No. 12651 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1974

STATE ex rel. ROBERT L. WOODAHL, Attorney General of the Stateof Montana, and theMONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Relators,

HERBERT F. STRAUB, JAKE H. EHRET, KENNETH RUSTAD, As County Commissioners forFallon County, Montana, and SilverRoth, As County Treasurer of Fallon County, Montana, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relators: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,

Montana Dennis Lind argued, Assistant Attorney General,

Helena, Montana George Losleban, Assistant Attorney Genera

### 1, appeared,

Helena, Montana R. Bruce McGinnis argued, Helena

## ,Montana For Respondents: A. W. Scribnerargued, Helena, Montana Denzil Young argued, Baker, Montana Sandall, Moses and Cavan, Billings, Montana CharlesF. Moses argued and Ralph S. Wright argued,

Billings, Montana For Intervenors: Robert Brooks, CountyAttorney, argued, Broadus,

Montana CarrollBlend argued, Helena, Montana ForAmici Curiae: Richard 

### J

# .Conklin, CountyAttorney, argued,

White Sulphur Springs, Montana Ralph Herriott, County Attorney, argued, Hysham, Montana

Submitted: January 14, 1974

Filed:Mr. JusticeWesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an originalproceeding brought by the Attorney General and the Montana Departmentof Revenue. The petition requested assumption of jurisdictionby this Court of a complaint which seeks a declaratory judgment under Title 93,Chapter 89, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947. The named defendants are the county commissioners and the county treasurer of Fallon County.On ex parte presentation the Court accepted jurisdiction; allowed the filing of the complaint;and provided for service upon the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Clerk and Recorder of each county as the clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of each county. The Court invited participation of those interested in the outcome of this proceeding. The essential allegations of the complaint filed by the plaintiffs are: 1. Art. X,Montana Constitution, 1972,requires the legislature to provide a system of schools. 2. Chapter 355, Laws of Montana, 1973,amends Chapter 69 of Title 75,Revised Codes of Montana, by providing a new taxing system in part for the support of public schools. 3. The tax system contained in Chapter 355 requires each county to levy a basic 40mill tax [forboth primary and secondary schools] on property in the county and if the funds raised by this tax exceed the amountneeded to fund the "foundationprogram" in that county the excess is to be remitted to the state for deposit in the "earmarkedrevenue fund, state equalization aid account". 

### 4. This surplus is to be used in combination with other fundsdeposited in the account to fully fund the "foundationprogram" in those counties not fully funded by the basic levy. 5. Chapter 355 authorizes the adoption of budgets in

excess of theminimum required by 

### the foundation program andprovides that if this budget cannot be fully funded by the imposition of specified additional county levies the director of the Montana Department of Revenue is to impose a statewide property tax at such a millage as will result in full funding of these deficiencies in the various school districts. 6. OnAugust 6, 1973 in accordance with this authorization, the Department of Revenue ordered all counties to impose

an additional mill levy of 12mills. 7. On August 16, 1973, an action was commenced in Powder River County seeking to have Chapter 355 declared void. 8. In October 1973,defendant Fallon County Commissioners directed defendant Fallon County Treasurer to hold allmonies collected under authority of Chapter 355 until such time as the constitutionality of that chapter was determined by the courts. 9. Pursuant to this direction the Fallon County Treasurer has refused to pay over themonies, thus creating an actual controversy. 10. This is an emergency situation since the firstpayment of thesemonies was scheduled for January 31, 1974,and normal process of lawwill not provide for speedy determination. 11. That only questions of laware involved. 12. That other countieshave now begun to impound funds collected under authority of the Act, further aggravating the situation. In this Court's order accepting jurisdiction,the matter pending in Powder River Countywas stayed. Fallon County appeared by answer, which we shall discuss further. Powder River County,Chouteau County,Toole County, Meagher County and the Superintendent of Public ~nstruction appeared in variousways--intervention, amicus curiae and otherwise. This Court

