required bring schools state present level expenditure wealthiest districts amount double currently spent education texas research league supra amicus curiae brief filed behalf almost focusing practical consequences claims justification undersigned suffer severe financial stringency brief amici curiae support appellants filed montgomery county et see note supra see also authorities cited infra see goldstein supra jencks supra civil rights inequality school financing role law coons clune sugarman supra noted california example percent minority students live districts median average valuation per pupil bexar county largest district far san antonio independent school district local average amount taxable wealth per pupil median family income yet students spent dollars less per pupil north east north side independent school districts enrollment respectively berke carnevale morgan white supra see senate select committee equal educational opportunity issues school finance comm print monograph entitled inequities school finance prepared professors berke callahan office education finances school systems comparative analysis hew publication civil rights supra simon supra justice stewart concurring method financing public schools texas almost every state resulted system public education fairly described chaotic unjust follow however find system violates constitution join opinion judgment convinced course mark extraordinary departure principled adjudication equal protection clause fourteenth amendment uncharted directions departure suggested think imaginative dissenting opinion brother marshall filed today unlike provisions constitution equal protection clause confers substantive rights creates substantive liberties function equal protection clause rather simply measure validity classifications created state laws hardly law books affect people differently others basic concern equal protection clause state legislation whose purpose effect create discrete objectively identifiable classes respect legislation long settled equal protection clause offended laws invidiously discriminatory classifications wholly arbitrary capricious see rinaldi yeager settled principle constitutional law compendiously stated chief justice warren opinion mcgowan maryland following words although precise formula developed held fourteenth amendment permits wide scope discretion enacting laws affect groups citizens differently others constitutional safeguard offended classification rests grounds wholly irrelevant achievement state objective state legislatures presumed acted within constitutional power despite fact practice laws result inequality statutory discrimination set aside state facts reasonably may conceived justify equal protection clause presumption constitutional validity disappears state enacted legislation whose purpose effect create classes based upon criteria constitutional sense inherently suspect historic purpose fourteenth amendment prime example suspect classification one based upon race see brown board education mclaughlin florida classifications least settings also suspect example based upon national origin alienage indigency illegitimacy moreover quite apart equal protection clause state law impinges upon substantive right liberty created conferred constitution course presumptively invalid whether law purpose effect create classifications example law provided newspapers published people resided state five years superficially viewed invidiously discriminating identifiable class violation equal protection clause basically law invalid simply abridged freedom press numerous cases illustrate principle refusing invalidate texas system financing public schools today applies thoughtfulness understanding basic principles sketchily summarized first points texas system hardly created kind objectively identifiable classes cognizable equal protection clause second even assuming existence discernible categories classifications sense based upon constitutionally suspect criteria third texas system rest grounds wholly irrelevant achievement state objective finally texas system impinges upon substantive constitutional rights liberties follows therefore established principle reaffirmed chief justice warren opinion mcgowan maryland supra judgment district must reversed see new york times mar one notable exception statement established recent years equal protection clause confers substantive right participate equal basis qualified voters whenever state adopted electoral process determining represent segment state population see reynolds sims kramer union school district dunn blumstein constitutional right vote minor happersett wall right fifteenth amendment nineteenth amendment wholly unnecessary see bullock carter see oyama california see graham richardson see griffin illinois indigency means actual functional indigency mean comparative poverty comparative affluence see james valtierra see gomez perez weber aetna casualty surety see police dept chicago mosley free speech shapiro thompson freedom interstate travel williams rhodes freedom association skinner oklahoma liberty conditionally protected due process clause fourteenth amendment see katzenbach morgan harlan dissenting justice brennan dissenting although agree brother white texas statutory scheme devoid rational basis reason violative equal protection clause also record disagreement rather distressing assertion right may deemed fundamental purposes equal protection analysis explicitly implicitly guaranteed constitution ante brother marshall convincingly demonstrates prior cases stand proposition fundamentality large measure function right importance terms effectuation rights fact constitutionally guaranteed thus nexus specific constitutional guarantee interest draws closer nonconstitutional interest becomes fundamental degree judicial scrutiny applied interest infringed discriminatory basis must adjusted accordingly post doubt education inextricably linked right participate electoral process rights free speech association guaranteed first amendment see post classification affecting education must subjected strict judicial scrutiny since even state concedes statutory scheme us pass constitutional muster stricter standard review conclude texas scheme constitutionally invalid justice white justice douglas justice brennan join dissenting texas public schools financed combination state funding local property tax revenue federal funds concededly system yields wide disparity revenue among various districts typical year example alamo heights district total revenues per pupil edgewood district per pupil majority state concede must existence major disparities spendable funds state contends disparities invidiously discriminate children families districts edgewood texas scheme designed provide adequate education local autonomy go beyond individual school districts desire able leaves people district choice whether go beyond minimum much majority advances rationalization assuring basic education every child state permits encourages large measure participation control district schools local level disagree proposition local control local decisionmaking play important part democratic system government cf james valtierra much may left local option case quite different true texas system insuring minimum educational expenditures every district state funding extended meaningful option local districts increase expenditures improve children education extent increased funding achieve goal system arguably provide rational sensible method achieving stated aim preserving area local initiative decision difficulty texas system however provides meaningful option alamo heights like school districts almost none edgewood districts low real estate tax base latter districts matter desirous parents supporting schools greater revenues impossible use real estate property tax districts texas system utterly fails extend realistic choice parents property tax mechanism extended school districts practically legally unavailable situation may readily demonstrated local school districts texas raise portion foundation school program local fund assignment levying ad valorem taxes property located within boundaries addition districts authorized state constitution statute levy ad valorem property taxes order raise revenues support educational spending expenditure foundation school program funds edgewood alamo heights districts located bexar county texas student enrollment alamo heights edgewood market value taxable property alamo heights edgewood typical relevant year alamo heights maintenance tax rate debt service bond tax rate per assessed evaluation edgewood maintenance rate bond rate rates applied respective tax bases yielded alamo heights maintenance dollars bond dollars edgewood maintenance dollars bond dollars readily apparent variance tax bases districts results terms revenues correlate effort terms tax rate thus alamo heights tax base approximately twice size edgewood base realized approximately six times many maintenance dollars edgewood using tax rate approximately two times larger similarly alamo heights realized slightly fewer bond dollars using bond tax rate less used edgewood edgewood potential deficient compared alamo heights north east district taxable property market value approximately total taxable property approximately four times edgewood applying maintenance rate north east yielded thus superior tax base north east able apply tax rate slightly less twice applied edgewood yield times maintenance dollars similarly north east bond rate yielded four times edgewood yield rate plainly alamo heights north east apply edgewood tax rate tax base yield far greater revenues edgewood able yield applying rates base conversely edgewood apply alamo heights north east rates base yield far smaller alamo heights north east yields disparity therefore currently operative impact edgewood undeniably serious evident statistics record show applying equalized tax rate per assessed valuation alamo heights able provide approximately per pupil local revenues local fund assignment edgewood hand equalized tax rate per assessed valuation per pupil raised beyond local fund assignment previously noted alamo heights total revenues local state federal funds per pupil edgewood order equal highest yield bexar county district alamo heights required tax rate per assessed valuation edgewood required tax prohibitive rate per state law places per ceiling maintenance tax rate limit surely reached long edgewood attained equal yield edgewood thus precluded law well fact achieving yield even close districts equal protection clause permits discriminations classes requires classification bear rational relationship permissible object sought attained statute enough texas system us seeks achieve valid rational purpose maximizing local initiative means chosen state must also rationally related end sought achieved stated last term weber aetna casualty surety tests determine validity state statutes equal protection clause variously expressed requires minimum statutory classification bear rational relationship legitimate state purpose morey doud williamson lee optical gulf colorado santa fe ellis yick wo hopkins course mean local control may legitimate goal system mean state must guarantee district equal revenue state system mean majority appears believe affirming decision imposing inflexible constitutional restraints circumscribe handicap continued research experimentation vital finding even partial solutions educational problems keeping abreast conditions contrary merely mean state must fashion financing scheme provides rational basis maximization local control local control remain goal system scheme different treatment ing accorded persons placed statute different classes basis criteria wholly unrelated objective statute reed reed perhaps majority believes major disparity revenues provided permitted texas system inconsequential agree however difference magnitude appearing case sensibly ignored particularly since state considers important provide opportunities exceed minimum state educational expenditures difficulty identifying class subject alleged discrimination entitled benefits equal protection clause need go farther parents