I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - S A- 0 0 1 0 4 - S CT S TAT E OF M I S S I S S I PP I AND J . K. S TRI

NGER, J R. , I N H I S OFFI CI

AL CAPA CI TY A S S TATE FI S CAL OFFICER, AND J I M HO OD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T

HE ST ATE OF M

I S S I S S I PP I , EX REL. TH

E STATE O F M

I SS I SS I PPI

v. T HE B OA RD OF

L EV EE CO M

M I S S IONERSFO R TH E Y AZO O-M

I SS I SS I PPI DELTA D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 20/ 2004 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. W I LL I AM G. W I LL ARD, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COAHO M A COUN TY CHANCERY COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: M ERED I TH M c CO LLUM ALD RI DG E H A R O L D E D W A R D P IZ Z E T T A , III A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : W IL L IA M F . G O O D M A N , J R
. J OH N G
. CO RLEW G E O R G E R
. F A IR J OHN P
. HE NS ON RI CH AR D G
. NO BLE F RANK O W EN CROS THWA I T, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 15/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E C O B B , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. S ect i on 7(4) of H ou se B i l l 12 79 (2004 ) r eads: D ur i ng t he per i od begi nni ng upon J ul y 1, 2004, and t hr ough J une 30, 2005, t he B o a r d o f L e v e e C o m m is s io n e r s o f th e Y a z o o - M is s is s ip p i D e lt a L e v e e D istric t, upon demand of t he St at e Fi s cal O ffi cer , s hal l t r ans fert o t he St at e Tre as ur er a su m o r sum s n o t exc ee d ing a total of F ive M il lio n D o ll ars ($ 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ), w hi ch s hal l be depos i t ed i nt o t he B udgetC ont i ngencyFund.

### 2

O n J ul y1, 2004, J
. K
. St r i nger , J r . , t he St at e Fi s cal O ffi cer , m ade demand upon t he B oar d of L evee C om m i s s i oner s of t he Y az oo- M i s s i s s i ppi D el t a Levee D i s t r i ct( “B oar d”) for $ 5 , 0 0 0 , 00 0. 0 0 p u r s u a n tt o S e c t i o n 7 ( 4 )

. Th e r e a f t e r , t h e Bo a r d f

i l e d s u i t i n t h e Co a h o ma C ount yC hance r yC our t
. I n s eeki ng a declara ti o n t hatt he l egi s l at i on w as uncons t i t ut i onal and an i nj unct i on pr event i ng i t s enfor cement , t he B oar d averr ed t hat : ( 1) Sect i on 7( 4) w as
uncons t i t ut i onal beca us e i thad notbeen pr oper l ypubl i ci zed orr efe r r ed to co m m i t t ee a s
re q u ire d b yA rticle 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 3 4 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n ; (2 ) th e L e g isla tu re d id nothave the author i t yt o r equi r e t he t r ans ferof B oar d funds and, t her efo re, S ec t i on 7( 4) vi ol at ed A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 227 ets eq . o f t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on; ( 3) t he l egi s l at i on vi ol at ed t he s epar at i on of pow er s doct r i ne i n A r t i cl e 1, Sect i ons 1 and 2 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C o n sti tuti o n b y“inf

ri n g [in g ] an d en cro ac h [in g ] up o n the c o n sti tuti o n all yinv ested p o w ers of t he Levee Boar d”; and ( 4) t he l egi s l at i on vi ol at ed A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 17 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on and t he 14 A m endm entof t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i t ut i on bydi r ect i ng t he th
t aking of B oard prop ertyw i t ho ut due co m pen sat i on or due p rocess . ¶ 2
. T h e lea rn e d c h a n c e llo r a g re e d w ith th e B o a rd a n d g ra n ted su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in th e ir favor , decl ar i ng Sect i on 7( 4) of H ous e B i l l 1279 uncons t i t ut i onal and enj oi ned t he St at e fr om enfo rci ng t he legi sl at i on . F rom t hat fi nal j ud gm ent, t he S t at e app eal s. FACTS ¶3. U nder A r t i cl e 11 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tuti o n o f 1 890, “mai nt enanc e of a l evee sy stem i n t he St at e w as m ade mandat or y . ” Y a z o o & M

. V. R. Co. v . Boa r d

o f Mis s is s i ppi L evee C om ’rs , 1 8 8 M iss. 8 8 9 , 1 9 5 S o . 7 0 4 , 7 0 5 (19 4 0 ). T h ere fro m , tw o leve e d istri cts w ere

### 3

cr eat ed byt he s t at e l egi s l at u re: t he M i s s i s s i ppi L evee D i s t r i ctand t he Y azoo- M i s s i s s i ppi D e lta L e v e e D is tr ic t. See id
. “The Y azoo- M i s s i s s i ppi D el t a l evee di s t r i ctcompri s es al l of th e n o rt h e rn c o u n tie s o f th e s ta te w h ic h a re s u b

je c t to o v e rf

lo w f ro m th e M is s is s ip p i r iv e r.” H a m v . B o a rdo

f L e v e e C o m ’ r s f

o r Y a zo o -Miss iss ip

p i D e lta , 83 M i s s . 534, 35 So. 943 ( 1904)

. T he Levee Boar d of t he Y azoo- M i s s i s s i ppi D el t a Levee D i s t r i cti t s el f “w as
or i gi nal l ycr eat ed bychapt er168, L aw s of 1884, and w as r ecognized an d co nt i nued by

s ect i on 227 ets eq. of t he s t at e C ons t i t ut i on. ” Clar k v. Mil ler , 142 M i s s . 123, 105 So. 502, 5 0 5 (1 9 2 5 ). A rticle 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 3 2 o f th e C o n stitu tio n o f

1 8 9 0 sp e c if

ica llyp ro v id e s th a t, “[t ] he comm i s s i oner s of s ai d l evee di s t r i cts hal l have s uper vis i on of t he er ect i on , re p a ir , and

m ai nt enance of t he l evee s i n t hei r r es pect i ve di s t r i ct s . . . . ” M i s s . C ons t
. ar t
. 11, Sect i on 232 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A rticle 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 3 7 sta tes , “[ t]h e leg isla tu re sh a ll h a v e f u ll p o w e r to pr ovi de s uch s

y s t e m of t a x at i on fo r sai d l evee di s t r i ct s as i t s hal l , fr om t i m e t o t i m e, deem

w i s e and pr oper . ” M i s s . C ons t
. ar t
. 11, Sect i on 237 ( emphasi s added)

. A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 2 3 4 m a n d a tes th a t: [ n ] o b ill ch an g ing the b o u n d aries o f th e d istri ct, o r af f ect i ng t he tax a ti on or re v e n u e o

f th e Y a zo o -Miss iss ip

p i D e lta L e v e e D istric t ... s hal lbe cons i der ed by the l egis l ature unl ess s ai d bi l l s hal l have been publ i s hed i n s om e new s paper i n t he countyi n w hi ch i s s i t uat ed t he domi ci l e of the b o ard o f l evee comm i s s i oner s of t he l evee di s t r i ctt o be af fec t ed t her eby , for fourw eeks pr i or to th e in tro d u c tio n th e re o f in to th e leg isla tu re ; an d n o s uch bi l ls hal lbe cons i der ed f

orf i nalpas s age by ei t her t he senat e or hou se of repres entat i ves, un l ess th e sa m e sh a ll h a v e b e e n re f e rre d to , an d re p o rte d o n , b ya n a p p ro p ria te co m m it tee o f each hous e i n w hi ch t he s ame m aybe pendi ng; and no s uch comm i t t ee s hal l cons i der or r epor t on anys uch bi l l unl es s publ i cat i on t her eof s hal l have be en made as afor es ai d. M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 3 4 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).

### See para graph 1 fo r the te xt of Sect ion 7 (4) of H ou se Bill12 79 (200 4). 1 

### 4 ¶4. H ous e B i l l 1279 w as i ni t i al l y i nt r oduced on Febr uar y23, 2004 and t her eaf t er r efe r r ed t o t he Sel ectC om m i t t ee on Fi s cal St abi l i t yof th e H ous e of Repr es ent at i ves ( “Sel ect C om m i t t ee” )

. O n Februar y27, 2004, i t w as t r ans m i t t ed t o t he Senat e w her e i t w as r efe r r ed to th e A p p ro p ria tio n s C o m m itt e e . S e c tio n 7 (4 ) did n o t ap p e a r in th e b ill in iti a llyre f e rre d to ei t hert he Sel ectC om m i t t ee of t he H ous e of Repr es ent at i ves o r t he A ppr opr i at i ons C o m m it tee o f th e S en ate. I n stead , S ec ti o n 7 (4) f ir st ap p ea re d in th e C o n fe ren ce R ep o rt negot i at ed bya s i x ( 6) m ember C onfer ence C om m i t t ee of t he H ous e of Repr es ent at i ves and S en ate w h ich w as fil ed an d ad o p ted o n M ay 9 , 2 0 0 4
. O n M ay 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , the s tat e leg isl ature sig n e d a n d e n ro lled H o u se B ill 1 2 7 9 , w h ich w a s th e re a f ter sig n e d b yth e G o v e r n o r, to become eff

ect i ve on J ul y1, 2004. 1 ¶5
. O n Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , th e B o a rd (“ A p p e llees” ) fil ed a C o m p lai n t i n ch an ce ry co u rt ag a in s t th e S tat e o f M issi ssipp i and J. K
. S tr ing er, Jr
. as th e S tat e F iscal O ff icer, ( “A ppel l ant s ”) s eeki ng a j udgm ent decl ar i ng Sect i on 7( 4) uncons t i t ut i onal and enj oi ni ng t he S tate f ro m c o n f

is c a tin g a n yre v e n u e f ro m th e Y a z o o -M iss iss ip p i D e lta L e v e e D istric t. Subst ant i vely , the B o ard a l l eged thatSect i on 7( 4) vi ol at ed: ( a) A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 234 of th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n (f a ilu re to p u b lish S e c tio n 7 (4 ) in so m e n e w sp a p e r in th e c o u n ty i n w hi ch i s s i t uat ed t he domi ci l e of the B oar d, i