### has been liberal in considering all

### matters but, 

### as willappear hereinafter, the procedural problems and certain other policy and substantive problems alluded to in various ways by brief, motion and otherwise will not need be considered herein. Fallon County's answer to the complaint denies all of the legal conclusionsof the complaintand then sets up these affirmative defenses: a) That Chapter 355 will require FallonCounty to remit substantial sums to the state for the support of school districts located in other counties. b) That overallchapter 355 will require 39 counties to remit taxes which be distributed to 17 counties. c) That Chapter 355 violates Art. X, Sec. 1,Montana Constitution 1972, which requires the legislature to fully fund the school system. d) That Chapter 355 representsan unlawful delegation of legislative authority. e) That the tax levied discriminates against the taxpayers of Fallon County by requiring them to pay more than is required for the supportof its local schools,violating both ~rticle XIII, Sec. 1,Montana Constitution 1972,and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution. f) That Chapter 355 fails to set forth any reasonable standard justifyingproperty taxation in Fallon County for support of schools in other counties. g) That factual issues exist which require this Court to decline jurisdiction. Even though, as respondents point out, factual issuesdo exist this is no bar to a consideration of the validity of Chapter 355 on its face. Plaintiffs in the Powder River County suit raise by intervention a preliminary issue in this action. Essentiallyintervenors assert that prior to July 1, 1973, the legislature

was operating under the authority of the 1889Montana Constitution and accordingly its acts, to be valid,must conform to the limitationscontained therein even though the acts are not to take effect until after the date the new Constitution replaces the old.While this Court has not heretofore considered this question,we have no hesitation in rejecting intervenors'proposition. While it is true that a statute, unconstitutionalwhen it takes effect, is not resurrected by a subsequent constitutional change, State ex rel. Woodahl v. District Court, 

# - Mont

# . , 511 P.2d 318, 30 St.Rep. 635,the instant situation differs in that the statutewas passed in anticipationof an already approved constitutional change and was of no force or effect until after the new Constitution took effect. The Georgia Supreme Court in Henson v. Georgia Industrial Realty Co., 220 Ga. 857, 142 S.E.2d 219, 223, 224, observed: "It is the general rule in this country that a legislature has power to enact a statutenot authorized by the existing constitution of that State when the statute ispassed in anticipation of an amendment to its constitution authorizing it

## * ?k 

### *.'' The rule is based on the theory that the constitutionality of the statute is to be tested at the time the statute takes effect

., and not at the time of passage. Neisel v. Moran, 80 Fla. 378, 85 S. 346; Statev. Hecker, 109 Or. 520, 221 P. 808;Alabam's Freight Co. v. Hunt, 29 Ariz. 419, 242 P. 658. We agree with this view and hold that the test of a statute's constitutionality is to be made at the time it takes effect and is to be made against the constitution as it exists at the time the statute takes effect, not at the time the statutewas passed by the legislature. See: Druggan v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 36, 46 S.Ct. 14, 70 

### L ed 151; In reOpinions of the Justices, 227 Ala. 291, 149 S. 776; State v. Smith, 335 Mo. 840, 74 S.W.2d 27;Busch v. Turner, 26 Cal.2d 817, 161 P.2d 456;Galveston Ry. Co. v. Gross, 47 Tex. 428. All of these cases approved statutespassed by the legislature in anticipation of constitutional change. Holding that the 1973 legislature could enact prospective

or anticipatory legislation to become effective July 1, 1973,under the terms of the Montana Constitution 1972,we consider the constitutionality of Chapter 355 under the Montana Constitution 1972. Respondents'memorandum of authorities considers the issues raised by its answer under three general headings: (1) Chapter 355 violates Article X, Sec. 1 of the Montana Constitution 1972. (2) Chapter 355 discriminates against the taxpayers of Fallon County by attempting to tax them for the exclusive use and benefit of others. (3) That factual issues exist which would justify this Court in declining to accept jurisdiction. Because of the view the Court takes in this case, these issues can best be considered against the background of a general consideration of the state's power to levy a general property tax for educational purposes. It is clear that the taxes imposed by Chapter 355 are state rather than local taxes. Provision ismade in Chapter 355 for threedistinct levies. First is the basic 40mill levy for support of the foundationprogram. The language of that levy ismandatory "It shallbe the duty of the county commissionersof each county to levy",with the clear effect that allproperty within the state is levied on at the rate of 40mills for the support of the foundation program. The other two levies--the additional levy for deficiency in foundation program funding and the permissive levy--are even more clear in their uniform statewide applicability, with the director of the Department of Revenue ordered to impose the levieson all the property in the state. It is clear that a tax imposed by state law and levied uniformly on all property within a state is a state rather than a local tax. Once it is established that Chapter 355 is a state rather than a local tax, there remains the question of the state'spower to levy a statewide property tax with the avowed purpose of providing support for education. Here, it should be recalled that