children edgewood district plaintiffs assert entitled choice alamo heights augment local expenditures schools denied choice state law group constitutes class sufficiently definite invoke protection constitution entitled protection equal protection clause voters allegedly represented counties reapportionment cases see baker carr gray sanders reynolds sims bullock carter challenge texas candidate filing fee equal protection grounds upheld noted victims alleged discrimination wrought filing fee described reference discrete precisely defined segments community typical inequities challenged equal protection clause concluded ignore reality recognize system falls unequal weight voters well candidates according economic status similarly present case blink reality ignore fact school districts students end differentially affected texas scheme respect capability supplement minimum foundation school program least law discriminates children parents live districts tax base sufficiently low make impossible provision comparable school revenues resort real property tax device state extends purpose heart texas system embodied intricate series statutory provisions make chapter texas education code tex educ code ann et seq see also tex educ code ann et et seq figures discussed plaintiffs exhibits figures school year various exhibits relied upon different attendance totals results precisely correspond gross figures quoted disparity districts rather actual figures important factor brief appellants variable assessment practices also revealed record appellants however contend factor accounts even small extent interdistrict disparities funds received state federal sources precisely equal account large differential directly attacked present case state texas appears concede choice whether go beyond minimum easier districts others districts large amounts taxable property produce revenue lower tax rate provide children expensive education brief appellants state nevertheless insists districts choice people district exercised choice providing real property tax money minimum funds guaranteed state like majority however state fails explain equal protection clause violated goal providing local government realistic choices much money expended education implemented system makes much difficult others provide additional educational funds practical legal matter impossible districts provide educational budgets districts make available real property tax revenues justice marshall justice douglas concurs dissenting today decides effect state may constitutionally vary quality education offers children accordance amount taxable wealth located school districts within reside majority decision represents abrupt departure mainstream recent state federal decisions concerning unconstitutionality state educational financing schemes dependent upon taxable local wealth unfortunately though majority holding seen retreat historic commitment equality educational opportunity unsupportable acquiescence system deprives children earliest years chance reach full potential citizens despite absence substantial justification scheme arbitrarily channels educational resources accordance fortuity amount taxable wealth within district judgment right every american equal start life far provision state service important education concerned far vital permit state discrimination grounds tenuous presented record accept notion sufficient remit appellees vagaries political process contrary majority suggestion proved singularly unsuited task providing remedy discrimination one unsatisfied hope ultimate political solution sometime indefinite future meantime countless children unjustifiably receive inferior educations may affect hearts minds way unlikely ever undone brown board education must therefore respectfully dissent acknowledges substantial interdistrict disparities school expenditures exist texas ante disparities largely attributable differences amounts money collected local property taxation ante instead closely examining seriousness disparities invidiousness texas financing scheme undertakes elaborate exploration efforts texas purportedly made close gaps districts terms levels district wealth resulting educational funding yet however praiseworthy texas equalizing efforts issue case whether texas best ameliorate worst features discriminatory scheme rather whether scheme fact unconstitutionally discriminatory face fourteenth amendment guarantee equal protection laws texas financing scheme taken whole think doubted produces discriminatory impact substantial numbers children state texas funds support public education texas derived three sources local ad valorem property taxes federal government state government enlightening consider order texas law mechanism provided local school district raising new unencumbered revenues power tax property located within boundaries time texas financing scheme effectively restricts use monies raised local property taxation support public education within boundaries district raised since taxes must approved majority voters district significance local property tax element texas financing scheme apparent fact provides funds meet cost public education texas whole yet amount revenue particular texas district raise dependent two factors tax rate amount taxable property first factor determined voters district regardless enthusiasm local voters public education second factor taxable property wealth district necessarily restricts district ability raise funds support public education thus even though voters two texas districts may willing make tax effort results districts substantially different one property rich property poor necessary effect texas local property tax short favor districts disfavor ones seriously disparate consequences texas local property tax tax considered alone amply illustrated data presented district appellees data included detailed study sample texas school districts school year conducted professor joel berke syracuse university educational finance policy institute among things study revealed richest districts examined taxable property per pupil raised local effort average per pupil whereas four poorest districts studied less taxable property per pupil able raise average per pupil effectively recognizes ante correlation amount taxable property per pupil amount local revenues per pupil holds true districts richest poorest districts clear moreover disparity revenues dismissed result lack local effort lower tax rates districts contrary data presented indicate poorest districts tend highest tax rates richest districts tend lowest tax rates yet despite apparent extra effort made poorest districts unable even begin match richest districts terms production local revenues example richest districts studied professor berke able produce per pupil equalized tax rate equalized valuation four poorest districts studied equalized rate equalized valuation able produce per pupil without system educational funding presents serious picture widely varying treatment texas school districts thereby texas schoolchildren terms amount funds available public education funding variations corrected aspects texas financing scheme federal government provides funds sufficient cover total cost public education texas furthermore federal funds distributed texas solely basis appellants contend used way ameliorate significantly widely varying consequences texas school districts schoolchildren local property tax element state financing scheme state funds provide remaining monies spent public education texas technically distributed two programs first available school fund provision made texas constitution available school fund composed revenues obtained number sources including receipts state ad valorem property tax monies collected occupation tax annual contributions legislature general revenues revenues derived permanent school fund school year available school fund contained texas constitution requires money distributed annually per capita basis local school districts obviously flat grant alone eradicate funding differentials attributable local property tax moreover today available school fund reality simply one facet second state financing program minimum foundation school program since district annual share fund deducted sum district entitled foundation program minimum foundation school program provides funds three specific purposes professional salaries current operating expenses transportation expenses state pays overall basis approximately cost program remaining distributed among local school districts local fund assignment district share local fund assignment determined complex economic index designed allocate larger share costs districts districts district pays share revenues derived local property taxation stated purpose minimum foundation school program provide certain basic funding local texas school district time program apparently intended improve degree financial position districts relative districts since use economic index effort made charge disproportionate share costs program rich districts bears noting however substantial criticism leveled practical effectiveness economic index system local cost allocation theory index designed ascertain relative ability district contribute local fund assignment local property taxes yet index developed simply basis district taxable wealth also takes account district relative income manufacturing mining agriculture payrolls scholastic population difficult discern precisely latter factors predictive district relative ability raise revenues local property taxes thus one consultants originally participated development texas economic index adopted told governor committee public school education economic index approach evaluating local ability offers little better measure sheer chance much moreover even putting aside criticisms economic index device achieving meaningful district wealth equalization cost allocation poor districts still necessarily receive state aid districts standards currently determine amount received foundation school program particular district favor districts thus focusing edgewood independent alamo heights school districts majority uses purposes illustration find alamo heights raised per pupil equalized tax rate per valuation received per pupil foundation school program edgewood raised per pupil equalized tax rate per valuation received per pupil foundation school program recent data indicate school year alamo heights received per pupil program edgewood received per pupil hardly suggest wealth gap districts narrowed state program contrary whereas alamo heights received per pupil edgewood state aid gap widened difference per pupil data character prompted district observe current state aid system tends subsidize rich expense poor rather way around supp even appellants go venture minimum foundation school program mildly equalizing effect despite facts majority continually emphasizes much state aid recent years given texas school districts fails emphasize cruel irony much state aid given texas school districts top already substantial local property tax revenues view apparent state aid provided foundation school program fails compensate large funding variations attributable local property tax element texas financing scheme stark differences treatment texas school districts school children inherent texas financing scheme absolute amount state aid provided particular school district crux case moreover escaping conclusion local property tax dependent upon taxable district property wealth essential feature texas scheme financing public education appellants deny disparities educational funding caused variations taxable district property wealth contend however whatever differences spending among texas districts discriminatory consequences children disadvantaged districts recognize stake case quality public education provided texas children districts live appellants reject suggestion quality education particular district determined money beyond minimal level funding believe assured every texas district minimum foundation school program view simply denial equal educational opportunity texas schoolchildren result widely varying spending power provided districts current financing