After suffering another legal rebuke Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa refused to relent on his campaign to gain substantial influence over city schools, saying he is considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel from the state's 2nd District Court of Appeal issued a unanimous decision against a law designed to give Villaraigosa substantial authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District. The state's highest court is under no obligation to take the case, and some legal experts said the sweep of Tuesday's ruling could signal poor prospects for the mayor's legal position.
A sobered Villaraigosa seemed well aware that the decision could be the final blow to what was once the centerpiece of his education reform plan.
"We're obviously disappointed by the judges' decision," Villaraigosa said at an afternoon news conference in City Hall. "At a time when mayors in cities around America are proving that strong visible leadership can bring new hope to struggling local schools, the courts blocked the door in the Golden State."
The law would have given Villaraigosa authority to ratify the hiring and firing of superintendents through a council of local mayors that he would have dominated.
It also would have given him direct control over three low-performing high schools and the elementary and middle schools that feed them.
Affirming a ruling late last year by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs, the justices found the law, Assembly Bill 1381, unconstitutional. In their one-paragraph conclusion to the 44-page opinion, the justices emphasized the Los Angeles City Charter, which calls for an elected board of education with the authority, in their view, to govern the school district.
"What is not permissible is for the Legislature to ... effectively transfer many of [the] powers of the board to the mayor, based on its belief, hope or assumption that he could do a better job," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey.
The mayor took issue with the justices, saying they "made a mistake" in suggesting that local voters were the only ones who could make that call.
Villaraigosa said more would be necessary than simply holding a local election to change the City Charter. Going to the voters, he said, would also require a state election to amend the California Constitution.
He estimated that such a campaign would cost $30 million to $40 million: "I can't tell you I have the wherewithal to raise that kind of money right now."
