Opinion ID: 1497714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Education Subsidy

Text: Plaintiffs first challenge the failure of the State to provide an education subsidy to the unorganized territory. Primary and secondary education in the unorganized territory is provided directly by the State through the Department of Education. The State's costs are reimbursed from the Fund. In other areas of the State, schools are operated by what are defined as school administrative units [6] funded from local property taxes. Although municipalities are responsible for providing and funding education, see Me. Const. art. VIII, pt. 1, § 1, [7] the State contributes some money to these localities. Pursuant to the School Finance Act, the State provides each school administrative unit with a minimum of 5% of its education costs. 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15613(13) (1993). The money for the State's contribution comes from the State General Fund. The unorganized territory does not receive a similar subsidy. The plaintiffs argue that the failure of the State to provide the unorganized areas with the subsidy denies them equal protection within the meaning of Article I, Section 6-A. We do not agree. Not all classifications that result in different treatment are constitutionally prohibited; the equal protection provisions of the Maine and United States Constitutions forbid only those discriminatory legislative classifications that are arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. Lambert v. Wentworth, 423 A.2d 527, 531 (Me.1980). Where the discrimination does not involve a fundamental right or an inherently suspect classification, we review an asserted equal protection violation pursuant to the rational basis test, i.e., the existence of a rational relation between the classification challenged and the intended goal of the legislation. Id.; School Admin. Dist. No. 1 v. Commissioner, Dep't of Educ., 659 A.2d 854, 857 (Me.1995). For example, legislation which provides governmental benefits, such as tax exemptions, to some citizens and not to others does not violate equal protection if there is a rational basis for the difference in treatment. Lambert, 423 A.2d at 531. In this instance, the exclusion of the unorganized territory from the subsidy program to school administrative units is related to the fact that the unorganized territory receives a variety of additional school-related agency services from the State for which it is not charged. [8] The school administrative units, on the other hand, while receiving State education subsidies, do not have access to all of these State-provided services, and must therefore finance some of them themselves. The provision of a subsidy to the school administrative units is rationally related to the legislative goal of lessening the financial burdens associated with education on towns and municipalities. See Town of Stonington v. Town of Deer Isle, 403 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Me.1979). The failure of the State to provide an education subsidy to the unorganized territory is not violative of Article I, Section 6-A.