scheme view though even unadorned restatement contention sufficient reveal absurdity authorities concerned educational quality doubt disagree significance variations spending indeed conflicting expert testimony presented district case concerning effect spending variations educational achievement sit however resolve disputes educational theory enforce constitution inescapable fact one district funds available per pupil another district former greater choice educational planning latter regard believe question discrimination educational quality must deemed objective one looks state provides children children able receive child forced attend underfunded school poorer physical facilities less experienced teachers larger classes narrower range courses school substantially funds thus greater choice educational planning may nevertheless excel credit child state cf missouri ex rel gaines canada indeed ever measure child opportunities lost talents wasted want broader enriched education discrimination opportunity learn afforded child must standard hence even recognized duty tear barriers racial segregation public education acknowledged inequality educational facilities provided students may discriminatory state action contemplated equal protection clause basis striking segregation law school sweatt painter stated find substantial equality educational opportunities offered white negro law students state terms number faculty variety courses opportunity specialization size student body scope library availability law review similar activities law school superior difficult believe one free choice law schools consider question close consequences terms objective educational input variations district funding caused texas financing scheme apparent data introduced district example teachers alamo heights school district college degrees contrast school year teachers college degrees property poor edgewood independent school district also approximately teachers edgewood district emergency teaching permits whereas teachers alamo heights permits undoubtedly reflection fact top edgewood teacher salary scale approximately alamo heights surprisingly ratio varies significantly two districts words might expected difference funds available districts results difference educational inputs available child public education texas constitutional purposes believe situation directly attributable texas financing scheme raises grave question discrimination provision public education cf gaston county least view substantial interdistrict disparities funding resulting educational inputs shown appellees exist texas financing scheme burden proving disparities fact affect quality children education must fall upon appellants cf hobson hansen supp dc yet appellants made effort district demonstrate educational quality affected variations funding resulting inputs argued relationship ambiguous hardly sufficient overcome appellees prima facie showing discrimination schoolchildren texas respect objective educational opportunity accept appellants apparent suggestion texas minimum foundation school program effectively eradicates discriminatory effects otherwise resulting local property tax element texas financing scheme appellants assert despite imperfections program guarantee adequate education every child majority considering constitutionality texas financing scheme seems find substantial merit contention tells us foundation program designed provide adequate minimum educational offering every school state ante program assur es basic education every child ante fail understand constitutional problems inherent financing scheme eased foundation program indeed precise thrust appellants remarks altogether clear suggestion may state aid received via foundation program sufficiently improves position districts districts terms educational funds eliminate claim interdistrict discrimination available educational resources might otherwise exist educational funding dependent solely upon local property taxation certainly recognized demand precise equality treatment normally unrealistic thus minor differences inherent practical context usually make substantial equal protection claim see mayer city chicago draper washington bain peanut pinson already seen hardly presented de minimis claim discrimination resulting play necessary functioning system contrary clear foundation program utterly fails ameliorate seriously discriminatory effects local property tax alternatively appellants majority may believe equal protection clause offended substantially unequal state treatment persons similarly situated long state provides everyone unspecified amount education evidently enough basis novel view far clear course true constitution require precise equality treatment persons justice frankfurter explained equality equal protection clause aims disembodied equality fourteenth amendment enjoins equal protection laws laws abstract propositions constitution require things different fact opinion treated law though tigner texas even equal protection clause encompassed theory constitutional adequacy discrimination provision educational opportunity certainly seem poor candidate application neither majority appellants inform us judicially manageable standards derived determining much education enough excuse constitutional discrimination one think majority heed fervent affirmation judicial undertaking complex task determining large level education constitutionally sufficient indeed majority apparent reliance upon adequacy educational opportunity assured texas minimum foundation school program seems fundamentally inconsistent recognition educational authorities unable agree upon makes educational quality see ante majority stresses authorities uncertain impact various levels funding educational quality fail see finds expertise divine particular levels funding provided program assure adequate educational opportunity much less education substantially equivalent quality higher level funding might provide certainly appellants mere assertion adequacy education guaranteed minimum foundation school program obscure constitutional implications discrimination educational funding objective educational inputs resulting local property tax particularly since appellees offered substantial uncontroverted evidence district impugning adequacy education guaranteed foundation program view inequality notion gross inadequacy educational opportunity raises question denial equal protection laws find approach issue unintelligible without directing principle appellees made substantial showing wide variations educational funding resulting educational opportunity afforded schoolchildren texas discrimination large measure attributable significant disparities taxable wealth local texas school districts sufficient showing raise substantial question discriminatory state action violation equal protection clause despite evident discriminatory effect texas financing scheme appellants majority raise substantial questions concerning precise character disadvantaged class case district concluded texas financing scheme draws distinction groups citizens depending upon wealth district live thus creates disadvantaged class composed persons living districts see see also light data introduced district conclusion schoolchildren districts constitute sufficient class purposes seems indisputable appellants contend however constitutional terms case involves nothing discrimination local school districts individuals since face state scheme concerned provision funds local districts result texas financing scheme appellants suggest merely local districts available revenues education others less respect point broad discretion drawing reasonable distinctions political subdivisions see griffin county school board prince edward county mcgowan maryland salsburg maryland consistently recognized fact discrimination individual interests constitutional guarantee equal protection laws inapplicable simply discrimination based upon group characteristic geographic location see gordon lance reynolds sims gray sanders texas chosen provide free public education citizens embodied decision constitution yet established public education citizens state direct consequence variations local property wealth endemic texas financing scheme provided texas schoolchildren substantially less resources education others thus face texas scheme may merely discriminate local districts impact discrimination falls directly upon children whose educational opportunity dependent upon happen live consequently district correctly concluded texas financing scheme discriminates constitutional perspective schoolchildren basis amount taxable property located within local districts brother stewart view however description discrimination inherent case apparently sufficient fails define kind objectively identifiable classes evidently perceives necessary claim cognizable equal protection clause ante asserts also view majority unable cite able find portion opinion remotely suggests objectively identifiable definable class case event means suggest essential predicate equal protection analysis precise identification particular individuals compose disadvantaged class fail find source derives requirement certainly precision analytically necessary long basis discrimination clearly identified possible test state purpose discrimination whatever standard equal protection analysis employed clear decision last term bullock carter striking texas primary filing fees violative equal protection found impediment equal protection analysis fact members disadvantaged class readily identified recognized system tended deny voters opportunity vote candidate choosing time gives affluent power place ballot names names persons favor also recognized disparity voting power based wealth described reference discrete precisely defined segments community typical inequities challenged equal protection clause ibid nevertheless concluded ignore reality recognize system falls unequal weight voters according economic status ibid nature classification bullock clear although precise membership disadvantaged class enough bullock purposes equal protection analysis enough may though brother stewart fact demanding precise identification membership disadvantaged class purposes equal protection analysis merely unable discern sufficient clarity nature discrimination charged case indeed displays uncertainty exact nature discrimination resulting disadvantaged class alleged exist case see ante course essential equal protection analysis firm grasp upon nature discrimination issue fact absence clear articulable understanding nature alleged discrimination particular instance may well suggest absence real discrimination hardly case number theories discrimination sure considered course litigation thus district found texas poor minority group members tend live districts suggesting discrimination basis personal wealth race see goes great lengths discredit data upon district relied thereby conclusion poor people live districts although serious doubts correctness analysis rejecting data submitted need join issue factual disputes believe sufficient overarching form discrimination case schoolchildren texas basis taxable property wealth districts happen live understand precise nature discrimination parameters disadvantaged class sufficient consider constitutional principle appellees contend controlling context educational financing complaint appellees asserted constitution permit local district wealth determinative educational opportunity simply another way saying district concluded consistent guarantee equal protection laws quality public education may function wealth wealth state whole principle children district excessively advantaged district taxable property per pupil average amount taxable property per pupil considering state whole contrast children district disadvantaged district less taxable property per pupil state average majority attempts disparage definition disadvantaged class product artificially defined level district wealth ante clearly case definition unmistakably dictated constitutional principle appellees argued throughout course litigation believe clearer definition either disadvantaged class texas schoolchildren