. e. C oahoma C ount y , forfour( 4) w eeks pr i or t o i t s i nt r oduct i on i n t he L egi s l atur e; fai l ur e, upon i nfor m at i on and bel i ef, to h av e S ect i on 7( 4) r efe r r ed t o, or r epor t ed on b y , an appr opr i at e comm i t t ee of ei t hert he H ous e of R epr es ent at i ves ort he Senat e) ; ( b) A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 227, et
. s eq. and A r t i cl e 1, Sect i on 2

### Spe c i fi c a l l y , the Att orne y Ge ne r a ls t at e d: 2 

### Pl a i nt i ff’ s c ha l l e nge t o Sect i on 7( 4)

. . . i s s uc h ac ons t i t ut i ona lc ha l l e nge de s c r i bed i n R

ul e 24 ( d) [o f the Mi s s i s s ipp i Ru l e s of Ci vi lPr oc e dur e ]. Be c aus e Mi s s . Code Ann. Se c t i on 7- 5- 1 pr ovi de s that the Mi s s i s s ippi Att orne y Gen eral is the c hi e f l e ga loffi c e r and a dvi s or

for the St at e of Mi s s i s s ippi , the Att orne y Ge ne r a l r e s pe c t ful l y s e e ks pe rm i s s i on t o i nt e rve ne i n thi s a c t i on for

the l i m i t e d pu rp o se of ar gui ng the c ons t i t ut i ona l i ty of the chal le ng ed le gisl at ion andto re bu t Pla inti ff’s consti tuti on alchal le ng e. 5 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on ( Sect i o n 7( 4) i nfr i nges and enc r oache s upon t he

cons t i t ut i on all yi nves t ed pow er s of t he B oar d bydel egat i ng t o t he St at e Fi s cal O ffi cert he p o w e r to c o n f

isc a te f u n d s u n d e r th e B o a rd ’s e x c lu siv e c o n tro l; a lso , S e c tio n 7 (4 ) im p ro p e rly aut hor i zes t he us e of B oar d funds fornon- l evee purpos es ) ; and ( c) A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 17 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on and t he Four t eenth A m en d me n to f th e Uni t e d St a t e s Con s t i tu t i on (S ec ti o n 7 (4) d ir ec ts th e tak ing o f B o ard p rop ertyw ith o u t du e c o m p en sati o n o r du e p roc ess). ¶6. O n J ul y1, 2004, pur s uantt o Sect i on 7( 4) , t he S t at e F i s cal O ffi cerm ade de m and upon t he B oar d for $5, 000, 000. 00. O n J ul y 30, 2004, t he St at e ans w er ed t he C om pl ai nt , deny i ng t he B oar d’ s al l egat i ons and aff i r m at i vel y as s er t i ng t hat , “[the B oar d] cannotover come t he

s tr o n g p re s u m p tio n o f

v a lid ity o f

S e c tio n 7 (4 ) o f

H o u s e B ill 1 2 7 9
. See , e. g. , E dw ar ds v. S ta te , 80 0 S o. 2d 45 4, 46 0-61 (M i ss. 20 01 ). ” T he A t t orneyG eneral fi l ed a M oti on to In te rv e n e , w h ic h w a s g ra n te d o n A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 4
.

2 ¶7. O n Sept ember 9, 2004, t he B oar d fi l ed a M ot i on for Sum m ar y J udgm ent
. T he m ot i on
re p e a ted th e su b sta n tiv e a lleg a tio n s o f th e C o m p lain t an d w a s b a se d in p a rt u p o n a f f id a v its of Sy kes St ur di vantand St eve St ew ar t
. St ur di vant , t he Pr es i dentof t he Levee Boar d fort he Y azoo- M i s s i s s i ppi D el t a Levee D i s t r i cts i nce J a nuar y1997, s t at ed t hatt he B oar d w as funded

### 6

b yre v e n u e s g e n e ra ted f ro m p r o p e rties w ith in th e L e v e e D istric t an d h a d n e v e r, to h is k n o w led g e , rec e iv e d f

u n d s f ro m th e S tate . H e f

u rth e r su b m itt e d th a t th e f u n d s a v a ilab le to

s at i s fySect i on 7( 4) w er e r evenue s gener at ed fr om pr oper t i es w i t hi n t he Levee D i s t r i ctand

w er e hel d as r es er ves for l evee emer genci es pur s uant t o t he l ong- r ange pl ans adopt ed byt he B oar d. A s s uch, he opi ned t hat i f re qui r ed t o compl y w i t h Sect i on 7( 4) , t he B oar d m i ght be for ced t o t ax l ands w i t hi n t he Levee D i s t r i ctw hi ch w er e notbei ng t axed at t he t i m e. St eve St ew ar tw as t he edi t orand publ i s herof t he C l ar ks dal e Pr es s R egi s t er , t he onl ynew s paper pu bli shed or l ocated i n C oah om a C ou nty
. H e st at ed that , “[n]ei t her Sec t i on 7(4), no r H ou se B ill 1 2 7 9 , in its e n tir e ty, h a s e v e r b e e n p u b lis h e d in th e C la rk s d a le P re s s R e g is te r.” ¶8. O n O ct ober29, 2004, t he St at e fi l ed a C ross -M o ti o n forSum m ar yJ udgm ent and O ppos i t i on t o Pl ai nt i ff’ s M ot i on for Sum m ar y J udgm ent
. R egar di ng A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 234, th e S tate a ss e rte d : t o t he ext enti ti s r el evant , Sect i on 234 cont ai ns an expl i ci tr ecogni t i on of t he L egi s l atur e’ s aut hor i t yt o enac t bi l l s aff ect i ng and contr ol l i ng t he r evenue of l evee boar ds

. Fur t her m or e, t he Levee Boar d’ s cont ent i on t hatSect i on 7( 4) s houl d be s t r uck dow n beca us e of the Legi s l atur e’ s al l eged nonc om pl i ance w i th Se cti o n 2 3 4 ' s p roc ed u ral requ ir em en ts prese n ts a non- j us t i ci abl e ques t i on. A s to A rticle 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 2 7 , et s e q ., th e S tate c o n ten d e d : [t ] he Leg isl atur e has i nher entaut hor i t yoverpubl i c fundi ng m at t er s , l i m i t ed on l y b y e x p re ss proh i bit i on . T he L egis l at ure i s endo w ed w i t h an d [h as] pr evi ous l yut i l i zed i t s expr es s aut hor i t y and cont r ol over t he L evee B oar d by vi r t ue of c ons t i t ut i onal and s t atut or ypr ovi s i on s. B eca us e t her e i s no pr ohi bi t i on on t he L egi s l atur e’ s i nher ent aut hor i t y t o enac t Sect i on 7( 4) , and beca us e t he Legi s l atur e has expr es s cont r ol over t he publ i c funds of t he Levee B o a rd , S e c tio n 7 (4 ) i n n o w a yv io la te s A rt ic le 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 2 7 e t s e q .

### Se c t i on 2 of Cha pt e r 61, Laws of 1918 - Hous e Bi l lNo. 33 pr ovi de d: 3 

### That fr om the am ount a

ppr opr i at e d, for the ye ar 1918, the s um of .
. . $30, 000

. . . m ay b e u sed , i f de m and i s m a de the r e for , by the l e ve e c omm i s s i one r s for the Yaz oo -M is si ss ip pi delt a l evee dist ri ct , andfo r the Miss is sipp i l evee di s tr i c t for the pur pos e of guar di ng the l e ve e s of s a i d di s tr i c t , i n c a s e of hi gh wat e r . The s um s s o e xpe nde d t o be di vi de d be twe e n the two di s tr i c t s . The M ississip p i lev ee di s t

ri c t t o r e c eiv e tw o th ird s an dth e Y azo o -M ississip p i d elta l e ve e di s tr i c t , one thi r d. 7 T he St at e fur t herpr ovi ded t hatSect i on 7( 4 ) d id n o t vi ol at e A r t i cl e 1, Sect i on 2 beca us e, “[t ] he Levee Boar d’ s s t atus as par tof t he execut i ve bra nch m akes i t s funds , w hi ch ar e r ai s ed pur s uantt o St at e l aw , s ubj ect to the cont r ol of t he Legi s l atur e. ” Fi nal l y , t he St at e ave r r ed t hatSect i on 7( 4) di d not vi ol at e ei t her A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 17 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on
o r t h e F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t of the U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n b ec au se “ the L eg isl ature ’s pr opercont r ol of publ i c funds i s n o t a ‘t ak i ng’ w i t hi n t he meani ng of t hes e cons t i t ut i onal p ro v is io n s .” ¶9. O n D ece m ber20, 2004, t he cha ncerycour t gr ant ed s um m ar yj udgm entfort he B oar d, decl ar ing S ect i on 7( 4) “uncons t i t ut i onal and unenf or cea bl e atl aw ” and “ enj oi n[i ng] [t he St at e] fr om t aki ng anyfur t hers t eps t o enfor ce that p u rpor t ed s t atut or yenac t m ent
. ” The

c h a n c e llo r d e ter m in e d th a t h isto ric a lly , “[ e ]x c e p t f o r p e rh a p s a n a p p ro p ria tio n f o r u se in guar di ng t he l evee s ( s ee C hapt er 61 of t he Law s of 1918) , t he Levee Boar d has not r ece i ved anyfund ing fr om t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi ei t herfort he er ect i on, r epai r , m ai nt enanc e, and

m an ag em en t of

the lev ee s w ith in the L ev ee D istri ct or fo r a n yo ther p u rpo se.” M o reo v er, 3
t he chance l l or found exi s t i ng cas e l aw t o es t abl i s h “t hat t he L evee B oar d i s ves t ed ‘ w i t h t he p len a rya u th o rity ’ to d e a l w ith th e e re c tio n , m a in ten a n c e a n d re p a ir o f th e lev e e sy ste m in

