Opinion ID: 173060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Detachment Statute Furthers Legitimate State Interests

Text: Having determined that rational basis review applies, we consider whether Utah's law satisfies such review. A rational basis equal protection analysis is highly deferential to state legislatures, and we accord a strong presumption of validity to laws that neither involve fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-21, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993). Rational basis review is not a license for us to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. FCC v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313, 319-21, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993). Instead, we uphold a statute if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide for its basis, id., and will only strike the law down if the state's classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective, Holt, 439 U.S. at 71, 99 S.Ct. 383 (quotation omitted) (emphasis added). We need not wrestle long with whether the Utah detachment statute satisfies rational basis review. The detaching cities provide a litany of justifications for the law, including, among many others, supporting the creation of community-based school districts, encouraging the creation of smaller school districts more responsive to the needs of students and parents, and promoting the localized use of tax revenues so that taxes collected within a local area are used for education in the same area. These justifications attest to the statute's constitutionality. The excluded voters seize on this last justification, and assert that localized use of tax revenues among the wealthier eastern cities is the actual reason for detaching from the Jordan School District. Even if this were the only rational basis for the detachment statute, though, the goal of localizing property tax revenues is sufficiently rational to uphold the constitutionality of legislation. See San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 40, 49-50, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). Nor are we persuaded by the argument that inconsistent methods of detachment in the statuteat times requiring a vote of all residents in the existing district and at times requiring only a vote in the new districtmeans the statute lacks a rational basis. What may or may not occur under other statutory provisions has no bearing on whether the state has legitimately limited the franchise to the relevant class of voters under the statute. Even if the comparison to other statutory provisions were relevant to the constitutionality of the vote being challenged, there are distinct rational differences in the relevant political entities. For example, in citizen and school board initiatives to create a new district, allowing the entire school district to vote makes the franchise co-extensive with the political entity whose officials sponsored the proposal. Thus, the relevant jurisdiction is the entire school district. But when a subset of cities initiates the creation of a new school district via interlocal agreement, the cities are seeking to create a new, smaller district that is co-extensive with their political boundaries. Limiting the franchise to those in the initiating cities allows the citizens to review the action of their elected officials and confirm their agreement and dedication to the new district. States do not act irrationally in concluding that voters outside the new district should not have a veto power over the election. As we previously found, states have the authority and discretion to recognize that these different interests determine the relevant political boundaries for voting purposes. We conclude the Utah detachment statute withstands rational basis review. The district court correctly decided there were no genuine issues of material fact and thus properly granted summary judgment in favor of the detaching cities.