Court Opinion

ID: 9781584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:53:02.767696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:28.281397
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I fully concur in the dissent written by Justice Nahmias, I write separately to emphasize the fundamental principles at play in this case. I also believe that it is necessary to point out that, even under the majority’s faulty constructs and its incorrect definition of “special schools,” these principles, which the majority fails to apply, require a finding that the Charter Schools Commission Act of 2008 (“Act”) is constitutional.
Two bedrock rules of statutory construction govern in this matter: (1) in analyzing the Act, we must presume that the statute is, and was intended to be, constitutional; and (2) in the absence of a First Amendment overbreadth claim, the statute cannot be struck down unless it is unconstitutional in all of its applications or lacks a plainly legitimate sweep. Dev. Auth. of DeKalb County v. State of Ga., 286 Ga. 36 (1) (684 SE2d 856) (2009); Blevins v. Dade County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 288 Ga. 113 (702 SE2d 145) (2010).
With regard to the first principle, a cursory review of the text of the Act supports the presumption of constitutionality, even under the test articulated by the majority. For example, the Legislative intent behind the Act is facially evident in its provisions regarding the contributions of cosponsors (other entities defined in OCGA § 20-2-2081 (3) such as counties or universities who help support charter schools). OCGA § 20-2-2080 (b) (2) indicates that cosponsors should be sought out to maximize “access to a wide variety of high-quality educational options for all students regardless of disability, race, or socioeconomic status, including those students who have struggled in a traditional public school setting.” (Emphasis supplied.) In addition, OCGA § 20-2-2083 (b) (12) tellingly gives the Georgia Charter Schools Commission the power to “[cjollaborate with cosponsors for the purpose of providing the highest level of public education to all students, including, but not limited to, low-income, low-performing, gifted, and underserved student populations and to students with special needs.” (Emphasis supplied.) Even if one applies the majority’s definition of “special schools” as those that “enrolled only students with certain special needs or taught only certain special subjects,” these provisions unequivocally support a conclusion that the Act was not unconstitutional. The majority’s contrary finding is not logical.
With regard to the second principle, it is untenable to argue that the Act is unconstitutional in all of its applications or lacks a plainly legitimate sweep. In fact, the existence of Ivy Preparatory Academy, a charter school for girls only, proves that the Act meets the majority’s constitutional test, as it has been properly applied to *278create a special school. Again, this remains true even under the definitions set forth in the majority opinion. Perhaps that is why the majority makes no attempt to argue that these particular schools fail its pronounced constitutional standard.
This case should be that simple. The Legislature, whom we must presume intended to act in a constitutional manner, created a law to provide for special charter schools to enhance our educational system, and it included evidence on the face of the statute supporting such a constitutional intent. Nevertheless, the majority looks beyond this basic principle to reach a result that simply cannot be explained in the context of the applicable law and the undisputed facts.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Carley and Justice Nahmias join in this dissent.