Opinion ID: 2117122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Property Tax Credit

Text: Petitioners challenge the property tax credit for two reasons. First, Petitioners argue that HB 1090 is in itself an appropriation which required approval of the legislature by a two-thirds vote. Secondly, Petitioners challenge the establishment of a fund (passed by a simple majority) which mandates future legislatures to fund the program through the General Appropriation Bill, thereby circumventing the two-thirds vote requirement. Respondents admit that HB 1090, as originally introduced, did require a two-thirds vote, but only because it contained a continuing appropriation and an emergency clause. Respondents argue that without those two provisions, HB 1090 is only an ongoing program which should be funded as an ordinary expense. We first turn to Petitioners' argument that HB 1090 is a special appropriation which required approval of the legislature by a two-thirds vote. In State v. Youngquist, 69 S.D. 423, 11 N.W.2d 84 (1943) we stated: An appropriation [requiring a two-thirds vote] is legislative sanction for the disbursement of the public revenue. In re Continuing Appropriations, 18 Colo. 192, 32 P. 272. The test of whether an act is an appropriation is whether the money may be paid or drawn from the state treasury on authority of the act. Humbert v. Dunn, 84 Cal. 57, 24 P. 111; Campbell v. Towner County, 71 N.D. 616, 3 N.W.2d 822; People ex rel. Colorado State Hospital v. Armstrong, 104 Colo. 238, 90 P.2d 522. Id. 11 N.W.2d at 86. HB 1090 clearly states that the revenues for the property tax credit account shall be appropriated annually through the general appropriation act. Respondents admit that without continuing appropriations it would be impossible to carry out the property tax credit program. Thus, we conclude that while HB 1090 does not contain the words continuous appropriation, in effect, it created a continuing appropriation which required a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature. [9] The outcome of Petitioners' second argument depends upon whether the property tax credit is an ordinary [10] expense. As we noted earlier, ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the state are those related expenses which recur with regularity and certainty. Jorgenson, 136 N.W.2d at 875. However, in that case we also stated: [N]o inflexible rule can be written which will forever clarify and solidify the distinction between ordinary, current and extraordinary expenses of state government. The line of demarcation is not clear, distinct, or static. Much must be left to the wisdom, integrity, and good judgment of our legislators. Id. at 875 (emphasis added). Respondents admit that without the annual appropriation it would be impossible to carry out the tax credit program and acknowledge that there may be years when funds are not available. Applying the foregoing principles, we conclude that the tax credit fund cannot be logically construed to be an ordinary expense of state government. While it is true that as long as there is funding it will recur on a yearly basis, a property tax credit is hardly necessary in order for the proper operation ... of the state government. Id. at 874. It clearly is not an expense of state government, ordinary or otherwise, within the meaning of the Constitution. [11] The wisdom, integrity and judgment of our legislators was exercised when on three occasions HB 1090 failed to pass by a two-thirds vote. Placing the funding in the General Appropriation Bill and calling it an ongoing program was simply an attempt to circumvent the constitutional requirement that any special appropriation be passed by two-thirds of the legislature.