## Facts

- Wisconsin students, parents, teachers, school districts, and education officials challenged the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s public school finance system.
- Plaintiffs alleged the funding structure created disparities between property-rich and property-poor districts and disadvantaged districts with higher concentrations of high-needs students.
- Plaintiffs claimed the system failed to equalize access to financial resources and resulted in unequal educational opportunities.
- State officials defended the system as constitutionally sufficient, arguing the constitution does not require equal spending or identical programs across districts.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the state, finding plaintiffs failed to prove unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Wisconsin’s public school finance system violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s uniformity clause by failing to provide students in poorer or higher-need districts educational opportunity reasonably comparable to that in wealthier districts.
2. Whether the system violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s equal protection guarantees by creating or perpetuating unconstitutional disparities in access to educational resources.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the state officials.
- The court held the finance system does not violate the uniformity clause because the constitution requires an equal opportunity for a sound basic education, not equal funding levels or uniform educational programs.
- The court held the system does not violate state equal protection guarantees because disparities in district wealth and taxing capacity, without a showing of denial of a sound basic education, are not unconstitutional.
- The court emphasized strong deference to the legislature in designing and adjusting education finance policy and applied the presumption of constitutionality requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- The uniformity clause guarantees an equal opportunity for a sound basic education; it does not mandate fiscal equality or identical educational offerings among districts.
- A school-finance system is evaluated by whether it provides a constitutionally adequate educational opportunity statewide, not by eliminating all interdistrict disparities.
- Under Wisconsin constitutional review, legislation is presumed constitutional, and challengers must establish unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.
- For equal protection challenges to school funding, wealth-based disparities in taxing capacity are not, by themselves, unconstitutional absent proof that students are denied a sound basic education.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin’s school-finance system, concluding that the state constitution requires an equal opportunity for a sound basic education and that remaining funding disparities, without proof of educational deprivation, did not violate uniformity or equal protection.


Vincent v. Voight, 614 N.W.2d 388 (Wis. 2000)