### The c hanc e l l or s pe c i fi c a l l y

found: 4 

### F irst, any arg u ab le p o w er o f th e L eg islature o v er th e f in an cial af

f airs o f state a ge nc i e s or

pol i t i c a ls ubdi vi s i ons , s uc h a s c o unti e s a n d m un i c ip a lc o r

p o r ati ons h as n o ap p licatio nto th e L ev ee B o ard . T h e L e v e e B o ardis inef f ect a c ons t i tut i onall

yc re ate d body . It is no t a creatureof the Legis lature lik e state ag en cies o r its p o litical sub d iv isio n s. ... S eco n d , th e S up rem e C o urt h as h eld o nnum ero u s o ccasio n s th at th e L eg islature m ay o n ly leg islate w ith resp ect to the l e ve e s y s t e m

t o the e xt e nt not ‘ othe rwi s e pr ovi de d by the Cons t i t ut i on’ and on ly ‘s o lon g as i t does not in f ri n g e up o n the proper exer ci se of po wers gr ant e d the Le v ee Com

m i s s i one r s by

the Cons t i t

ut i on’ or ‘ tr e nc h upon any consti tuti on alri gh ts .’ E. g. , C la rk , 1 0 5 S o . a t 5 0 5 ; F

ra n klin , 93 So. at

740; Bobo , 46 So. at 8 2 4
. . . . Art i c l e 11 doe s not , a s the St at e ar gue s , pr ovi de for leg islativ e co n tro l o v er th e rev enu es o f th e L ev ee B o ard

. S ectio n2 3 7 m erely gives the Legisl at

ure the po wer to prov ide a sy st em of taxati on . . .. Th e Levee B o ardh as its o w n co n stitutio n ally g ran ted p o w er to lev y tax es. See Yazoo & M. V . R. Co. , 195 So. at

706. (Em ph as is added). 8 [i t s ] di s cr et i on for purpos es of pr ot ect i ng t he pr oper t y of i t s di s t r i ctfr om l os s and des t r uct i on. H am , 35 So. at946. ” A s s uch, t he cha ncel l orconcl uded t hatt h e B oar d “nec es s ar i l y ” has “authori t yov er and co ntr ol of, L evee D i st ri ct revenu es, i ncludi ng t he u se of such revenu es. See Bobo [ v . B o a rdo

f L e v e e C o m ’rs fo r Y

a zo o -Miss iss ip

p i D e lta ] , [92 M i s s . 792, 46 So. 8 1 9 ,] 8 2 3 [ (1 9 0 8 )]

... s ee al s o N ati onal Suret y Co. v. Mil

ler , [155 M i s s . 115, ] 124 So. 251, 256 ( 1929)

. . . . ” B eca us e t he Legi s l atur e mayonl y addr es s as pect s of t he l evee s y s t em t o t he ext entt hat“‘ i tdoes noti nfr i nge upon t he pr operexer cise o f p o w er s gr ant ed t he Levee C o m m is s io n e rs b yth e C o n s titu tio n ’ ... Fra n k lin v . E lli s , [130 M i s s . 164, ] 93 So. 738, 740 ( 1922) ” the chancel l orfound t hatSect i on 7( 4) ’ s m andat ed t r ans ferof B oar d funds t o t he St at e Tre as ur erforgener al us e cons t i t ut ed a “fl agr ant vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e 11. ” Fur t her m or e, 4
t he cha ncel l ordet er m i ned t hatdi r ecti n g B o ard f unds fornon- l evee purpos es vi ol at ed “the

### T h e ch an cello r stated , “[ t] h e L eg islature is th e leg islativ e b ran ch

. See Art i cle 4, 5 

### S ectio n 3 3
. T h e L ev ee B o ard b elo n g s to th e ex ecu tiv e b ran ch

. See H a l e y v . S ta te , 108 M iss. 8 9 9 , 6 7 S o . 4 9 8 (1 9 1 5 ).” Spe c i fi c a l l y , the c hanc e l l or de t e rm i ne d: 6 

### Sectio n 7 (4) c l e ar l y

‘ a ffe c t s ’ the r e ve nue of the Le ve e Di s tr i c t ; i

. e . funds ge ne r at e d fr om

Le ve e Di s tr i c t

pr ope rty . I t

m ay a l s o a ffe c t the t axat i on of the Levee Dis tric t. If re qu ir ed to com ply with Sect ion 7(4), the Levee Board m ay ag ainb e requ iredto tax th e p ro p erty lo cated in th e L ev ee D istrict to m ain tain it s c urre nt le vel of op er at ions and re se rves . It i s thu s pre ci se ly the ty pe of law that Sect ion 2 34 ‘had in m ind.’ See Bobo , 4 6 S o . at 8 2 3
. 9 pr ohi bi t i on of A r t i cl e 1, Sect i on 2 of t he C ons t i t ut i on, pr ohi bi t i ng on e d ep artm ent fr om
exer ci s i ng pow er s pr oper l y bel ongi ng t o anot her

. ” Fi nal l y , t he chance l l or hel d t hatSect i on 5 7( 4) w as al s o uncons t i t ut i onal as i tvi ol at ed A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 234. Fr om t hat r ul i ng comes 6 th is a p p e a l. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶1 0
. S u m m ary jud g m en t is req u ir ed u n d er M iss. R
. C iv. P. 56 if t h e e v iden ce in the rec o rd sh o w s th a t n o g e n u in e is s u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t ex ists, a n d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . See M iss . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ); B r ow n v. Cr edit C enter , I nc. , 444 So. 2d 358, 362 ( M i s s . 1983)

. I n anal y zi ng s uch a de t er m i nat i on, t hi s C our t “r evi ew [s ] de

n o v o the g ran ti n g o r de n y ing o f su m m a ry j u d g m e n t and ex am ine[ s] all the e v iden ti ary

m at t ers befo re us - adm i ssi on s i n p lea dings, answ ers t o int err og at ori es, dep osi t i on s, aff i davi t s , et c. ” C olem an P ow er m ate, I nc. v. R heem M

f g. C o. , 88 0 So
. 2d 32 9, 33 2 (M i ss. 2004)

. A ft ervi ew i ng al l t he evi dence “i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he par t yagai ns t w hom th e m o tio n h a s b e e n m a d e ,” su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ill b e u p h e ld o n lyw h e n “ th e m o v in g p a rty i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Pi tt s v . W at kins , 90 5 S o. 2d 55 3, 55 5 (M i ss.

### 10

2005) ( quot i ng A etn a Cas. & S u r. C o . v. B erry , 6 6 9 S o . 2 d 5 6 , 7 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 )). B o th p arti es i n t hi s cas e agr ee ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t
. B eca us e “[ s ] t at u tory i nt erpr et at i on i s a mat t erof l aw w hi ch t hi s cour t r evi ew s de novo, ” W al lace v. T ow n of R alei gh , 8 1 5 S o . 2 d 1203, 1206 ( M i s s . 2002) , t he i s s ue underde novo r evi ew i s w het her Sect i on 7( 4) w as uncons t i t ut i onal , s uch t hat t he B oar d w as ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a mat t er
o f la w . I S S UES ¶11. T he St at e r ai s ed t hr ee i s s ues i n i t s i ni t i al br i ef: 1. D i d t he chanc er y cour t er r i n hol di ng t hatSect i on 7( 4) of H ous e B i l l 1279 ( 2004) vi ol at es A r t i cl e 11 and A r t i cl e 1, Sect i on 2 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C o n stitu tio n o f

1 8 9 0 w h e n th e L e g isla tu re h a s b o th in h e re n t an d sp e c if ic au tho ri tyto en ac t Se cti o n 7 (4)? 2. D i d t he cha ncerycour ter r i n cons i der i ng w het hert he Legi s l atur e compl i ed w i t h t he pr ocedur es of A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 234 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on o f 1 8 9 0 wh e n t h e q u e s t i o n o f c o mp l i a n c e i s b e y o n d j u d i c i a l r e v i e w? 3. D i d t he chance r y cour t er r i n hol di ng t hat Sect i on 7( 4) of H ous e B i l l 1279 vi ol at es A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 17 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on of 1890 and the 14 A m endment t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i t ut i on w hen t he L evee B oar d has th no pr oper t yr i ght s i n t he funds ati s s ue? 

