## Facts

- Charter applicants sought approval from the Denver Board to open the Thurgood Marshall Charter Middle School under Colorado’s Charter Schools Act.
- The Denver Board denied the application.
- The applicants appealed to the State Board; the State Board remanded to the Denver Board for reconsideration as provided by statute.
- After reconsideration, the Denver Board denied the application again.
- On second appeal, the State Board found the Denver Board’s denial “contrary to the best interests of the pupils, school district, or community” and directed the Denver Board to approve the charter.
- The Denver Board and an individual board member challenged the constitutionality of the Charter Schools Act’s second-appeal provision, arguing it improperly allowed the State Board to override local control.

## Issues

1. Whether the Charter Schools Act’s second-appeal provision authorizing the State Board to direct a local board to approve a specific charter application violates the Colorado Constitution.
2. Whether, upon finding a local denial contrary to the statute’s “best interests” standard, the State Board must order approval of the specific pending charter application on second appeal.
3. Whether the constitutional challenge was ripe for judicial review.

## Decision

- The court held the constitutional challenge was ripe because the State Board had already exercised the contested authority by ordering approval, creating a concrete dispute.
- The court upheld the constitutionality of the second-appeal provision, concluding it permissibly implements the State Board’s constitutionally recognized supervisory role within a legislatively designed scheme.
- The court interpreted the statute to authorize (and to require effectuation of) a directive that the local board approve the specific charter application when the State Board finds the local decision contrary to the “best interests” standard.
- The court rejected the Court of Appeals’ determination that the case was not ripe and resolved the merits in favor of the statute and the State Board’s authority.

## Legal Principles

- The General Assembly may structure public-education governance and review processes, including allocating final administrative review authority between local boards and the State Board, consistent with constitutional roles.
- The State Board’s “general supervision” over public schools permits statutory authority to correct local decisions that conflict with state policy standards, including a “best interests” review in charter authorization disputes.
- Under the Charter Schools Act’s second-appeal mechanism, when the State Board determines a local charter denial is contrary to the best interests of pupils, the district, or the community, the State Board may direct approval of the specific application rather than merely remand for further local proceedings.
- Ripeness exists where an agency has issued a binding order under the challenged statute and the parties present a fully developed, non-speculative controversy over the statute’s validity.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Colorado’s charter-school second-appeal process by holding that the State Board may constitutionally direct a local board to approve a specific charter application after a second appeal and that the dispute was ripe because the State Board had already issued an approval order under the statute.


Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the City & Cnty. of Denver v. Booth, 984 P.2d 639 (Colo. 1999)