allegedly unconstitutional discrimination suffered members class present texas financing scheme asked much less needed whether discrimination schoolchildren districts inherent texas financing scheme violative equal protection clause question must turn ii avoid texas financing scheme struck interdistrict variations taxable property wealth district determined insufficient appellants show merely state scheme rationally related legitimate state purpose rather discrimination inherent scheme shown necessary promote compelling state interest order withstand constitutional scrutiny basis determination twofold first financing scheme divides citizens wealth basis classification district viewed highly suspect second discriminatory scheme directly affects considered fundamental interest namely education repeatedly held state discrimination either adversely affects fundamental interest see dunn blumstein shapiro thompson based distinction suspect character see graham richardson mclaughlin florida must carefully scrutinized ensure scheme necessary promote substantial legitimate state interest see dunn blumstein supra shapiro thompson supra majority today concludes however texas scheme subject strict standard review equal protection clause instead view texas scheme must tested nothing lenient standard rationality traditionally applied discriminatory state action context economic commercial matters see mcgowan maryland morey doud royster guano virginia lindsley natural carbonic gas avoids telling task searching substantial state interest texas financing scheme variations taxable district property wealth necessary accept emasculation equal protection clause context case begin must voice disagreement rigidified approach equal protection analysis see dandridge williams dissenting opinion richardson belcher dissenting opinion apparently seeks establish today equal protection cases fall one two neat categories dictate appropriate standard review strict scrutiny mere rationality decisions field equal protection defy easy categorization principled reading done reveals applied spectrum standards reviewing discrimination allegedly violative equal protection clause spectrum clearly comprehends variations degree care scrutinize particular classifications depending believe constitutional societal importance interest adversely affected recognized invidiousness basis upon particular classification drawn find fact many recent decisions embody sort reasoned approach equal protection analysis previously argued approach concentration placed upon character classification question relative importance individuals class discriminated governmental benefits receive asserted state interests support classification dandridge williams supra dissenting opinion therefore accept majority labored efforts demonstrate fundamental interests call strict scrutiny challenged classification encompass established rights somehow bound recognize text constitution sure interests deemed fundamental purposes equal protection analysis constitutionally protected rights thus discrimination guaranteed right freedom speech called strict judicial scrutiny see police dept chicago mosley every citizen right travel interstate although nowhere expressly mentioned constitution long recognized implicit premises underlying document right conceived beginning necessary concomitant stronger union constitution created guest see also crandall nevada wall consequently required state classification affecting constitutionally protected right travel must shown necessary promote compelling governmental interest shapiro thompson suggest answer whether interest fundamental purposes equal protection analysis always determined whether interest right explicitly implicitly guaranteed constitution ante like know constitution guarantees right procreate skinner oklahoma right vote state elections reynolds sims right appeal criminal conviction griffin illinois instances due importance interests stake displayed strong concern existence discriminatory state treatment never said indicated interests independently enjoy constitutional protection thus buck bell refused recognize substantive constitutional guarantee right procreate nevertheless skinner oklahoma supra without impugning continuing validity buck bell held strict scrutiny state discrimination affecting procreation essential arriage procreation fundamental existence survival race recently roe wade importance procreation indeed explained basis intimate relationship constitutional right privacy recognized yet limited stature thereby accorded right procreate evident fact time reaffirmed initial decision buck bell see roe wade supra similarly right vote state elections recognized fundamental political right concluded early preservative rights yick wo hopkins see reynolds sims supra reason made clear citizen constitutionally protected right participate elections equal basis citizens jurisdiction dunn blumstein emphasis added final source protection inequality provision state franchise course equal protection clause yet clear whatever degree importance attached state electoral process unequally distributed right vote state elections never accorded stature independent constitutional guarantee see oregon mitchell kramer union school district harper virginia bd elections finally likewise true state required federal constitution provide appellate courts right appellate review griffin illinois nevertheless discrimination adversely affecting access appellate process state chosen provide considered require close judicial scrutiny see griffin illinois supra douglas california majority course correct suggests process determining interests fundamental difficult one think problem insurmountable certainly accept view process need necessarily degenerate unprincipled subjective various interests must involve creating substantive constitutional rights name guaranteeing equal protection laws ante although fundamental interests constitutionally guaranteed determination interests fundamental firmly rooted text constitution task every case determine extent constitutionally guaranteed rights dependent interests mentioned constitution nexus specific constitutional guarantee nonconstitutional interest draws closer nonconstitutional interest becomes fundamental degree judicial scrutiny applied interest infringed discriminatory basis must adjusted accordingly thus denied interests procreation exercise state franchise access criminal appellate processes fully guaranteed citizen constitution interests nonetheless afforded special judicial consideration face discrimination extent interrelated constitutional guarantees procreation understood important interaction established constitutional right privacy exercise state franchise closely tied basic civil political rights inherent first amendment access criminal appellate processes enhances integrity range rights implicit fourteenth amendment guarantee due process law closely protect related interests state discrimination ultimately ensure integrity constitutional guarantee real lesson must taken previous decisions involving interests deemed fundamental effect interaction individual interests established constitutional guarantees upon degree care exercised reviewing state discrimination affecting interests amply illustrated decision last term eisenstadt baird baird struck violative equal protection clause state statute denied unmarried persons access contraceptive devices basis married persons purported test statute traditional standard whether rational basis discrimination effected context commercial regulation indicated equal protection clause offended classification rests grounds wholly irrelevant achievement state objective see mcgowan maryland kotch board river port pilot lenient standard weighted state favor fact statutory discrimination set aside state facts reasonably may conceived justify mcgowan maryland supra baird clearly adhere highly tolerant standards traditional rational review although conceivable state interests intended advanced statute deterrence premarital sexual activity regulation dissemination potentially dangerous articles prepared accept interests face instead proceeded test substantiality independent analysis see close scrutiny state interests hardly characteristic deference shown state classifications context economic interests see goesaert cleary kotch board river port pilot supra yet think action entirely appropriate access use contraceptives bears close relationship individual constitutional right privacy see white concurring result see also roe wade similar process analysis respect invidiousness basis particular classification drawn also influenced appropriate degree scrutiny accorded particular case highly suspect character classifications based race nationality alienage well established reasons classifications call close judicial scrutiny manifold certain racial ethnic groups frequently recognized discrete insular minorities relatively powerless protect interests political process see graham richardson cf carolene products moreover race nationality alienage circumstances irrelevant constitutionally acceptable legislative purpose hirabayashi mclaughlin florida instead lines drawn bases frequently reflection historic prejudices rather legislative rationality may considerations make particular judicial solicitude face discrimination basis race nationality alienage coalesce least degree forms discrimination nevertheless considerations undoubtedly influenced care scrutinized forms discrimination james strange held unconstitutional state statute provided recoupment indigent convicts legal defense fees paid state found statute impermissibly differentiated indigent criminals debt state civil judgment debtors since criminal debtors denied various protective exemptions afforded civil judgment debtors suggested reviewing statute equal protection clause merely applying traditional requirement rationality line drawn different types debtors yet proceeded scrutinize statute less traditional deference restraint thus recognized state recoupment statutes may betoken legitimate state interests recovering expenses discouraging fraud nevertheless justice powell speaking concluded interests thwarted requiring even treatment indigent criminal defendants classes debtors statute repeatedly makes reference state recoupment laws notwithstanding state interests may serve need blight discriminatory fashion hopes indigents similarly reed reed striking state statute gave men preference women persons equal entitlement apply assignment administrator particular estate resorted stringent standard equal protection review employed cases involving commercial matters indicated testing claim sex discrimination nothing whether line drawn bore rational relationship state objective recognized legitimate effort reduce work probate courts choosing competing applications letters administration accepting purpose idaho thought classification sustainable basis legislature might reasonably concluded rule men experience women business matters relevant administration estate idaho however concluded give mandatory preference members either sex members merely accomplish elimination hearings merits make kind arbitrary legislative choice forbidden equal protection clause fourteenth amendment words unwilling consider theoretical unsubstantiated basis distinction however reasonable might appear sufficient sustain statute discriminating basis sex james reed understood instances particularly invidious character classification caused pause scrutinize traditional care rationality state discrimination discrimination basis past criminality basis sex posed specter forms discrimination implicitly recognized deep social legal roots without necessarily basis actual differences still sensitivity invidiousness basis discrimination perhaps apparent decisions protecting interests children born wedlock discriminatory state action see weber aetna casualty surety levy louisiana weber struck portion state workmen compensation statute relegated unacknowledged illegitimate children deceased lesser status respect benefits occupied legitimate children deceased acknowledged true nature inquiry cases legitimate state interest classification