Court Opinion

ID: 9848492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:21:00.357278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:20.733091
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE
dissenting:
In my view the legislature correctly interpreted Colo. Const, art. IX, § 2, when it provided that a school district may charge a fee as a condition for attending on a voluntary basis school sponsored activities or programs not within the academic portion of the educational program.
I do not believe the drafters of the constitution intended that all students, regardless of their ability to pay, should, for example, attend proms or athletic contests free of charge. I would here exercise the doctrine of judicial restraint which compels us to defer to the legislative interpretation of what a constitutional provision means, unless that interpretation is clearly prohibited by the constitutional provision itself. I find no such clear prohibition to the legislative pronouncement made here in the constitutional provision relating to the education of children.
I would, however, affirm the judgment of the trial court for I believe it would be invidious discrimination prohibited by the equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions to refuse to admit students who cannot pay for *276school sponsored events to which students who can pay may be admitted upon payment of the fee.