### T h e B o ardp o sits inits b rief th at th e issu es are m o re accurately statedas f

o llo w s: 1 . Wh eth er S ectio n7 (4 ) o f H o u se B ill 1 2 7 9 (2 0 0 4 ), p urp o rtin g to co n f iscate Five Mill ion D ollars of

Levee Board fu nd s for no n-le vee purpo se s, violat es Arti c l e 11 of the Mi s s i s s ippi Cons t i t ut i on of 1890 by

i m pe rm i s s i bl y

i nfr i ngi ng upon the Le ve e Boar d’ s c ons t i t ut i ona l l y ve s t e d pl e nary

auth or i ty ove r the l e ve e s y s t e m

andthe r e ve nu e s the r e of ? AN D/ OR 2. Whe the r

Se c t i on 7( 4) of Hous e Bi l l 1279 ( 2004) vi ol at e s Art i c l e 3, Se c t i on 17 of the Mi s s i s s ippi Cons t i t ut i on of 1890, and/ or

de ni e s the due pr oc e s s of law g uarantee d b y

the 14 A men d me nt to the Con st it ution o f the Un it ed th 

### Stat es , b y p urpo rt ing to take the Levee Board’s c on st it utionall y protec te d pr ope rty wi thout c om pe ns at i on? AL TE RN AT I VE LY

### 11

3 . Wh eth er , i n an y e v en t, S ectio n7 (4 ) o f H o u se B ill 1 2 7 9 (2 0 0 4 ) is unc ons t i t ut i ona lbe c aus e the L eg islat ur e di d not

honor the l e gi s l at i ve due pr oc e s s pr e r e qui s i t e s ( ne ws pa pe r publ i c at i on and c omm i tt e e r e fe rr a l s and r e port s ) m andat e d by Art i c l e 11, Se c t i on 234 of the Mi s s i s s ippi Cons t i t ut i on of 1890? ¶12
. In i t s r eplybri ef t he S t at e res t at ed the i ssues as foll ow s: 1. H as t he L evee B oar d demonst r at ed

- aft err es ol vi ng al l doubt s i n favorof cons t i t ut i onal i t y- th at S ect i on 7( 4) vi ol at es t he cl earl anguage of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on? 2. H as t he L ev ee B o ard demonst r at ed t hatt hi s C our t
. . . m ayr evi ew t he L egi s l atur e’ s compl i ance w i t h pr ocedur al pr ovi s i ons ( i

. e. A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 2 3 4 o f th e M issi ssipp i C o n sti tuti o n )? A N A L Y S IS ¶ 1 3
. A “ v e ry h e a v y b u rd e n ” r e s ts u p o n th is C o u r t b e f o r e it m a y f

in d a s ta tu te

u n c o n s titu tio n a l. Mo o re v . B o a rdo f S u p ’rs o f Hin d s C o u n ty , 65 8 S o. 2d 88 3, 88 7 (M i ss. 1 9 9 5 ) (“T h is C o u rth as ch arg ed it self w ith the d u ty to ex am ine statu tes v eryca ref u ll yb ef o re fi ndi ng t hem unconst i t ut i onal

. ”)

. A s t hi s C our t s t at ed i n P athf inder C o a ch D i vis i on of S u p e rio r C o a c h C o rp . v. C o ttre ll , 2 1 6 M iss. 3 5 8 , 6 2 S o . 2 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 5 (19 5 3 ): [i ] n t he ca s e of Mis s . State Tax C om m is s i on v. Flor a D r ug C o. , 167 M i s s . 1, 1 4 8 S o . 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 , t h e c o u r tq u o t e d wi t h a p p r o v a l f r o m Su t herl an d o n S t atut ory C ons t r uct i on , V ol

. I , Sec. 65, 2d ed. , as fol l ow s : ‘ St atut es cannotbe dec l ar ed i nval i d on t he gr ound t hatt heyar e unw i s e, unj us t , unr eas onabl e, i m m or al , or b e c a u se o p p o se d to p u b lic p o licy , o r th e sp irit of th e C o n stitu tio n .’ A n d in Albr i tton v. Ci t

y of W inona , 181 M i s s . 75, 178 So. 799, 803, 115 A
. L
. R
. 1436, t he C our ts ai d: ‘ I n det er m i ni ng w het her an act of t he L egi s l atur e vi ol at es t he C ons t i t ut i on, t he cour t s ar e w it h o utt he r i ght t o s ubs t i t ut e t hei r j udgm entfor t hat of t he L egi s l atur e as t o t he w i s dom and pol i cyof t he ac t and mustenfor ce it, u n le s s it a p p e a rs b e y o n d a ll r e a s o n a b le d o u b t to v io la te th e C o n s titu tio n .’ T he under l y i ng cons i der at i on behi nd t hi s pos i t i on i s t hat , “[w ] hen a pa r t yi nvokes ourpow er of j udi ci al r evi ew , i tbehooves us t o r eca l l t hatt he cha l l enged a cth as bee n pas s ed by

### 12

le g is la to rs a n d a p p ro v e d b ya g o v e rn o r s w o rn to u p h o ld th e s e lf s a m e c o n s titu tio n a s a re w e .” State v. R oder i ck , 7 0 4 S o . 2 d 4 9 , 5 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e re f o re , “u n d e r M iss iss ip p i law a p a rty chal l engi n g the const i t ut i onal i t yof a s t atut e mustpr ove uncons t i t ut i onal i t ybey ond a

r eas onabl e doubt

. ” Ci ti es of Oxf or d, Car thage, S tark vil le and Tupelo v. N

or theas t E lec. P o w er A ss’n , 704 So. 2d 59, 65 ( M i s s . 1997) ( ci t i ng S ecretary of State v. W i esenb erg , 633 S o . 2 d 9 8 3 , 9 8 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); Mis s . P ow erC o. v. G oudy , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 )). In ot her w ords:

one w ho as s ai l s a l egi s l at i ve enac t m ent m us t over come t he s t r ong pr es um pt i on of val i di t yand s uch as s ai l antm us t pr ove hi s concl us i ons aff i r m at i vel y , and c lea rlye sta b lish it b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. A ll d o u b ts m u st b e re so lv e d in favorof val i di t yof a s t atut e. I f pos s i bl e, a cour t s houl d cons t r ue st atut es s o as t o r endert hem cons t i t ut i onal r at her t han uncons t i t ut i onal i f t he s t atut e under at t ack d oes no tcl earl yand app arent l ycon fl i ct w i t h o rgani c l aw aft er fi rs t r e s o l v i n g a l l d o u b t s i n f a v o r o f v a l i d i t y. Id
. ( ci t i ng L o den v . Mis s . P u b li c S erv ice C o m m ’n , 279 So. 2d 636, 640 ( M i s s . 1973) (c itatio n s o m itt e d )). M o re o v e r, “to sta te th a t th e r e is d o u b t re g a rd in g th e c o n stitu tio n a lit y of an act i s t o es s ent i al l y decl ar e i tcons t i t ut i onal l yval i d. ” Moo re , 658 So. 2d at887 ( ci t i ng I vy v. R ober t

s on , 220 M i s s . 364, 370, 70 So. 2d 862, 865 ( 1954) )

. T her efor e, Sect i on 7( 4)

w as pr oper l yadj udged uncons t i t ut i onal onl yi f i t di r ect l yconfl i ct ed w i t h “t he cl earl anguage of t he cons t i t ut i on. ” P

H E, In c . v. S ta te , 8 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 4 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). I . W het her t he L evee B oard dem onst rat ed - af t er r es ol vi ng al l doub t s i n favor of c ons t i tuti ona l i t y - t hat Se c t i on 7 ( 4) vi ol at e s t he c l e ar l ang uag e of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on. ¶ 1 4
. “ Un d e r S e c t i on 22 7 et s e q. of t he Con s t i t u t i o n , t h i s l e v e e d i s t r i c t i s i n t h e s a me
s i t uat i on as i f i t had been ori gi nal l y cr eat ed by t he C ons t i t ut i on . . . . ” Ya z o o & M . V . R. , 195

### According t o W ebst er ’s Th ir d New Inte rnat ional Dict ionary , “ple nary” is d ef in ed 7 

### as “c om plet e i n every

re spec t: Ab solute , Per fect , U n qu al ifie d.” W ebst er ’s Th ir d N ew In tern atio n al D ictio n ary

p . 1 7 3 9 (1 9 8 6 ). 13 So. at706. G i ven t he “br oadnes s of t he t er m s empl oy ed i n gr ant i ng pow ers to the [L evee B o a rd ]” u n d e r A rticle 1 1 , this C o u rt h a s d e ter m in e d th a t: it is p lai n t hati tw as t he i nt ent i on t o ves t t he boar ds of l evee comm i s s i oners w i t h plenary aut hor i t

y t o deal w i t h t he ‘ er ect i on , m ai nt enance , a n d re p a ir ’ of t he l eve e s

ys t em att hei rdis cr et i on , fo r th e p u rp o se o f p ro tec tin g th e p ro p e rty of t hei r r es pect i ve di s t r i ct s fr om l os s and des t r u cti o n . T he ac t i ncorpor at i ng th e b oard of

l evee c om m i ssi on ers of the Y azoo -M i ssi ssi pp i D el t a exp res sly di r ect s t hati ts hal l be cons t r ued a s ‘an exer ci s e byt he Legi s l atur e of a l l t he p o w e rs a p p e rt a in in g to it n e c e s s a ry to c a rr yin to e f f e c t th e in te n t o f

s a id a c t,’ a n d , as sta ted , th is leg isla tiv e e n a c tm e n t is p ra c tica llye m b o d ied in o u r o rg a n ic la w . The t er m s em pl oyed i n t he C ons t i t ut i on , b y a ny r e a s o n a b le i nt er pr et at i on , conve

y the ev i dent

des ign o f clo thi ng l eve e boar ds w i t h t he pow ert o ‘ er ect , ’ ‘ cons t r uct , ’ and ‘ lo c a te ’ l eve es ... . H am , 3 5 S o . at 94 6 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h ese “n ec essa ri lylarge p o w ers o f d iscreti o n ” a re 7 ai m ed t ow ar d enabl i ng t he B oar d t o “s ucce s s ful l y carr y i nt o eff ectt he obj ect s of i t s cr eat i on