promote fundamental personal rights might classification endanger embarking upon determination relative substantiality state justifications classification rejected contention classifications reflected might presumed deceased preference beneficiaries compelling dependency deceased prerequisite anyone recovery ibid likewise deemed relationship state interest encouraging legitimate family relationships burden placed illegitimates tenuous permit classification stand ibid clear insight basis action provided conclusion mposing disabilities illegitimate child contrary basic concept system legal burdens bear relationship individual responsibility wrongdoing obviously child responsible birth penalizing illegitimate child ineffectual well unjust way deterring parent courts powerless prevent social opprobrium suffered hapless children equal protection clause enable us strike discriminatory laws relating status birth summary seems inescapably clear consistently adjusted care review state discrimination light constitutional significance interests affected invidiousness particular classification context economic interests find discriminatory state action almost always sustained interests generally far removed constitutional guarantees moreover extremes gone dreaming rational bases state regulation area may many instances ascribed healthy revulsion earlier excesses using constitution protect interests enough power protect legislative halls dandridge williams dissenting opinion situation differs markedly discrimination important individual interests constitutional implications particularly disadvantaged powerless classes involved majority suggests however variable standard review give appearance superlegislature ante agree approach seems part guarantees constitution historic experiences oppression discrimination discrete powerless minorities underlie document truth open criticism raised majority long continues present course effectively selecting private cases afforded special consideration without acknowledging true basis action opinions reed james seem drawn efforts shield rather reveal true basis decisions obfuscated action may appropriate political body legislature appropriate open debate bases action essential rationality consistency decisionmaking process way avoid label legislature ensure integrity judicial process nevertheless majority today attempts force case category purposes equal protection analysis decisions involving discrimination affecting commercial interests majority singles case analytic treatment odds seems clear trend recent decisions thereby ignores constitutional importance interest stake invidiousness particular classification factors call far lenient scrutiny texas financing scheme majority pursues yet discrimination inherent texas scheme scrutinized care demanded interest classification present case unconstitutionality scheme unmistakable since suggests interests guaranteed constitution fundamental purposes equal protection analysis since rejects contention public education fundamental follows concludes public education constitutionally guaranteed true never deemed provision free public education required constitution indeed occasion suggested education privilege bestowed state citizens see missouri ex rel gaines canada nevertheless fundamental importance education amply indicated prior decisions unique status accorded public education society close relationship education basic constitutional values special concern educational process country matter common knowledge undoubtedly famous statement subject contained brown board education today education perhaps important function state local governments compulsory school attendance laws great expenditures education demonstrate recognition importance education democratic society required performance basic public responsibilities even service armed forces foundation good citizenship today principal instrument awakening child cultural values preparing later professional training helping adjust normally environment education directly affects ability child exercise first amendment rights source receiver information ideas whatever interests may pursue life decision sweezy new hampshire speaks right students inquire study evaluate gain new maturity understanding thus casually described classroom marketplace ideas keyishian board regents opportunity formal education may necessarily essential determinant individual ability enjoy throughout life rights free speech association guaranteed first amendment opportunity may enhance individual enjoyment rights also following school attendance thus final analysis pivotal position education success american society essential role opening individual central experiences culture lend importance undeniable particular importance relationship education political process americans regard public schools vital civic institution preservation democratic system government abington school dist schempp brennan concurring education serves essential function instilling young understanding appreciation principles operation governmental processes education may instill interest provide tools necessary political discourse debate indeed frequently suggested education dominant factor affecting political consciousness participation system ompetition ideas governmental policies core electoral process first amendment freedoms williams rhodes immediate direct concern must demonstrated effect education exercise franchise electorate right vote federal elections conferred art seventeenth amendment constitution access state franchise afforded special protection preservative basic civil political rights reynolds sims data presidential election clearly demonstrate direct relationship participation electoral process level educational attainment recognized gaston county quality education offered may influence child decision enter remain school sort intimate relationship particular personal interest specific constitutional guarantees heretofore caused attach special significance purposes equal protection analysis individual interests procreation exercise state franchise ultimately disputing little majority seeks refuge fact never presumed possess either ability authority guarantee citizenry effective speech informed electoral choice ante serves blur fact stake due respect issue neither provision effective speech informed vote appellees seek best education texas might provide seek however end state discrimination resulting unequal distribution taxable district property wealth directly impairs ability districts provide educational opportunity districts provide even substantially less tax effort issue words one discrimination affects quality education texas chosen provide children precise question importance attach education purposes equal protection analysis discrimination held brown board education opportunity education state undertaken provide right must made available equal terms factors considered including relationship education social political interests enshrined within constitution compel us recognize fundamentality education scrutinize appropriate care bases state discrimination affecting equality educational opportunity texas school districts conclusion strengthened consider character classification case district found discriminating texas schoolchildren basis amount taxable property wealth located district live texas financing scheme created form wealth discrimination frequently recognized discrimination basis wealth may create classification suspect character thereby call exacting judicial scrutiny see griffin illinois douglas california mcdonald board election chicago majority however considers wealth classification case lack certain essential characteristics contends common instances wealth discrimination heretofore recognized told every prior case involving wealth classification members disadvantaged class shared two distinguishing characteristics impecunity completely unable pay desired benefit consequence sustained absolute deprivation meaningful opportunity enjoy benefit ante agree distinctions may sufficient explain decisions williams illinois tate short even bullock carter fact consistent decisions harper virginia bd elections griffin illinois supra douglas california supra harper struck violative equal protection clause annual virginia poll tax payment persons age prerequisite voting virginia elections part relied fact poll tax interfered fundamental interest exercise state franchise addition though emphasized ines drawn basis wealth property traditionally disfavored first part theory announced majority disadvantaged class harper terms wealth analysis consisted poor afford necessary vote harper see way view equal protection clause bars system excludes franchise unable pay fee vote fail pay ibid emphasis added far concerned degree discrimination irrelevant ibid thus struck poll tax toto order merely poor pay tax exempted complete impecunity clearly determinative limits disadvantaged class essential make equal protection claim similarly griffin douglas refute majority contention past required absolute deprivation subjecting wealth classifications strict scrutiny characterizes griffin case concerned simply denial transcript adequate substitute therefore douglas involving denial counsel cases question fact whether state grants appellate review way discriminates convicted defendants account poverty griffin illinois supra emphasis added regard concluded inability purchase transcript denies poor adequate appellate review accorded money enough pay costs advance ibid emphasis added type appeal person afforded hinges upon whether pay assistance counsel douglas california supra emphasis added right appeal absolutely denied poor pay cost transcript counsel appeal substantially less meaningful right poor rich terms found denial equal protection terms clearly encompassed degrees discrimination basis wealth amount outright denial affected right interest say form wealth classification case differ significantly recognized previous decisions prior cases dealt essentially discrimination basis personal wealth contrast children disadvantaged texas school districts discriminated necessarily personal wealth wealth families taxable property wealth residents district happen live appropriate question whether degree judicial solicitude scrutiny previously afforded wealth classifications warranted points ante previous decision deemed presence wealth classification sufficient basis call forth rigorous judicial scrutiny allegedly discriminatory state action compare harper virginia bd elections supra james valtierra wealth classifications alone necessarily considered bear high degree suspectness classifications based instance race alienage may explainable number grounds poor may seen politically powerless certain discrete insular minority groups personal poverty may entail much social stigma historically attached certain racial ethnic groups personal poverty permanent disability shackles may escaped perhaps importantly though personal wealth may necessarily share general irrelevance basis legislative action race nationality recognized poor frequently legally disadvantaged group ignored social legislation must frequently take cognizance economic status citizens thus generally gauged invidiousness wealth classifications awareness importance interests affected relevance personal wealth interests see harper virginia bd elections supra evaluated considerations mind seems discrimination basis group wealth case likewise calls careful judicial scrutiny first must recognized local district wealth may serve interests bears relationship whatsoever interest texas schoolchildren educational opportunity afforded state texas given importance interest must particularly sensitive invidious characteristics form discrimination clearly intended serve opposed distinct state interest discrimination basis group wealth may sure reflect social stigma frequently attached personal poverty nevertheless insofar group wealth discrimination involves wealth disadvantaged individual significant control represents fact serious basis discrimination personal wealth discrimination reflection individual characteristics abilities thus particularly context disadvantaged