Opinion ID: 1926882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judicial Determination of Legislative Policy.

Text: The law is well established that an appeal to the courts under sec. 40.06 (3), Stats., is only for the determination of whether the reorganization authorities acted with jurisdiction or whether they acted within their discretionary powers. The boundaries of school districts are traditionally a question of policy rather than of law or fact. School Dist.  v. Callahan, supra ; Zawerschnik v. Joint County School Comm. (1955), 271 Wis. 416, 73 N. W. (2d) 566. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of appellants urging us to part from prior decisions and to attempt a new judicial attitude by allowing the wisdom of the policy of school redistricting by the statutory authorities to be reviewed in the courts. It claims that the Superintendent has too much power under the present legal framework of statutory grants and judicial interpretation. The brief refers us to the recent cases of Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), 364 U. S. 339, 81 Sup. Ct. 125, 5 L. Ed. (2d) 110, and Baker v. Carr (1962), 369 U. S. 186, 82 Sup. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. (2d) 663, in which the United States supreme court undertook the task of reviewing reapportionment, traditionally a legislative function. The courts could not assume the duties of the Superintendent or any other statutory authority even if the legislature delegated to them the power, for such a delegation would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. Callahan Case, supra, page 578. In the Gomillion and the Baker Cases the United States supreme court held that the rights of the citizens as defined by the federal constitution were being denied them by the legislature. However, the alteration of school districts as the legislature prescribes does not deprive any person of his property or deny him equal protection of the laws or due process of the laws. Zawerschnik v. Joint County School Comm., supra, page 427; Callahan Case, supra, page 568. A proposal to change the present system by limiting the power of the Superintendent and by providing for a standard of determination can only be addressed to the legislature. In summation, there were no substantial issues of fact presented by an examination of the affidavits and supporting documents. The only issues arising in the present motion for summary judgment were those of law and which  must be resolved in favor of respondent. The doctrine of the separation of powers prevents us from reviewing the policy of school redistricting, and no constitutional violations under the present system were shown to have occurred. Therefore, the granting of the motion for summary judgment was proper and the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.