a state constitution, such asMontana's, is a document of limitation rather than of grant and accordingly a statutemust contravene some express or implied limitation of that constitution to be invalid. Evers

### v. Hudson, 36 Mont. 135, 92P. 462; State ex rel. Peytonv. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P. 497;Billings Sugar Co. v. Fish, 40Mont. 256, 106 P. 565; Northern Pac. Ry. v. Mjelde, 48 Mont. 287, 137 P. 386; Statev. Dodd, 51Mont. 100, 149 P. 481; State ex rel. Corry v. Cooney, 70Mont. 355, 225 P. 1007; Butte & SuperiorMin. Co. v. McIntyre, 71Mont. 254, 229 P. 730; Graham v. State Board of Examiners, 116 Mont. 584, 155 P.2d 956; Mulholland 

### v. Ayers, 109Mont. 558, 99 P.2d 234; Plath v. Hi-Ball Contractors, Inc., 139Mont. 263, 362 P.2d 1021. Aside from the provisions of the United States Constitution, the only limitation on the state's power to tax applicable here isArt. VIII, Sec. 1,Montana Constitution 1972, which provides: "Taxes shall be levied by general laws forpublic purposes." Since Chapter 355 requires allproperty be levied on at the same rate, it is clearly a general law. State ex rel. Federal Land Bank 

### v. Hays, 86 Mont. 58, 282 P. 32; Stanley v. Jeffries, 86 Mont. 114, 284 P. 134. Similarly,given the express declaration of Art. 

### X, Sec. 1,Montana Constitution 1972, that the development of a quality system of education is a state goal, there can be nodispute with the proposition that a tax for the support of education is levied for a public purpose. Thus it follows that Chapter 355 isnot violative of any constitutionalprovisions and is a constitutionallyvalid exercise of the state'spower to tax. Against this background the issues raised by respondents may be settled. The first issue that Chapter 355 violatesArt. X, Sec. 1,Montana Constitution 1972, ispremised on the requirement contained therein that the legislature provide full funding of the basic educational system. It is respondents'position thatArt. X, Sec. 1(3), requires the legislature fund its share of the cost of education solely from the traditional sourcesof foundation program funding--oil and gas royalties, income taxes, and corporation license taxes or other traditional general fund sources. Thisview isnot correct. The only mandate contained inArt. X, Sec. 1(3), Montana Constitution 1972, is that the legislature fully fund the state's share of the cost of basic education. It is silent as to the means the legislature may employ for this purpose. By enacting Chapter 355, the legislature elected to employ a statewideproperty tax. While the wisdom of that legislative choicemay be questioned, its constitutionalvalidity may not. That other sourcesof revenuemay be available, such as severance, excise and sales taxes as suggested, is true. But, the legislature has chosenproperty taxes to the dismay of many property owners. As our foregoing discussion indicates,the legislature could adopt a property tax and having done so it is free to use the proceeds realized by the tax for any purpose, including fulfillment of the duty to fund public education. Respondents' second issue is that Chapter 355 discriminates against the taxpayers of Fallon County. There are two facets to this issue. The first ispredicated on the claim that the property tax levied by Chapter 355 on that particular part of allpropertyinthe statewhich is situateinFallon County willproduce funds inexcess of those required by thatparticular part of thepublic school system located inFallon County. It is asserted that those provisions of Chapter 355 which require the excess fundsbe remitted tothe stateresult in a taking of property without due process. Reduced toits simplest terms, respondents' position is thatrevenue raised by a statetaxmust be expended inthe county inwhich thatrevenue originates. Respondents reach thisconclusionby firstdenominating the tax levied by Chapter 355 as a "localproperty tax" and then applying the generally accepted rule that one district cannot be subjected totax forthe benefit of another district. Asourpreceding discussion points out, the tax levied by Chapter 355 is a statetax levied for thebenefit of the state as