class composed children previously treated discrimination basis individual control constitutionally disfavored cf weber aetna casualty surety levy louisiana disability disadvantaged class case extends well political processes upon ordinarily rely adequate protection promotion interests legislative reallocation state property wealth must sought face inevitable opposition significantly advantaged districts strong vested interest preservation status quo problem completely dissimilar faced underrepresented districts prior intervention process reapportionment see baker carr ignore extent contrast prior decisions state responsible wealth discrimination instance griffin douglas williams tate prior cases dealt discrimination basis indigency attributable operation private sector simple de facto wealth discrimination means financing public education texas selected specified state state created local school districts tied educational funding local property tax thereby local district wealth time governmentally imposed land use controls undoubtedly encouraged rigidified natural trends allocation particular areas residential commercial use thus determined district amount taxable property wealth short case contrast previous wealth discrimination decisions seen unusual extent governmental action cause wealth classification final analysis invidious characteristics group wealth classification present case merely serve emphasize need careful judicial scrutiny state justifications resulting interdistrict discrimination educational opportunity afforded schoolchildren texas nature inquiry justification state discrimination essentially equal protection cases must consider substantiality state interests sought served must scrutinize reasonableness means state sought advance interest see police dept chicago mosley differences application test view function constitutional importance interests stake invidiousness particular classification terms asserted state interests indicated require instance compelling shapiro thompson substantial important dunn blumstein state interest justify discrimination affecting individual interests constitutional significance whatever differences descriptions character state interest necessary sustain discrimination basic believe concern legitimacy reality asserted state interests thus interests constitutional importance stake stand ready credit state classification conceivable legitimate purpose demands clear showing legitimate state interests classification fact intended serve beyond question adequacy state purpose classification traditionally become increasingly sensitive means state chooses act action affects directly interests constitutional significance see robel shelton tucker thus less restrictive alternatives analysis firmly established equal protection jurisprudence see dunn blumstein supra kramer union school district seems range choice willing accord state selecting means act care scrutinize effectiveness means state selects also must reflect constitutional importance interest affected invidiousness particular classification nature interest classification dictate close judicial scrutiny purposes texas seeks serve present educational financing scheme means selected serve purpose justification offered appellants sustain discrimination educational opportunity caused texas financing scheme local educational control presented justification district concluded ot defendants unable demonstrate compelling state interests classifications based upon wealth fail even establish reasonable basis classifications must agree conclusion outset question local control public education abstract matter constitutes substantial state interest observed last term irect control decisions vitally affecting education one children need strongly felt society wright council city emporia see also burger dissenting state interest local educational control certainly includes questions educational funding deep roots inherent benefits community support public education consequently true state dedication local control present think substantial justification weigh simply interdistrict variations treatment state schoolchildren need decide might ultimately strike balance confronted situation state sincere concern local control inevitably produced educational inequality record apparent state purported concern local control offered primarily excuse rather justification interdistrict inequality texas statewide laws regulate fact minute details local public education example state prescribes required courses textbooks must submitted state approval approved textbooks may used state established qualifications necessary teaching texas public schools procedures obtaining certification state even legislated length school day texas courts said result acts legislature school system mere local concern statewide school district local territorial limits integral part vast school system coextensive confines state texas treadaway whitney independent school district tex civ app moreover even accept texas general dedication local control educational matters difficult find evidence dedication respect fiscal matters ignores reality suggest ante local property tax element texas financing scheme reflects conscious legislative effort provide school districts local fiscal control texas system truly dedicated local fiscal control one expect quality educational opportunity provided district vary decision voters district level sacrifice wish make public education fact texas scheme produces precisely opposite result local school districts choose best education state imposing highest tax rate instead quality educational opportunity offered particular district largely determined amount taxable property located district factor local voters exercise control study introduced district showed direct inverse relationship equalized taxable district property wealth district tax effort result districts making highest tax effort obtained lowest yield implications situation local choice illustrated comparing edgewood alamo heights school districts edgewood contributing share local fund assignment raised per pupil local property tax whereas alamo heights able raise per pupil since funds received minimum foundation school program used minimum professional salaries transportation costs operating expenses hard see lack local choice respect higher teacher salaries attract better teachers physical facilities library books facilities special courses participation special state federal matching funds programs district edgewood forced labor fact difference taxable local property wealth edgewood tax almost nine times heavily obtain yield alamo heights present local control myth many local school districts texas one district observed rather reposing school district economic power fix level per pupil expenditure state arranged structure guarantee districts spend low high taxes others spend high low taxes van dusartz hatfield supp judgment substantial degree scrutiny operation texas financing scheme reveals state selected means wholly inappropriate secure purported interest assuring school districts local fiscal control time appellees pointed variety alternative financing schemes may serve state purported interest local control well better present scheme without current impairment educational opportunity vast numbers texas schoolchildren see need however explore practical constitutional merits suggested alternatives time whatever positive negative features experience present financing scheme impugns suggestion constitutes serious effort provide local fiscal control sake local education control sustain interdistrict discrimination educational opportunity afforded texas school children require state present something mere sham us iii conclusion essential recognize end wide variations taxable district property wealth inherent texas financing scheme entail none untoward consequences suggested appellants first affirmance district decisions hardly sound death knell local control education mean neither centralized decisionmaking federal intervention operation public schools clearly suit nothing local decisionmaking respect educational policy even educational spending involves narrow aspect local control namely local control raising educational funds fact striking interdistrict disparities taxable local wealth district took course likely make true local control educational decisionmaking reality texas school districts district decision even necessarily eliminate local control educational funding district struck nothing continued interdistrict wealth discrimination inherent present property tax centralized decentralized plans educational funding involving interdistrict discrimination put forward choice among alternatives remain state federal courts regard evident degree federal intervention matters local concern substantially less context previous decisions asked effectively impose particular scheme upon guise equal protection clause see dandridge williams cf richardson belcher still told case requires us condemn state judgment conferring political subdivisions power tax local property supply revenues local interest ante yet one course entire litigation ever questioned constitutionality local property tax device raising educational funds district decision restricts power state make educational funding dependent exclusively upon local property taxation long exists interdistrict disparities taxable property wealth hardly eliminates local property tax source educational funding means providing local fiscal control seeks solace action today possibility legislative reform suggestions legislative redress experimentation doubtless great comfort schoolchildren texas disadvantaged districts considering vested interests wealthy school districts preservation status quo worth little possibility legislative action events answer duty constitution eliminate unjustified state discrimination case presented instance discrimination particularly invidious form individual interest large constitutional practical importance support demonstrated discrimination provision educational opportunity state offered justification analysis takes best ephemeral character thus believe wide disparities taxable district property wealth inherent local property tax element texas financing scheme render scheme violative equal protection clause therefore affirm judgment district appendices immediately following pages appendix opinion marshall dissenting revenues texas school districts categorized equalized property values source funds districts districts districts districts districts categories total revenues per pupil market value federal taxable property revenues columns per pupil per pupil districts districts districts districts districts based table affidavit joel berke app prepared basis sample selected texas school districts data school year appendix ii opinion marshall dissenting texas school districts categorized equalized property values equalized tax rates yield rates districts districts districts districts districts based table ii affidavit joel berke app prepared basis sample selected texas school districts data school year appendix iii opinion marshall dissenting selected districts per cent per cent high low professional teachers total staff market valuation salaries per college masters emergency per pupil pupil degrees degrees permits alamo heights north east san antonio north side harlandale edgewood selected districts high low professional market valuation ratios personnel per pupil per pupils alamo heights north east san antonio north side harlandale edgewood based table xi affidavit joel berke app prepared basis sample six selected school districts located bexar county texas data school year appendix iv opinion marshall dissenting bexar county texas school districts ranked equalized property value tax rate required generate highest yield districts alamo heights judson east central north east somerset san antonio north side south west south side harlandale south san antonio edgewood based table ix affidavit joel berke app prepared basis school districts located bexar county texas data school year see van dusartz hatfield supp milliken green rehearing granted serrano priest cal robinson