. . . . ” Id
. at 94 8
. O u tsi d e o f th e c o n stitu ti o n al po w ers b esto w ed u p o n the B o ard , h o w ev er, i t“i s s ubj ectt o t he s upervisi on and contr ol of t he Legi s l atur e and c an exe r ci s e, unl es s t he C ons t i t ut i on ot her w i s e pr ovi d es, onl ys uch pow er s as m aybe del egat ed t o i t byt he L egi s l atur e. ” Clark , 1 0 5 S o . a t 5 0 5
. See a l so B obo , 46 So. at824 ( “t he Legi s l atur e has t he

am p lestp o w er to c h an g e, alt er, an d m o d ifythe m ac h inery o f a b o ard li k e [ the L ev ee B o ard ],

so lon g as itd o es n o t tren ch u p o n an yco n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts th at su ch b o ard m ay h av e .. . . ”). ¶15. R egar di ng t he di s cr et i onar ypow er s of t he B oar d, t hi s C our t s t at ed i n B obo th a t: [q] ui t e an a r r ayof author i t i es is ci t ed t o t he pr opos i t i on t hatbodi es of l egi s l at i ve cr eat i on, l i ke t hi s l evee boar d, ar e ent i t l ed t o t he pr ot ect i on of t he cou rt s so far as t h e i ra u t o n o my , th e ir p ro p e rty , an d int ernal af

f air s are conce r ned ; th a t th e se a re m a tters w h ich a re c o m m itt e d b y th e C o n stitu tio n to

### 14

t he dis cret i on of t he go verni ng bo dy of the levee boa rd ; t ha t t his bo ard , by the pr ovis i ons of

t he C ons t i t ut i on , is g r a n t e d abs ol ut e pr ot ect i on i n t he pos s es s i on , contr ol , a n d d is

p o s it io n o

f it s p ro p e rty ; an d th a t, w h ilst itm a yb e a p u b lic corpor at i on, as di s t i ngui s hed fr om a pr i vat e corpor at i on, and i n pol i t i cal and gover nm e n t a l ma t t e r s ma yb e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r a u x i l i a r yo f t h e s t a t e, nev ertheles s i ti s a separat e and dis t in c t c o rporat i on i n all otherm at t ers , ent i r el yi ndepende ntof t he s t at e, w i t h pr oper t y r i ght s w hi ch ar e pr ot ect ed, and of w hi ch i tcannot be depr i ved w i t hout due pr oces s of l aw . T he gene r al pr i nci pl e her e announc ed i s al s o s oughtt o be for t i fi ed byt he ca s e of A ber deen A cadem y v. A ber deen , 1 3 S m e d e s & M . 6 4 5 . T h e re is n o so rt o f d o u b t as to t he co rr ect ness of the gen eral pri ncipl e ann ou nced i n these deci si on s. 46 So. at823 ( emphasi s added) ( al t hough t he pr i nci pl e had no a ppl i cat i on t o t he ac t ati s s ue i n B obo , w h ich th is C o u rt f o u n d d id n o t d e p riv e th e B o a rd o f a n y o f its p ro p e rty o r d e n yit

a n y d u e p ro c e s s o f

la w ). B uts ee G u l

l y v. W il li am s B ros. , 182 M i s s . 119, 180 So. 400, 404 (1938) ( poi nt i ng outt hatt he A ber deen A cadem y deci s i on ci t ed i n B obo , whi c h “ i n vol ved the ri gh tof the L egis l at ure i n 1 85 0 to di vertl i qu or l i cense fu nd s fr om t he m un i ci pali t yto

w hi ch i thad bee n gr ant ed byt he cha r t erof t he ci t yof A ber deen i n 1837; w hi ch funds t he L egi s l atur e i n 1848 undert ook t o di ver t fr om t he ci t yt o t he ac ademy , ” w as “over t ur ned, al t hough notexpr es s l yover r ul ed, i n t he ca s e of State B oar d of E ducati on v. A ber deen , 56 M is s . 5 1 8 ... .” ). ¶16
. T h e re f

ore, t his C ou rt w i l l fi rs t exam i ne w hether S ect i on 7(4) viol at ed any specif ic

cons t i t ut i onal aut hor i t ygr ant ed t o t he B oar d. T hi s i s a t hr es hol d cons i der at i on beca us e “a

s t at e cons t i t ut i on does notgr ants peci fi c l egi s l at i ve pow er s , butl i m i t s t hem, and .

. . t he l aw m aki ng depar t m entpos s es s es al l l eg isl at i ve pow er s notpr ohi bi t ed orr es t r i ct ed byt he

s t at e orfede r al cons t i t ut i on, and ce r t ai nl yt he pow erext ends t o ci r cumst ance s not cover ed byt he const i t ut i ons atal l

. ” Fa rr a r v . S ta te , 1 9 1 M is s . 1 , 2 S o . 2 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 8 (1 9 4 1 ). See a l so

### “Chapter 16 9 p rovides that, exce pt in ca se s o f em ergency .. . , the board is re qu ir ed 8 

### t o l e t a l lc ontr a c t s for

m at e r i a land work i n c onne c t i on wi th the m a i nt e nanc e or r e pa i r of the l e ve e s by a dve rt i s e m e nt

for thr e e we e ks i n ane ws pa

pe r , and the boar d s ha l l r e c e i ve bi ds for sa id wo rk and award the con tr ac t to th e l ow es t r es po nsible bidd er .” F ra n klin , 1 3 0 M iss. at 164, 93 So. at

739. “Chapter 1 7 0 p rovides t

hat the bo ar d shallhave a pres ident, a c hief engineer, an 9 

### a s s i s t ant c hi e f e ngi ne e r , an att orne y or fi rm of att orne y s , a pum p e ngi ne e r , as e c r e t ary

and tr ea sure r, a c ar et aker , andsuch other c le ri ca l and ste no graphic help as nee ded, and such comm onla

bo re rs as m ay

be de em ed neces sary

to carr y onthe work o f the bo ar d, bu t t hat s a i db o ar ds h a l l h av e n o o th e r p a i do f f i c e r s o r e m p l o ye e s , e x c e p t

i nc a s e s o f

e m e r g e n c y. T h e act th enp rescrib es th at th e salary o r co m p en satio no f

th e o f f icers an dem

p lo yees sh all be fixed by

the board within ce rt ai n limit at ions ..

. . ” F ra n klin , 13 0 Mis s. at 16 4, 93 So . at 739. 15 A l br i tton , 178 So. at 803 ( “The l egi s l at i ve depa r t m enti s pr i m ar i l ychar ged w i t h t he dut yof det er m i ni ng byw hatm eans [t he pr om ot i on of t he w el far e of it s ci t i zens ] can be

acc om pl i s hed. T o t hatend i t i s i nves t ed, by[A r t i cl e 4, ] s ect i on 33 of ourSt at e C ons t i t ut i on,

w it h all legis l at i ve pow er , exce pti n s o faras ot hers ect i ons of t he C ons t i t ut i on pl ace a lim itatio n th e re o n .”); B obo , 4 6 S o . at 8 2 4 ; Clark , 105 So. at505. I n Fra n k lin , fori ns t ance , th is C o u rt f

o u n d c h a p ter s 1 6 9 a n d 1 7 0 o f th e A c ts o f

1 9 2 2 “ c o n stitu tio n a l as a re a so n a b le 8 9

r egul at i on of t he af

fai r s of t he boar d. T he Legi s l atur e has t he r i ght t o pr es cr i be, al t er , or change at i t s di s cr et i on t he pr ocedur e and m et hod of oper at i on of t he boar d, s o l ong as i t does

no t i n f r i n g e u p o n t h e p r o p e r a n d e f f i c i e n t e x e r c i s e o f t h e p o wer g r a n t ed t he l evee
co m m issi o n ers b ythe C o n sti tuti o n . ” 1 3 0 M iss. at 16 4 , 9 3 S o . at 74 0
. M o reo v er: t he contr ol of t he purs e s t r i ngs of gover nm ent is a l egis l at i ve f unct i on . I ndeed, i ti s t he s upr em e l egis l at i ve pr er ogat i ve , i ndi s pens abl e t o t he i ndepende nce and i nt egr i t y of t he Legi s l atur e, and not t o be sur r ender ed or abr i dged , s ave b y th e C o n stitu tio n itse lf , w i t hout di s t urbi ng t he bal ance of t h e sy s t em and endange r i ng t he l i ber t i es of t he peopl e. T he r i ghtof t he Legi s l atur e t o cont r ol t he publ i c t r eas ur y , t o det er m i ne t he s our ces fr om w hi ch t he publ i c r evenue s sh a ll b e d e riv e d a n d th e o b jec ts up o n w h ich th e ysh a ll b e e x p e n d e d , to d icta te

### Art i c l e 11, Se c t i on 237 s t at e s : “ [t ]he l e gi s l at ur e s ha l lhave ful lpowe r t o pr ovi de 10 

### s uc h s y s te m of tax at i on for

s a i d l e ve e di s tr i c t s a s i t s ha l l , fr om t i m e t o t i m e , de e m wi s e and prop er .” Miss . Con st . art . 11, Sect ion 2 37 (e m ph as is added). Arti cl e 11, Sect ion 2 35 st at es : “ [e]a ch le vee board shallm ake, at the e ndof

ea ch 11 

### fi s c a lye ar , t o the gove rnor of thi s s t at e , ar e port

s howi ng the c ondi tio n o f the l e ve e s and r e c omm e ndi ng s uc h a ddi t i ona ll e gi s l at i on on the s ubje c t of the s y s t e m a s s ha l lbe thought ne c e s s ary , and s howi ng the r e c e ipt s and e xpen d itu res of the boar d, s o that e a c h i t e m , the am ount and con si derati onther efor, s halldist inct ly appear, together

with such other m atte rs a s i t s ha l lbe thought

pr ope r t o c a l lt o the att e nt i on of the l e gi s l at ur e . ” Mi s s . Cons t
. art
. 11, Se c t i on 235. A rticle 1 1 , S ectio n2 3 9 states: “[ t] h e leg islature sh all r e qu ire th e lev ee b o ard s to 12 