a whole. Viewed inthat lightthe tax does not offend against the rulereliedupon by respondents since the taxing district, the state, benefits as a whole from the tax imposed. That some areas derivemore immediate and directbenefits from the tax isnot an objection, if thecommunity asa whole benefits. Stateexrel. Henderson v. Dawson County, 87 Mont. 122, 137, 286 P. 125. InKelly v. City of Pittsburgh, 104 U.S. 78, 82, 26 L ed 658, a landowner challenged a tax on the same grounds relied

on by respondents here, thatbecause he did not receive a direct personal benefit from a tax it amounted toa taking of property without due process. Inrejecting thisclaimtheUnited States Supreme Court said: "Itmay be true that he does not receive the same amount of benefit from some or any of these taxes asdo citizens living inthe heart of the city. It probably istrue

## * * * that his taxbears a very unjust relation tothe benefits received as compared with itsamount. But who can adjust with precise accuracy the amount which each individual inan organized civilcommunity shall contribute to sustain it, orcan insure in thisrespect absolute equality of burdens, and fairness in their distribution among those who must bear them?

"Clearly, however, these arematters of detail within the discretion,and therefore the power, of the law-making body within whose jurisdiction the parties live. This court cannot say in such cases,however great the hardship or unequal the burden, that the tax collected for suchpurposes is taking the property of the taxpayer without due process of law." This general rule is summarized in Cooley on Taxation, 

### V. 1, 4th Ed., S 89,

### P. 214: 

### " 

## * 

## * * However, it is almost unanimously held that it is no defense to the collection of a tax for a special purpose that a person liable for the tax is not benefited by the expenditure of the proceeds of the tax or not asmuch benefited as others. 

## * * * In other words, a general tax cannot be dissected to show that, as to certain constituent parts, the taxpayer receives no benefits." This is the rule we hold applicable to the tax questioned in the instant case. It is a general tax levied at the same rate on all property in the state. It is for the general state purpose of providing a statewide system of public schools. The fact Fallon County does not receivebenefits directly in the amount of its contribution does not provide a defense to the collection of the taxes authorized by Chapter 355. This same conclusionhas been reached by the courts of other states when called upon todetermine the validity of a uniformproperty tax whose proceeds are distributed on a prorata basis to schools,even though there, as here, the amount contributed by an area in taxes exceeded in some instances the amount returned to the area for its schools. Sawyer v. Gilmore, 109Me. 169, 83 A. 673;Raynoldsv. Swope, 28 N.M. 141, 207 P. 581;Miller v. Korns, 107 Ohio St. 287, 140N.E. 773;Board of Trustees,Etc. v. Board of County Com'rs, 83 Ida. 172, 359 P.2d 635. Some state courtshavegone even further and held that uniform state taxation for school support is constitutionally required. Serranov. Priest, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241; Sweetwater Co. Plan. Com. v. Hinkle, (Wyo. 1971) 491 P.2d 1234, 1237. The authority relied on by respondents to support the contention that Chapter 355 is invalid as a tax levied on one district for the benefit of another is not in point. The ~yoming

case of Tennantv. Sinclair Oil and Gas. Co. (Wyo. 1960) 355 P.2d 887,dealt with a tax which was levied only on specified school districts as opposed to the uniform levy of Chapter 355,and which arbitrarily awarded a part of the fund created by the tax to the other school districts which were not subject to the tax, as opposed to the provisions of Chapter 355which specify that each district is to receive its share in total proceeds on a modified prorata basis. Our conclusion that this decision does not apply to tax such