cahill super super hollins shofstall civil super maricopa county july see also sweetwater county planning com organization school districts hinkle wyo juris relinquished wyo district case postponed decision two years hope texas legislature remedy gross disparities treatment inherent texas financing scheme legislature failed act regular session district apparently recognizing lack hope legislative reform rendered decision see texas research league public school finance problems texas interim report strong vested interest districts existing property tax scheme poses substantial barrier legislative reform educational financing see times texas provides school districts extensive bonding authority obtain capital acquisition school sites construction equipment school buildings tex educ code ann acquisition construction maintenance gymnasia stadia recreational facilities private capital provides fourth source revenue course temporary nature since principal interest bonds must ultimately paid receipts local ad valorem property tax see except extent outside revenues derived operation certain facilities gymnasia employed repay bonds issued thereon see see tex art tex educ code ann part property tax scheme bonding authority conferred upon local school districts see supra see tex educ code ann school year precise figure see texas research league supra see tex educ code ann theoretically texas law limits tax rate public school maintenance see per valuation see however appear texas district presently taxes highest rate allowable although poor districts approaching see app texas law local districts allowed employ differing bases assessment fact introduces third variable local funding see tex educ code ann neither party suggested factor responsible disparities revenues available various districts consequently believe must deal case assumption differences local methods assessment meaningfully affect power local districts relative one another apparently admits much see ante noted moreover main set data introduced district establish disparities issue based upon equalized taxable property values adjusted correct differing methods assessment see app affidavit professor joel berke texas approximately school districts see appendix post see ibid indeed appellants acknowledge relevant data professor berke affidavit show positive correlation market value taxable property per pupil state local revenues per pupil reply brief appellants takes issue much professor berke data conclusions ante understand criticism run basic finding correlation taxable district property per pupil local revenues per pupil critique professor berke methodology upon relies see goldstein interdistrict inequalities school financing critical analysis serrano priest progeny rev nn directed suggested correlations family income taxable district wealth race taxable district wealth obviously appellants question relationship texas taxable district wealth expenditures basis whatever criticisms may leveled aspects professor berke study see infra see appendix ii post see ibid school year precise figure see texas research league supra appellants made contention district apparently abandoned indeed data introduced district simply belie argument federal funds significant equalizing effect see appendix post district observed follow remedial action federal government excuse unconstitutional discrimination effected state financing scheme supp school year precise figure see texas research league supra see tex art supp see also tex educ code ann see tex educ code ann permanent school fund essence public trust initially endowed vast quantities public land sale provided enormous corpus turn produces substantial annual revenues devoted exclusively public education see tex art supp see also report governor committee public school education challenge chance hereinafter governor committee report determined average daily attendance within district preceding year tex educ code ann see see see see see formula calculating district share described governor committee report see tex educ code ann see governor committee report see texas research league texas public schools minimum foundation program evaluation pp technically economic index involves calculation first basis factors mentioned texas county share local fund assignment determined county share divided among school districts basis relative shares county assessable wealth see tex educ code ann governor committee report texas research league texas public school finance majority exceptions interim report governor committee report quoting statement edgar morphet extraordinarily complex standards summarized governor committee report key element minimum foundation school program provision funds professional salaries particularly teacher salaries program provides district funds pay professional payroll determined certain state standards see tex educ code ann district fails pay teachers levels determined state standards receives nothing program see time districts free pay teachers salaries excess level set state standards using local revenues property tax revenue make difference see state salary standards focus upon two factors educational level experience district teachers see higher two factors funds district receive foundation program professional salaries apparent net effect scheme provide assistance districts ones rich districts able pay teachers local funds salary increments state minimum levels thus rich districts able attract teachers best education experience complete circle means given state standards rich districts receive foundation program professional salaries poor districts portion professor berke study vividly illustrates impact state standards districts varying wealth see appendix iii post alamo heights school district taxable property per pupil see berke affidavit table vii app edgewood independent school district taxable property per pupil ibid fail understand relevance case suggestion alamo heights school district approximately physical size edgewood independent school district many students number students edgewood former expenditure considerably closer latter ante obviously true alter simple fact edgewood four times many students four times much taxable property wealth perspective edgewood school children perspective ultimately counts edgewood clearly much poorer district alamo heights question whether districts equal taxable property wealth absolute terms whether districts differing taxable wealth given respective populations face gross disparities treatment experience texas financing scheme revealed accept suggestion dealing remedial scheme accord substantial deference accomplishments rather criticize failures ante moreover texas financing scheme hardly remedial legislation type previously shown substantial tolerance legislation may fact extend vote persons otherwise denied state law katzenbach morgan may eliminate evils private bail bondsman schilb kuebel instances legislative body sought remedy problems said directly responsible contrast public education function state texas responsibility defect financing scheme must ultimately rest state state scheme caused funding problem thus viewed scheme hardly deemed remedial cf appendix post brief appellants thus edgewood total per pupil state local funds compared total per pupil alamo heights see berke affidavit table app respective totals see texas research league supra local property tax provide approximately funds expended public education source funds essential aspects educational financing payment school bonds see supra payment district share local fund assignment well nearly expenditures minimums established foundation school program compare coleman et equality educational opportunity jencks coleman report conventional wisdom equality educational opportunity mosteller moynihan eds guthrie kleindorfer levin stout schools inequality kiesling measuring local government service study school districts new york state rev econ statistics compare berke answers interrogatories dollar expenditures probably best way measuring quality education afforded students graham deposition necessarily money wisely spend warrants noting even appellants witness graham qualified importance money requirement wise expenditure quite obviously district property poor powerless match education provided district assuming district allocates funds equal wisdom see brief amici curiae inter alia san marino unified school district beverly hills unified school district brief amici curiae inter alia bloomfield hills michigan school district dearborn city michigan school district grosse pointe michigan public school system answers plaintiffs interrogatories app ibid moreover period teachers alamo heights advanced degrees edgewood faculty degrees see school year edgewood students teachers ratio see alamo heights school year students teachers ratio ibid reply brief appellants see also indeed even apart differential treatment inherent local property tax significant interdistrict disparities state aid received minimum foundation school program seem raise substantial equal protection questions find particularly strong intimations view majority efforts denigrate constitutional significance children districts receiving poorer quality education available children districts assessable wealth assertion least wealth involved equal protection clause require absolute equality precisely equal advantages ante sure restricts remark wealth discrimination logical basis restriction explained otherwise apparent see infra see answers interrogatories joel berke ans ans pp ans pp deposition daniel morgan affidavit daniel morgan app true two previous cases summarily affirmed district dismissals constitutional attacks upon state educational financing schemes see mcinnis shapiro supp nd aff per curiam sub nom mcinnis ogilvie burruss wilkerson supp wd aff per curiam decisions considered dispositive action thrust suits differed materially present case mcinnis plaintiffs asserted financing system apportions public funds according educational needs students satisfies fourteenth amendment district concluded fourteenth amendment require public school expenditures made basis pupils educational needs lack judicially manageable standards makes controversy nonjustifiable burruss district dismissed suit essentially reliance mcinnis found scarcely distinguishable suit involves effort obtain allocation school funds considers educational need district ruled state must remedy discrimination resulting distribution taxable local district wealth heretofore prevented many districts truly exercising local fiscal control furthermore limited holding district presents none problems judicial management exist federal courts attempt ensure distribution educational funds solely basis educational need see infra tex art problems remedy may another matter provision relief sought particular case required identification member affected class case monetary relief need clarity defining class apparent involves procedural problems inherent class action litigation character elements essential equal protection analysis concerned latter moreover evident cases provision appropriate relief takes injunctive form serious problem since enough direct action appropriate officials cf potts flax assume lodge criticism validity finding correlation poor districts racial minorities rejects district finding correlation poor people poor districts assertion reason believe poorest families necessarily clustered poorest property districts texas ante support conclusion offers absolutely data record concerning distribution poor people texas refute data introduced appellees relies instead recent law review note concerned solely state connecticut note statistical analysis school finance decisions winning battles losing wars yale common sense suggests basis drawing demographic conclusion respect geographically large state texas geographically small densely populated highly industrialized state connecticut doubtful best furthermore article upon relies discredit statistical procedures employed professor berke establish correlation poor people poor districts see supra based criticism primarily fact four districts studied lowest five categories determined relative