### p ub lish at each o f th eir sessio n s an item ized acco un t em b racin g th eir re s p e c t i v e receip ts si nce the prior s es si on , andsuch approp ri at io ns as have been m ade or ordere d b y them r e s pe c t i ve l y , i n s om e ne ws pa pe r or ne ws pa

pe r s of the di s tr i c t
. ” Mi s s . Cons t
. art
. 11, Se c t i on 239. See par a gr a

ph 3 for the t e xt of Art i c l e 11, Se c t i on 234. 13 

### 16 th e tim e , the m a n n e r, an d th e m e a n s b o th o f th e ir c o llec tio n a n d d isb u rse m e n t, i s f i r ml ya n d i n e x p u g n a b l ye s t a b l i s h e d i n o u r p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m. C olbert v. S tate , 8 6 M iss. 7 6 9 , 3 9 S o . 6 5 , 6 6 (19 0 5 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h ere fo re, B o ard funds ar e prope r l ycons i der ed s ubj ectt o l egi s l at i ve contr ol abs entcons t i t ut i onal pr ovi s i ons ot her w i s e. ¶ 1 7
. T h e S tate n o t o n ly c o n te n d s th a t S e c ti o n 7 ( 4 ) d id n o t v io la te a n y sp e c if ic

cons t i t ut i onal aut hor i t ygr ant ed t o t he B o ard , itfur t heras s er t s t hatt he cons t i t ut i onal p ro v isio n s o f A rticle 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 2 7 e t se q . su p p o rt its p a ss a g e . It p o in ts t o th e s p e c if ic l anguage i n A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 237; A r t i cl e 11, Sect i ons 235 and 239; and A r t i cl e 11, 10 11 12 Sect i on 2 3 4 t o s uppor ti t s ar gum entt hatt he Legi s l atur e w as cons t i t ut i onal l yempow er ed

13
to e n a c t b ills a f

f e c tin g B o a rd re v e n u e s .

### S ee f o o tn o te 3 f

o r th e tex t o f

S ectio n2 o f

C h ap ter 6 1 , L aw s o f

1 9 1 8 - H o u se B ill 14 

### No. 33. 17 ¶18. T he St at e al s o poi nt s outt hats i nce t he B oar d w as cr eat ed i n 1884, t he Legi s l atur e has pas s ed over140 bi l l s r egul at i ng i t s aff ai r s , i ncl udi ng i t s fi nanci al aff ai r s . For i ns t ance , t he L egi s l atur e has r egul at ed t he m anner and amount of bonds t he B oar d coul d r aise p u rsuant to s ta te la w , s ee C hapt er60 of t he Law s of 1892 (ad o p ted A p r i l 1, 1892) ; aut hor i zed the B o ard to sp en d fu n d s o n p arti cu lar projects an d reg u lat ed the s ala ri e s p ay ab le t o B o ard

e m p lo y e e s , s ee , e. g. , C hapt er 81 of t he Law s of 1894 ( adopt ed Februar y7, 1894) , C hapt er 170 of t he Law s of 1922 ( adopt ed M ar ch 31, 1922) ; and di r ect l yappr opr i at ed gene r al funds

o f th e S ta te to th e B o a rd , s ee C hapt er61 of t he Law s of 1918. I n s um , t he St at e ar gues t hat 14 S e c tio n 7 (4 ) is s im p lya n o th e r c o n stitu tio n a l m a n if e sta tio n o f th e L e g isla tu re ’s p o w e r in

r egul at i ng t he fi nanci al aff ai r s of t he B oar d. A s l egi s l at i ve contr ol overt he B oar d’ s fi nanci al aff ai r s has r epea t edl yoccurr ed s i nce i t s i ncept i on, i t cont ends t he fi nanci al aff ai r s addr es s ed i n Sect i on 7( 4) ar e al s o “s ubj ectt o [t he Legi s l atur e’ s ] s uper vi s i on and contr ol

. ” See Clark , 1 0 5 S o . a t 5 0 5
. ¶ 1 9
. T h e B o a rd c o u n ter s tha t th e p lain lan g u a g e o f A rticle 1 1 re n d e rs S e c tio n 7 (4 ) f a c ially

un con st i t uti on al

. A rt i cl e 11 , S ect i on 22 9 st at es: T h e re sh a ll b e a b o a rd o f lev e e c o m m iss io n e rs f o r th e Y a z o o -M iss iss ip p i d e lta l evee di s t r i ctw hi ch s hal l cons i s t of t w o m ember s fr om eac h of t he count i es of C oah om a and T un i ca, and on e m em ber from each o f t he rem ai ning cou nti es, o r p a rts o f c o u n ties n o w o r he re a f ter e m b ra c e d w ith in th e lim its o f sa id d istric t. M is s . C o n s t . a rt . 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 2 9
. See al s o Ya z o o & M

. V . R. , 195 So. at706 ( “[u] nder Sect i on 227 ets eq. of t he C ons t i t ut i on, t hi s l evee di s t r i ct i s i n t he s ame s i t uat i on as i f i thad

### Se e footnot e 10. 15 

### A rt icle 11 , Sec ti on23 6 p rovides for le gisl at ivel y im po se d levee taxes “ fo r l evee 16 

### p ur p o s e s ” t o “ b e p a i d i n t o th e tr e a s ury o f th e l e v e e b o ar d o f th e d i s tr i c t i n whi c h the l and c har ge d wi th the s am e i s s i t uat e d .

. . . ” Mi s s . Cons t
. art
. 11, Se c t i on 236.

18 been or i gi nal l ycr eat ed byt he C ons t i t ut i on . . . . ”)

. T he B oar d as s er t s t hatt hi s l anguage eff ect i vel yact s as a cons t i tuti onal char t er . A s s uch, t he B oar d cont ends t he l anguage of A r t i cl e 11 per t ai ni ng t o t he B oar d t akes on a const i t ut i onal char act er . A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 232

s t at es , “[t ] he comm i s s i oner s of s ai d l evee di s t r i ct s s hal l have s uper vis i on of t he er ect i on ,
re p a ir , an d m aint ena nce o f t he levees i n t hei r r es pect i ve di s t r i ct s . . . . ” M i s s . C ons t
. ar t
. 11, S e c tio n 2 3 2 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o H am , 35 So. at946 ( “i t w as t he i nt ent i on t o ves tt he boar ds of l evee comm i s s i oner s w i t h plenary a u th o rity t o deal w i t h t he ‘ er ect i on , ma i n t enanc e
a n d re p a ir’ o f

th e lev e e sy ste m a t th e ir d isc re tio n , f o r th e p u rp o se o f

p ro tec tin g th e p ro p e rty of t hei rr es pect i ve di s t r i ct s fr om l os s and destr uct i on. ”) ( emphasi s added)

. I n t he es t i m at i on of t he B oar d, i tcan onl ym eett hi s cons t i t ut i o n al o b li g at i on of er ect i ng, r epai r i ng, and

m ai nt ai ni ng t he l evee s i f i tcont r ol s t he r evenue s acqui r ed w i t hi n t he D i s t r i ctforl evee p u rpo ses. W h il e i t co n ce d es t h at A rt icl e 11 , S ec ti o n s 2 3 6 an d 2 3 7 g ran t th e L e g islature l i m i t ed pow er over t he “s y s t em of t axat i on, ” t he B oar d as s er t s t hat al l tax re v en ues 15 th e re f ro m a re to b e p a id d ir e c tly to th e B o a rd “ f o r l e v e e p u rp o s e s .” See a l so B obo , 46 So. 16
at823 ( “bodi es of l egi s l at i ve cr eat i on, l i ke t hi s l evee boar d, ar e ent i t l ed t o t he pr ot ect i on of the co u rt s so fa r a s the ir a u t o n o my , th e ir p ro p e rty , and i nt er nal af

f ai rs ar e conc er ned ; t hat
t hes e are m at t ers w hi ch are com m i t t ed by t he C ons t i t ut i on t o t he dis cr et i on of t he gove r ni ng bo dy of t he l evee b oa rd ; t hatt hi s boar d, byt he pr ovi s i ons of the C ons t i t ut i on, i s gr ant ed

### 19

a b so lu te p ro tec tio n in th e p o ss e ss io n , co n tro l, an d d isp o sitio n o f its p ro p e rty
.. . . ” ) (e m p h a sis added)

. I n ot herw or ds , t he pow erof t he Legi s l atur e ext ends onl yt o t he s y s t em of t axat i on, and notcont r ol overt he B oar d’ s r evenue s . T her efor e, t he B oar d as s er t s Sect i on 7( 4) , w hi ch di r ect s funds of t he Y azoo- M i s s i s s i ppi D el t a L evee D i s t r i ctt o t he B udgetC ont i ngencyFund

o f th e S tate , to b e a n u n c o n s titu tio n a l ac t o f leg isla tiv e c o n tro l b e c a u se it w a s w ro u g h t in di r ectcont r avent i on of t he expr es s cons t i t ut i onal pr ovi s i ons of A r t i cl e 1 1
. In su ppor t , t he B oard ci t es B oar d of

