Opinion ID: 2541313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hancock Amendment Claim [3]

Text: As the case is to be remanded, the Court will address the school board's defense that section 167.131 violates Mo. Const. art. X, secs. 16 to 24 by requiring a new activity or service without full state financing. The question is whether the school district, which is not a taxpayer, has standing to use the Hancock amendment as a defense. The answer is, No. Under the provisions of the Hancock amendment, any taxpayer of the state, county or other political subdivision shall have standing to bring suit to enforce the Hancock amendment. Mo. Const. art. X, sec. 23. In Fort Zumwalt School Dist. v. State, this Court said: The Hancock Amendment makes no pretense of protecting one level of government from another. By its clear language, Section 23 limits the class of persons who can bring suit to enforce the Hancock Amendment to any taxpayer. In so doing Section 23 recognizes that any apparent injury to the school district is merely derivative of the taxpayers' injury. Cf. Bartlett v. Ross, 891 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Mo. banc 1995) (school districts not considered real parties in interest in tax protests before State Tax Commission). The school district plaintiffs do not, because they cannot, claim status as taxpayers. We hold, therefore, ... that the school district plaintiffs in this case are without standing to bring an action to enforce Article X, Section 21. 896 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Mo. banc 1995). The school board argues Fort Zumwalt is not applicable because it is not bringing suit, but using the Hancock amendment as a defense. But this Court has rejected that distinction. State ex rel. Bd. of Health Center Trustees of Clay County v. County Com'n of Clay County, 896 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Mo. banc 1995)(noting it was not the trustees' role to act as a judge of the constitutionality of a tax). [4]