## Facts

- New Jersey permits “send–receive” relationships in which one school district sends students to another district’s schools and pays tuition.
- Under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:38-8.2, a sending district whose students are at least 10% of the receiving district’s pupils is entitled to one seat on the receiving district’s board of education, but never more than one seat.
- Lincoln Park sent high school students to Boonton High School under a send–receive arrangement and paid tuition.
- By the 2001–02 school year, Lincoln Park students were about 52% of Boonton High School’s population, yet Lincoln Park was limited to one representative on Boonton’s ten-member school board.
- A Lincoln Park voter challenged the one-seat cap as vote dilution under the Equal Protection Clause’s “one person, one vote” rule.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the voter, ordered an expanded board with multiple Lincoln Park seats, and required weighted voting on high-school-only matters.
- The Boonton Board and the state education commissioner appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Equal Protection’s “one person, one vote” principle requires proportional (or otherwise population-congruent) representation for a sending district on a receiving district’s elected school board when the sending district provides a majority of the receiving high school’s students.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court and upheld the statutory one-seat limitation.
- The court held that Equal Protection did not require proportional or weighted representation for Lincoln Park on Boonton’s school board.
- Because there was no constitutional violation, the district court’s remedial restructuring (additional seats and weighted voting) was improper.

## Legal Principles

- The “one person, one vote” doctrine protects equality among eligible voters within the relevant political unit; it does not guarantee representation for all persons substantially affected by a governmental body.
- A state may restrict participation in a local government’s elections to residents of that government’s territorial boundaries, even if nonresidents are significantly affected by its actions.
- A send–receive arrangement for education services does not convert two separate municipalities into a single polity requiring interdistrict proportional representation on the receiving district’s elected board.
- Where nonresidents seek electoral representation in a neighboring political unit, the relevant Equal Protection inquiry is whether the state’s allocation is rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives; guaranteeing a limited voice to the sending district while preserving the receiving district’s control can satisfy that standard.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that New Jersey could cap a sending district’s representation on a receiving district’s elected school board at one seat, even when the sending district’s students comprised a majority of the receiving high school’s enrollment, because Equal Protection does not require cross-boundary proportional representation in these circumstances.


English v. Bd. of Educ. of Town of Boonton, 301 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 2002)