T r ustees of

State I nsti t uti ons of

H i gherL ear ning v. R ay , 809 So. 2d 6 2 7 , 6 37 ( M i s s . 2002) , fort he pr opos i t i on t hat , “[w ] hi l e . . . t he l egi s l atur e pos s es s es t he pow ert o t ake aw ay by s t atut e w hat has been gi ven bys t atut e, t he s ame cannotbe s ai d fort hat

cr eat ed byt he C ons t i t ut i on. T o al l ow t hi s w oul d be an a ffr ont t o our C ons t i t ut i on. ” See a l so B obo , 46 So. at824 ( “t he Legi s l atur e has t he ampl es t pow ert o change , al t er , and modi fyt he

m achi ner yof a boa r d l i ke [the Levee Boar d] , s o l ong as it does nott r ench upon a ny
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t h a t s u c h b o a r d m a y h a v e . . . . ” )

. A s a “ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y- c r e a t e d e n t i t y”

r at hert han a “ s t atut or i l y - cr eat ed ent i t y ” by vi r t ue of A r t i cl e 11, t he B oar d i ns i s t s t hatSect i on 7 (4 ) u n c o n s titu tio n a lly u s u rp s th e B o a rd ’s c o n tr o l o v e r i ts o w n re v e n u e s . ¶20. T he St at e r epl i es t hat t he expr es s cons t i t ut i onal pr ovi s i ons of A r t i cl e 11 r el i ed upon b yth e B o a rd lac k su f

f icie n t c lar ity re g a rd in g th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f S e c tio n 7 (4 ). It as se rts t hatt he B o ard ’s a u t hor i t yunderA r t i cl e 11 t o s uper vi s e t he “e r ect i on, r epai r , and

m ai ntenance” o f th e lev e e s does no t i m m un i ze i t from l egis l at i ve co ntr ol over i t s fund s. B e c a u se a n y“ d o u b t re g a rd in g th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f a n a c t is to e ss e n tiallyd e c lar e it

cons t i t ut i onal l yval i d, ” Moo re , 658 So. 2d at887 ( ci t i ng I v y, 7 0 S o . 2 d a t 8 6 5 ), th e S tate

### Not e that i f s pe c i fi c c ons t i t

ut i ona lauthor i ty

e xists re gar di ng the pr ovi s i ons of 17 

### Se c t i on 7( 4) , any

di s c us s i on of i nhe r e nt

c ons t i t ut i ona lauthor i ty

i s m oot
. Thi s i s the pos i t i on o f th e B o ardw h ichd ism isses th e inh eren t co n stitut i o n a l auth o rity arg um en t o f

th e S tate ar gui ng, “ ge ne r a l Le gi s l at i ve powe r c annot be aboot s tr a

p t o di s pos s e s s the Le ve e Boar d of th e p len ary

auth o rity exp ressly

g ran tedb y

th e C o n stitutio n .” R ath er, th e S tate arg u es A rticle 1 1 exp ressly p erm its th e L eg islature to en act b ills 18 

### af f ectin g th e B o ard ’s f

in an cial reso urces. 20 as s er t s t hatt h e L eg isl atur e al s o had t he i nher entcons t i t ut i onal aut hor i t yt o enac t Sect i on 7 (4). 17 ¶21. T he St at e cont ends t hatanyat t empt t o l i m i t t he Legi s l atur e’ s pow erovert he r evenue s
o f th e B o a rd m u s t b e e x p re s s . See Far r ar , 1 9 1 M iss . at 1 , 2 S o . 2 d a t 1 4 8 (“ a sta te

cons t i t ut i on does notgr ants peci fi c l egi s l at i ve pow er s , but l i m i t s t hem, and .

. . t he l aw m aki ng depar t m entpos s es s es al l l egi s l at i ve pow er s not pr ohi bi t ed or r es t r i ct ed byt he s t at e orfede r al const it u ti on, and ce r t ai nl yt he pow erext ends t o ci r cumst ance s not cover ed byt he

cons t i t ut i ons at al l

. ”)

. For exampl e, A r t i cl e 8, Sect i on 206A of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on p la c e s c e rt a in e d u c a tio n f u n d s b e y o n d th e L e g is la tu re ’s b u d g e t a u th o ri ty. See M iss . C o n st.

a rt. 8 , S e c tio n 2 0 6 A . B e c a u se A rticle 1 1 c o n tain s n o su c h e x p re ss re stric tio n , th e S tate 18

as s er t s t h a tt h e f

u n d s a ti s s u e wer e s u b

j e c t t o t h e i n h e r e n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t yo f t he L e g is la tu re . ¶22. T o es t abl i s h t hat B oar d funds ar e publ i c funds “w i t hi n t he excl us i ve pr ovi nce of t he legi s l atur e, ” id ., th e S ta te a rg u e s th a t th e B o a rd is s im p ly a s ta te a g e n c y . S e e Nugentv. B oa rd of Missi

ssi pp iL evee C om ’rs , 58 M i s s . 197, 1880 W L 6893 at*8 ( 1880) ( pr i ort o t he M i s s i s s i ppi C o n sti tuti o n of 1890, t hi s C our t found t hat“i n t hi s cas e i t i s cl eart hatt he L egi s l atur e i nt ended mer el yt o cr eat e a St at e age ncy . . . . [T h e B o ard of M i s s i s s i ppi L evee

### Th e State al so no te s that Board em ployee s parti cipate in the st at e re ti re m ent s y st em 19 

### (“ PE RS ”)

. T h e B o ardco n ten d s th at Ha le ys t ands onl y

for the pr opos i t i on that

unde r Article 20 

### 1, Se c t i o n s 1 an d 2 o f th e M i s s i s s ip p i C o n s t i t ut i o n , an i n d i v i du a l c ann o t r e m a i non the Boar d of Supe rvi s or s ( a judi c i a l br anc h) whe n a ppoi nt e d a s aLe ve e Comm i s s i one r ( anon21 C om m i s s i oner s ] has m er el yadm inist rati ve dut i es t o per for m - a w or k pr es cr i bed byt he L eg i s l a tu r e , a n d wi t h me a n s f u r n i s h e d b y t h e Le g i s l a t u r e . ” )

. Th e Boa r d p o i n t s t o t he 19

cons t i t ut i onal l y ves t ed aut hor i t y of t he L evee B oar d t o es t abl i s h i t s pl ace as an aut onom ous b ra n c h o f

g o v e rn m e n t. See Ya z o o & M . V . R. , 195 So. at 706 ( “[u] nder Sect i on 227 ets eq.
o f th e C o n stitu tio n , this lev e e d istric t is in th e sa m e situ a tio n a s if it h a d b e e n o rig in a lly

c re a ted b yth e C o n stitu tio n .. . . ” ). T h e S tate , h o w e v e r, re p lies th a t th e B o a rd is a n a lo g o u s to t he B oar d of Trus t ees of St at e I ns t i t ut i ons of H i gher L earni ng ( “B oar d of Trus t ees ”) , w hi ch

w a s m a d e a c o n s titu tio n a l b o d yb yc o n s titu tio n a l a m e n d m e n t in 1 9 4 4
. See Van S l yke v. Boar d o f Tr us te e s of

State I ns ti t uti ons of

H i ghe rLea r ning , 61 3 S o. 2d 87 2, 87 7 (M iss. 1993) ( ci t i ng State e

x r e l . Allain v . Boar d of

Tr us te e s of

I ns ti t uti ons of

H i ghe rLea r ning , 387 So. 2d 89, 91 ( M i s s . 1980) )

. I n A lla in , t hi s C our t des cr i bed t he B oar d of Trus t ees as “a

cons t i t ut i onal l ycr eat ed s t at e age ncy . ” 387 So. 2d at 91. A s s uch, t hi s C our t found i n Van Sl yke thatt he cha ncel l ordi d noter r i n “fi ndi ng t hatt he B oar d of Trus t ees i s par t of t he

exec ut i ve bra n ch of gove r nm ent , r at hert han an a ut onom ous orfour t h br anch of gover nm ent
. ” 613 So. 2d at877. M or eover , t he S tat e p o ints out t hatt he B oar d has been char act er i zed a s par tof t he exe cut i ve bra n ch rather t han an a ut onom ous br anch of g o v er n m e n t. See Ha le y , 108 M i s s . at899, 67 So. at499 ( “[w ] e t hi nk t he boar d of l evee
comm i s s i oner s bel ongs t o t he exe cut i ve depa r t m ent
. . . . ”)

. T her efor e, t he St at e cl ai m s t hat 20

### j u d icial b ran ch ). See id
. at 498. The St at e c ont e nds that the c har a c t e r i z at i on of l e ve e funds i n Hem ingw ay is f act- 21 