### as that levied 

### by Chapter 355, is reinforced by the subsequent decision of the Wyoming Court in Sweetwater in which it observed that equalization of taxes for school purposes is constitutionally required in that state. It then went on to state: "We see nomanner in which ad valorem taxes for schoolpurposes can be made equal and uniform unless it isdone on a state-wide basis. In other words, all property owners within the state should be required to pay the same totalmill levy for schoolpurposes." This isprecisely what has been done by Chapter 355, each property owner now pays the same basic mill levy for schoolpurposes. Similarly, the Nebraska case cited by respondents, Peterson

v. Hancock, 155Neb. 801, 54 N.W.2d 85, can be distinguished on the grounds that while the tax was levied uniformly, certain school districts were arbitrarily denied a right to share on any basis in the proceeds. Under Chapter 355 all school districts and all counties share in proportion to their need.The second facet of respondents' claim that Chapter 355 results in discrimination against the taxpayers of Fallon County relates to themanner in which the funds raised by Chapter 355

are distributed. Respondents assert that various factswould reveal that some schooldistricts are unable to provide educational offerings comparable to those which are provided in other districts. For example, respondentsmaintained that a comparison of curricula would demonstratea wide disparity in the educational opportunitiesoffered by different schools. No doubt this is true. No doubt other comparisonscould be made which would showdifferences in educational opportunity. Respondents assert that these comparisonswould conclusivelydemonstrate the foundation program itself is ill conceived in that itdoes not take into considerationto a sufficient degree the differences in schools resulting from differences in the number of pupils. It is argued that the foundation program of X dollarsper pupil is itself arbitrary and lacking in uniformity. Further, that the 

### 7% limitation on increases in school budgets has effectively locked those schools with substandard programs into a position of permanent inequality of educational opportunity. In this case,no assertionsof substandard programs are made. The foundation program provides for accreditation and other standards. We do not here rule on the validity of the 

### 7% limitation onbudgets asprovided in Chapter 355. Without the factsof a specific situation before us,we can only consider the constitutionality of the foundation program and the budget limitations of Chapter 355 on their face and not as applied. Certainly any reasonableperson would grant that there are imperfections in the foundation formula,with itsmany iables. The constitutional 

# fT

test isnotperfection,but rather whether when taken as a whole it is a rationalmethod to accomplish the goal of equal educationalopportunity for each person of the state. As the United States Supreme Court observed in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 

# - , 36 

### L ed 2d 16, 48: "Thevery complexity of the problems of financing and managing a statewide public school system suggest that 'therewill be more than one constitutionally permissiblemethod of solving them,' and that,within the limits of rationality,

'thelegislature's efforts to tackle the problems' should be entitled to respect. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 546-547, 32 L ed 2d 285, 92 S.Ct. 1724 (1972)

# ." An on the face examination of the provisions of the foundation program dealing with the distribution of state educational fundsreveals that such funds are distributed basically on a per student basis with the smaller schools receiving somewhat more per student than the larger schools. Provision is made for budget increasesresulting from an increase in enrollment. Further, the trustees are empowered to increase the local budget through additional levies, if approved by the district's electors. It is difficult to visualize a method other than some system of cash grants through which the state could meet its constitutional obligation under Art. X, Sec. 1,Montana Constitution 1972, to provide for and fund a basic educational system while leaving the actual supervision and control of each school district in a board of trustees as required by Art. X, Sec. 8,Montana Constitution 1972. Accordingly,while not foreclosing a consideration of the foundation program and the budget limitations of Chapter 355 as applied,

we hold that on its face the program is a rationalmethod of providing the required basic public education. Because of the view we have taken of the other issues in the case, it is clear that the factual questions alluded to in the final issue raised by respondents,while real, are not relevant. We will not consider that issue further. This opinion constitutesa judgment that Chapter 355 isconstitutionally valid on its face. Therefore, defendant Silver Roth, County Treasurer of Fallon County, is ordered to remit forthwith to the state thosemonies collected under authority of Chapter 355. Each party to bear its own costs of this proceeding.



### - -,,, &--------.&-- 

## ------------ Justice 

### We concur: 

## -4

Chief Justice