Opinion ID: 1932230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the 1982 amendment to ง 112

Text: The question of whether HB 388 is a valid statute under SCR 519, Chapter 622, Laws of 1982, which was ratified by the people November 2, 1982, is not addressed by the majority. [14] Having found HB 388 a valid enactment under HCR 41, there was no occasion for the majority to address this issue. If my opinion in this case were to prevail, this would necessitate that we also address whether HB 388 is constitutional under SCR 519. Subject to elaboration, I will state my views briefly. Examining HB 388 under the provisions of SCR 519 presents the following choice. 1. Hold that the 1982 amendment to ง 112 (SCR 519) did not authorize HB 388, and therefore the statute is invalid. 2. Hold that the 1982 amendment to ง 112 (SCR 519) did authorize HB 388. The latter alternative would of necessity require that we all hold SCR 519 did not pass constitutional muster for the same reason HCR 4 did not. The pertinent paragraph of SCR 519 reads: Section 112. Taxation shall be uniform and equal throughout the state. All property not exempt from ad valorem taxation shall be taxed at its assessed value. Property shall be assessed for taxes under general laws, and by uniform rules, and in proportion to its true value according to the classes defined herein. The Legislature may, by general laws, exempt particular species of property from taxation, in whole or in part. [Emphasis added] It can be seen that if we interpret the underscored sentence to authorize HB 388 it is the same logrolling. There is an additional objection made very clear by ง 273: [A]nd if more than one amendment shall be submitted at one time, they shall be submitted in such manner and form that the people may vote for or against each amendment separately; and notwithstanding the division of the Constitution into sections, the Legislature may provide in its resolution for one or more amendments pertaining and relating to the same subject or subject matter, and may provide for one or more amendments to an article of the Constitution pertaining and relating to the same subject or subject matter, which may be included in and voted on as one amendment. It can been that the present ง 273 does not authorize an amendment by one vote to more than one article of the Constitution, ง 273 is under Article 15. The amendment, however, authorizing the Legislature to exempt particular species of property is contrary to Article 7, Section 182, which prohibits the Legislature from granting tax exemptions to corporations except under the special conditions described therein. Thus, Article 7, Section 182 provides that there shall be no abridgement of the power to tax corporations except the Legislature may grant exemption from taxation to encourage new industries and enterprises for a period not to exceed ten years. [15] The underscored provision in SCR 519 completely emasculates Article 7, Section 182, removing all of its restrictions, and gives the Legislature unfettered discretion to grant tax exemptions. I am therefore of the opinion that SCR 519 is unconstitutional as well. DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ., join this opinion.