### sp ecif ic to th e ap p ro p riatio nact at issu e inth at case. 22 t he funds of t he B oar d ar e publ i c funds , s ubj ectt o l egi s l at i ve contr ol abs entexpl i ci t r emoval f ro m th e in h e r e n t b u d g e t au th o rityo f th e L e g isla tu re , an d th e a b se n c e o f a n ysp e c if

ic pr ohi bi t i on t o l egi s l at i on l i ke Sect i on 7( 4) t hus cr eat es r eas onabl e doubtw hi ch mustbe

re s o lv e d in f

a v o r o f S e c tio n 7 (4 )’ s c o n s titu tio n a lity. See Moo re , 658 So. 2d at887 ( ci t i ng I v y, 7 0 S o . 2 d at 86 5 ) (“d o u b t reg ard ing the c o n sti tuti o n ali tyo f a n ac t i s to e ssen ti all yd ec lare it c o n s titu tio n a lly v a lid ... .” ). ¶ 2 3
. T h e S tate f

u rth e r a rg u e s th a t if th e B o a rd is a sta te a g e n c y w h o se f u n d s a re su b

jec t to legislat ive co n tr o l b y v ir tue o f the ab sen ce o f co n sti tuti o n al p rov isi o n s o therw ise, then B o ard

r evenue s m aybe us ed fornon- l evee purpos es . T he B oar d count er s t hati n Nuge nt this C o u rt found t h a tt h e r e v e n u e o f t h e B o a r d c o n s i s t s s o l e l y: of t axes l evi ed by t he L egi s l atur e, t o be expende d s ol el yi n t he per for m ance of t h e p u b lic d u ty o f

p ro te c tin g th e d is tr ic t f ro m o v e rf

lo w . ... T h is f

u n d is

... r ai s ed bya s peci fi c t ax - a mode of t axat i on aut hor i zed byt he C ons t i t ut i on o n lyf o r th e e re c tio n o f

w o rk s o f

th is c h a ra c ter ; an d th is s tam p s it e ss e n tially a s a tr u s t f

u n d d e v o te d e x c lu s iv e ly to th e w o rk p ro v id e d f o r. 58 M i s s . 197, 1880 W L 6893 at*8. I n ot herw or ds , “[the] expr es s i on of t he purpos e of the t ax i n t he a ct is an ex cl us i on of al l ot herpurpos es . ” Id . a t * 1 2
. See al s o B oar d of

L eve e C om ’ rs v. Hem ingw ay , 66 M i s s . 289, 6 So. 235, 236 ( 1889)

. W hi l e bot h Nu g e n t and 21 Hem ingw ay p re c e d e d th e C o n stitu tio n o f 1 8 9 0 , th e B o a rd a ss e rts th a t th e p rin c ip les th e re in

rem ain a p p li ca b le un d er L o w e v . B o a rdo f L e v e e C o m ’rs fo r Y

a zo o -Miss iss ip

p i D e lta , 19 So. 346 ( M i s s . 1896) , w hi ch w as “cove r ed and c ont r ol l ed” byt he Nu g e n t d e c is io n . Id
.

### 23

¶24. T he St at e cont es t s t he B oar d’ s as s er t i ons , ci t i ng pr i orhol di ngs of t hi s C our t r egar di ng l egi s l at i ve c o nt r ol over“t he pur s e s t r i ngs of governm ent
. ” See C olbert , 3 9 S o . a t 6 7 ( “ we
ar e cons t r ai ned t o bel i eve thatt he C ons t i t ut i on r egar ds t he L egi s l atur e as t he sol e reposi t ory of pow er t o m ake appr opr i at i ons of m oney s t o be pai d outof t he st ate treasury .”) ( e m p h a sis

a d d e d ); W

ash in gton Cou n t

y v. B oa rd of Miss. L evee C om ’rs , 171 M i s s . 80, 156 So. 872, 873 ( 1934) ( r egar di ng t he appr opr i at i on of ce r t ai n s i xt eenth s ect i on l ands forl evee di s t r i ct purpos es , “[i ] tappea r s t o be w el l

- s et t l ed t hat , i n t he abs ence of cons t i t ut i onal pr ohi bi t i on, t he L e g isla tu re m a ya u th o riz e th e tak in g o f p ro p e rty d e v o ted to a p u b lic u se f o r a d if f e re n t p u b lic

u se .. . . ” ); B ailey , 236 So. 2d at423 ( “[t ] he appr opr i at i on of publ i c f unds is tra d iti o n a lly

w i t hi n t he exc l us i ve pr ovi nce o f th e leg isla tu re .”) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In su m , the S tate a ss e rts th a t all sta te a g e n c ies u sin g f u n d s f o r a p a rticu lar p u rp o se a re a d m in iste rin g a p u b lic tru st, y e t th is a lo n e d o e s n o t p re c lu d e le g is la tiv e c o n tr o l o v e r t h e d ir e c tio n o f th o s e f u n d s . ¶25. T he B oar d fac es a hi gh bur den beca us e “under M i s s i s s i pp i la w a par t ychal l engi ng th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f a s ta tu te m u s t p ro v e u n c o n s titu tio n a lity b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” Ci ti es of Oxford , 704 So. 2d at65 ( ci t i ng W i ese n b erg , 6 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 8 9 ; G oudy , 459 So. 2d at263)

. N o n ethe l es s , “no ci t at i on of author i t yi s neede d fort he uni ver s al l yacc ept ed pr i nciple that i f t her e be a cl as h bet w een the edi ct s of t he cons t i t ut i on and t he l egi s l at i ve
enac t m ent , t he l at t erm us ty i el d. ” N e w e ll v. S ta te , 3 0 8 S o . 2 d 7 1 , 7 7 (M is s . 1 9 7 5 ). T h is C our tm us tdet er m i ne w het her Sect i on 7( 4) confl i ct s w i t h t he l anguage of t he cons t i t ut i on. ¶26. Sect i on 7( 4) cl ear l yconfli cts w it h t he l anguage of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on of 1 8 9 0 , A rt icl e 1 1 , S ec ti o n s 2 3 2 an d 2 3 6
. A rt icl e 1 1 , S ec ti o n 2 3 2 g ives the B o ard “p lena ry

### 24

aut hor i t yt o deal w i t h t he ‘ er ect i on, m ai nt enanc e, and r epai r ’ of t he l evee s y s t em . . . . ” H am , 35 So. at94 6. A r t i cl e 11, Sect i on 236 expr es s l ypr ohi bi t s t he us e of Boar d funds fornonl evee purpos es . Si nce Sec t i on 7( 4) m andat es B oar d funds be conve r t ed t o the B udget C o n tin g e n c yF u n d f

o r u se o th e r th a n lev e e p u rp o se s (th e e re c tio n , m a in ten a n c e , an d re p a ir of t he l evee s y s t em), t he Legi s l atur e over s t epped the bounds of i t s cons t i t ut i onal l yi m pos ed l i m i t at i on. ¶ 2 7
. P rio r to th e a d o p tio n o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n o f 1 8 9 0 , the B o a rd w a s s im p ly

v ie w e d a s a s ta te a g e n c y . See Nuge nt , 58 M i s s . at197. I n t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on of 1890, t he B oar d i s r efe r r ed t o as a “boar d. ” M i s s . C ons t
. ar t
. 11, Sect i on 2 2 9
. F o ll o w i ng
a d o p t i o n o f

t h e M i s s i s s i p p i C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1 8 9 0 , t h e B o a r d w a s v i e w e d a s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l yc re a te d o rg a n iz a tio n , s ee Ya z o o & M . V . R. , 195 So. at706, butal s o as a par t of t he exe cut i ve b ra n c h

. See H

aley , 108 M i s s . at 899, 67 So. at 499. W hi l e t he B oar d i s s ubj ectt o l egi s l at i ve
c o n tr o l a b s e n t c o n s titu tio n a l p ro v is io n o th e rw is e , s ee C lark , 1 0 5 S o . at 5 0 5 ; B obo , 46 So. at824, t he fr amer s di d notgr antl egi s l at i ve author i t yt o frus t r at e t he purpos es of a

cons t i t ut i onal l y - cr eat ed or gani zat i on. W hi l e t he L egi s l atur e does have the pow ert o t ax and

a p p ro p ri a te , s ee C olbert , 39 So. at66, t hatpow eri s l i m i t ed byt he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on

w ith re s p e c t to B o a rd f

u n d s . See M iss . C o n st. a rt. 1 1 , S e c tio n 2 3 6 ; B obo , 4 6 S o . at 82 4
. In sh o rt , A rt icl e 1 1 , S ec ti o n 2 3 6 d o es n o t perm itthe L eg isl ature to take B o ard fu n d s w h ich a re
con st i t uti on al l y m and at ed for l evee p urposes, and redi rectt hem t ow ard non -l evee p urposes. T o hol d ot her w i s e w oul d su b v ert t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on. T her efor e, w hi l e t he

### 25

L egis l at ure is e m p o w e re d to seek am end m ents t o the M i ssi ssi pp i C on st i t uti on i f t hey so d e s ir e , u n til th a t tim e , th is C o u rt f in d s S e c tio n 7 (4 ) u n c o n s titu tio n a l. ¶ 2 8
. S in c e S e c tio n 7 (4 ) ha s b e e n d e c lar e d u n c o n stitu tio n a l, th e re m a in in g iss u e s a re m o o t,

a n d t h i s Co u r td e c l i n e s t o a d d r e s s t h e m. CO NC L US I ON ¶29
. “[U ]nder M i ssi ssi pp i l aw a part y chall eng i ng t he con st i t uti on a lit y o f a st at ute m ust pr ove uncons t i t ut i onal i t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt

. ” Ci ti es of Oxford , 7 0 4 So. 2d at 65 ( ci t i ng W i esenb erg , 6 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 8 9 ; G oudy , 459 So. 2d at263)

. N onet hel es s , “no ci t at i on of author i t yi s neede d for t he uni ver s al l y acc ept ed pr i nci pl e t hati f t her e be a cl as h bet w een t he edi ct s of t he cons t i t ut i on and the l egi s l at i ve ena ct m ent , t he l at t erm us t y i el d. ” N e w e ll , 308 So. 2d at77. T hi s C our tfi nds t hat Sect i on 7( 4) , i n aut hor i zi ng t he us e of Boar d funds fornon- l evee purpos es , pl ai nl yconfl i ct s w i t h t he cl ear l anguage of A r t i cl e 11, Sect i ons 232

a n d 2 3 6 o f

th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n o f 1 8 9 0 a n d , the re f

o re , is u n c o n stitu tio n a l. ¶ 3 0
. AFF I RM ED
. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , CARL S ON, GRAVE S , AND DI CK I NSON, J J . , CO NCU R. EAS LEY, J . , DI SSEN TS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .