Even if the record supported and the trial court found that the statutes caused the harms to the education of poor and minority students, that would not be sufficient to find the statutes invalid on their face and enjoin their enforcement. There also would need to be proof that striking down these statutes would remedy the harms and improve the education for these students. … There is no basis in the trial court’s decision, or in the voluminous record of an eight-week trial, for concluding that education of any identifiable group of students would be improved by the elimination of tenure, the prohibition on considering seniority in layoffs, or the injunction against enforcement of the procedural requirements for performance-based dismissal.
Erwin Chemerinsky is the nations top Constitutional scholar IMHO, but on this one he has it wrong. The Trial court cited numerous facts that supported striking the rules. To many to list. I prediuct the DCA will REVERSE the trial court, not on law or facts, but on politics. Judges are politicians first and foremost at the State level, even at the federal level but no where near the degree at the state level. Just like the DCA that reversed Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny when he ruled the Slow Speed BB-Gun train was not following the voter initiative. Judges are politicians at the state level, all of them.

Thank you for the deeply researched evenhanded reporting of this subject.

Citizens of this state deserve the facts instead of hysteria.

Dana Law
El Cajon, Ca