Opinion ID: 1968772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indefiniteness and Uncertainty of the Statute.

Text: Our reading of sec. 76.28 (3), Stats., brings to mind the dour observation that law is common sense as modified by the legislature. The appellants refer to sec. 76.28 (3) as a monstrosity which is laden with mumbo jumbo. It is undeniable that the meaning of the statute is elusive and that it is not easily comprehensible. Nevertheless, it is the burden of the judiciary, in examining legislative enactments, to uphold such pronouncements if any reasonably intelligible analysis can result. It is not the court's function to determine the wisdom of legislative enactments. Appleton v. Outagamie County (1928), 197 Wis. 4, 220 N. W. 393. In State ex rel. Carlson v. Kingston (1933), 210 Wis. 301, 304, 246 N. W. 426, the court noted with reference to sec. 76.28, Stats. (prior to the 1939 and 1947 amendments): If the statute works inequitably, the remedy lies with the legislature and not with the courts. Careful and patient reading of the 1939 amendment (ch. 516, Laws of 1939) results in our conclusion that the legislature directed that whenever a joint school district extends into one or more counties with 50,000 population or less and also into a county with more than 50,000 population, in such case every municipality (including cities in such districts) must apportion. The 1947 amendment (ch. 237, Laws of 1947) reflects a legislative determination that whenever a joint school district lies wholly within counties with 50,000 population or less and such joint school district also contains a city, the latter fact will excuse all municipalities in such district from sharing for the reason that a city is not required by law to share. While the legislative intent behind the various distinctions made in the statute is not crystal clear, we cannot subscribe to the appellants' argument that the statute is so confounding as to be constitutionally offensive.