taxable property per pupil districts clustered middle three groups see goldstein interdistrict inequalities school financing critical analysis serrano priest progeny rev see also ante fails note four poorest districts sample students constituted students entire sample appears moreover even richest poorest categories enlarged include category students sample correlation district individual wealth holds true see brief governors minnesota maine south dakota wisconsin michigan amici curiae finally ignored data introduced appellees went unchallenged district majority willingness permit appellants litigate correctness data first time tribunal effective response appellees impossible unfair judicially unsound third amended complaint app consistent theory appellees purported represent among others class composed school children independent school districts deprived equal protection law fourteenth amendment regard public school education low value property lying within independent school districts reside degree judicial scrutiny particular classification demands distinct issue consider part ii infra indeed theory render established concept fundamental interests context equal protection analysis superfluous substantive constitutional right requires strictly scrutinize asserted state interest restricting denying access particular guaranteed right see cox louisiana interesting effort reconcile state voting rights cases theory fundamentality majority muster nothing contention constitutional underpinnings right equal treatment voting process longer doubted ante emphasis added intends recognize substantive constitutional right equal treatment voting process independent equal protection clause source right certainly mystery true griffin douglas also involved discrimination indigents wealth discrimination majority points ante never deemed wealth discrimination alone sufficient require strict judicial scrutiny rather review wealth classifications applied discrimination affects important individual interest see harper virginia bd elections thus believe griffin douglas understood premised recognition fundamental importance criminal appellate process see duncan louisiana right jury trial washington texas right compulsory process pointer texas right confront one accusers see mclaughlin florida loving virginia see oyama california korematsu see graham richardson noted challenged provision strips indigent defendants array protective exemptions kansas erected civil judgment debtors including restrictions amount disposable earnings subject garnishment protection debtor wage garnishment times severe personal family sickness exemption attachment execution debtor personal clothing books tools trade see generally gunther term foreword search evolving doctrine changing model newer equal protection harv rev see brief national education association et al amici curiae app mandate public education also laws require school attendance eight years prior decision brown board education every state constitutional provision directing establishment system public schools brown south carolina repealed constitutional provision mississippi made constitutional provision discretionary state legislature developments law equal protection harv rev president commission school finance schools people money need educational reform concluded iterally survive nation individuals without education observed democratic society public understanding public issues necessary public support schools generally include courses instruction wide variety subjects related history structure principles american government levels schools provide students background knowledge deemed absolute necessity responsible citizenship see guthrie kleindorfer levin stout schools inequality hess torney development political attitudes children campbell passive citizen acta sociologica nos education dominant factor influencing political participation awareness sufficient believe dispose suggestion events indication texas providing children sufficient education enjoy right free speech participate fully political process ante short limit amount free speech political participation constitution guarantees moreover obvious political process like aspects social intercourse degree competitive thus little benefit individual district enough education around enough cf sweatt painter see department commerce bureau census voting registration election november current population reports series table see also senate select committee equal educational opportunity levin costs nation inadequate education comm print believe close nexus education established constitutional values respect freedom speech participation political process makes different case prior decisions concerning discrimination affecting public welfare see dandridge williams housing see lindsey normet question majority suggests constitutional rights may less meaningful someone without enough eat without decent housing ante crucial difference lies closeness relationship whatever severity impact insufficient food inadequate housing person life never considered bear direct immediate relationship constitutional concerns free speech political processes education long recognized bear perhaps best evidence fact unique status accorded public education single public service nearly unanimously guaranteed constitutions see supra education terms constitutional values much analogous judgment right vote state elections public welfare public housing indeed without significance long recognized education essential step providing disadvantaged tools necessary achieve economic majority reliance traditional deference legislative bodies matters taxation falls wide mark context particular case see ante decisions relies simply taxpayer suits challenging constitutionality tax burden face exemptions differential taxation afforded others see allied stores ohio bowers madden kentucky carmichael southern coal coke bell gap pennsylvania question perspective taxpayer equal protection clause imposes iron rule equality prohibiting flexibility variety appropriate reasonable schemes state taxation state may impose different specific taxes upon different trades professions may vary rate excise upon various products allied stores ohio bowers supra case presented claim discrimination entirely different nature claim mechanism directly discriminates interests intended beneficiaries contrast taxpayer suits interest adversely affected substantial constitutional societal importance hence different standard equal protection review employed taxpayer suits appropriate true affirmance district decision extent intrude upon state taxing power insofar necessary state least equalize taxable district wealth contrary suggestions majority affirmance impose straitjacket upon powers state certainly spell end local property tax see infra mean demanded precise equality treatment indigent person means criminal process never suggested instance equal protection clause requires best lawyer money buy indigent hardly equipped objective standards judgment require pursued goal substantial equality treatment face clear disparities nature appellate process afforded rich versus poor see draper washington cf coppedge even put aside misreading griffin douglas fails offer reasoned constitutional basis restricting cases involving wealth discrimination instances absolute deprivation interest affected already discussed see supra equal protection clause guarantees equality treatment persons similarly situated merely bar form excessive discrimination persons outside context wealth discrimination reapportionment decisions clearly indicate relative discrimination within purview equal protection clause thus reynolds sims recognized appear extraordinary suggest state constitutionally permitted enact law providing certain state voters vote two five times legislative representatives voters living elsewhere vote course effect state legislative districting schemes give number representatives unequal numbers constituents identical overweighting overvaluation votes living certain effect dilution undervaluation votes living right vote simply right vote living favored part state one must ever aware constitution forbids sophisticated well modes discrimination cf bullock carter prospective candidates threatened exclusion primary ballot inability pay filing fee seen discrimination impecunious candidates less affluent segment community supported candidates also poor group contribute enough filing fees cf harrington america penguin ed see banfield unheavenly city cf lynd lynd middletown transition cf new york miln pet theoretically least may provide mechanism implementing texas asserted interest local educational control see infra true family may move escape school district assuming means view raise serious constitutional question concerning impermissible burdening right travel precisely concomitant right remain one cf shapiro thompson indeed political difficulties seriously disadvantaged districts face securing legislative redress augmented fact little support likely secured mildly disadvantaged districts cf gray sanders see also supra see tex cities towns villages code civ stat ann supp see also skinner reed tex civ app corpus christi jones tex civ app serrano priest cal see also van dusartz hatfield two guys mcginley mcgowan maryland goesaert cleary tex educ code ann criminal penalties provided failure teach certain required courses see appendix ii infra see affidavit jose cardenas superintendent schools edgewood independent school district app see appendix iv infra brother white concluding texas financing scheme runs afoul equal protection clause likewise finds analysis means chosen texas local property taxation dependent upon local taxable wealth completely unsuited present form achievement asserted goal providing local fiscal control although brother white purports reach result application lenient standard mere rationality traditionally applied context commercial interests seems care scrutinizes practical effectiveness present local property tax device affording local fiscal control reflects application stringent standard review standard least influenced constitutional significance process public education see infra centralized educational financing sure one alternative analysis though clear even centralized financing deprive local school districts considered essence local educational control see wright council city emporia burger dissenting central financing leave local hands entire gamut local educational policymaking teachers curriculum school sites whole process allocating resources among alternative educational objectives second possibility theory district power equalization put forth professors coons clune sugarman seminal work private wealth public education scheme truly reflect dedication local fiscal control system school district receive fixed amount revenue per pupil particular level tax effort regardless level local property tax base appellants criticize scheme rather extraordinary ground encourage poorer districts overtax order obtain substantial revenues education present discriminatory scheme poor districts already taxing highest rates yet receiving lowest returns district wealth reapportionment yet another alternative accomplish directly essentially district power equalization seek artificially appellants claim calculations concerning state property required scheme impossible practical matter yet texas already making far complex annual calculations involving local property values also local income economic factors conjunction local fund assignment portion minimum foundation school program see governor committee report fourth possibility remove commercial industrial mineral property local tax rolls tax property statewide basis return resulting revenues local districts fashion compensate remaining variations local tax bases none particular alternatives necessarily constitutionally compelled rather indicate breadth choice remain state present interdistrict disparities eliminated see supra course nothing decision today inhibit review state educational funding schemes state constitutional provisions see milliken green rehearing granted robinson cahill super super cf serrano priest cal