Opinion ID: 1926995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tax Payer Standing and Common Cause v. State.

Text: [¶ 8] Collins suggests two possible bases for asserting standing due to his taxpayer status: as an income taxpayer and as a sales taxpayer. In Common Cause v. State, 455 A.2d 1, 10 (Me.1983), we allowed income taxpayers to challenge state action even without showing special injury to themselves. The facts in Common Cause differed markedly from the facts of this case, however. First and foremost, Common Cause involved the issuance of general obligation bonds; bonds upon which the State was liable. In Common Cause, the plaintiffs contended that the challenged law violated the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. See id. at 6. We indicated that, the general rule is that a litigant may not assert constitutional rights of third parties. Id. (citing Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 113-14, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (plurality op.)). We therefore declined to consider the plaintiff's equal protection claim as they were third parties. In Common Cause, the plaintiffs further argued that the Legislature may not authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds except for a public purpose and that the proposed action by the State illegally violated that rule. See id. at 8. We agreed and rejected the proposition that taxpayers without special injury may never have standing to challenge illegal State action. We stated: [I]ndeed, the plaintiffs, as taxpayers, assert their own direct interest in the enforcement of a provision of the Maine Constitution which, as construed by this Court, is aimed precisely at protecting taxpayers from having their tax dollars used for private purposes. The plaintiffs assert also a direct interest in the enforcement of a constitutional provision designed to prevent the state from becoming overburdened with debt. Again, the taxpayers of the state are surely among the principal intended beneficiaries of that provision. Id. at 10. [¶ 9] The revenue bond issue that Collins challenges is not backed by the full faith credit of the State of Maine. If he earns income, he must pay income tax. See Maine State Housing Auth. v. Depositors Trust Co., 278 A.2d 699, 706-08 (Me. 1971). Collins' income tax payments will not directly help finance MGFA's bond issue as the debt will be serviced by the Authority and not by the State. So unlike the plaintiffs in Common Cause, Collins alleges only a violation of a statute or constitutional provision having little or no direct connection with [his] tax liability. Common Cause, 455 A.2d at 10. At the time, we noted that our holding in Common Cause intimate[s] no opinion about the standing of taxpayers without special injury to bring a suit of that sort. Id. Here, Collins has not shown a connection between the asserted statutory violation by the State and his taxes because Collins's tax dollars do not directly pay the bond debt. Therefore, Collins does not have income taxpayer standing. [¶ 10] Collins explicitly asserts that he has paid sales tax, but, as the South Dakota Supreme Court points out, payment of sales tax by a consumer does not fit within the definition of a taxpayer for taxpayer standing purposes. Stumes v. Bloomberg, 551 N.W.2d 590, 593 (S.D. 1996). See also Cornelius v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 49 Cal. App.4th 1761, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 618, 626-29 (1996). In Maine, as in South Dakota and California, the retailer pays the sales tax, and can choose to pass that cost on to the consumer. See Harvey F. Gamage, Shipbuilder, Inc. v. Halperin, 359 A.2d 72, 76-77 (Me.1976) (holding that the legal incidence of the sales tax is on the retailer and not the consumer, notwithstanding the language of 36 M.R.S.A. § 1753 (1990) which says sales tax is a levy on the consumer). His reimbursement of the retailer's sales tax cannot alone avail Collins of standing. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. CALKINS, J., with whom DANA, J., joins, concurring. [¶ 11] I would not reach the standing issue, and I would affirm the Superior Court's dismissal on the merits. While I agree that we can raise the issue of standing sua sponte as we have done here, I do not believe that we should reach to dispose of a case on standing where the merits are more easily determined than standing. Our standing jurisprudence is prudential, rather than constitutional. See Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 450 A.2d 475, 484 (Me.1982) (Nichols and Wathen, JJ., concurring). We are not required to determine standing. I would decide the merits because the standing issue is a close one, the record is minimal, standing was not raised by the parties, we do not have the benefit of the Superior Court's conclusion on standing, and the decision on the merits is clear. [¶ 12] On the merits, Collins seeks a declaration that 4 M.R.S.A. § 1610-A (Supp.1999) which authorized the issuance of additional securities for the construction of correctional facilities is invalid because it violates the debt limitation of Article IX, Section 14 of the Maine Constitution. The statutory scheme creating the MGFA and defining its powers and limitations is similar to the statutory scheme at issue in Maine State Hous. Auth. v. Depositors Trust Co., 278 A.2d 699, 706-07 (Me.1971), in which we held that the issuance of securities of the Housing Authority did not violate the Maine Constitution. Securities issued by the MGFA are not a debt of the State, and the credit of the State is not pledged to pay the securities or interest thereon. See 4 M.R.S.A. § 1618 (Supp. 1999). While the State pays rent to the MGFA to use the facilities it has constructed, that rent is expressly contingent on legislative appropriations. See 4 M.R.S.A. § 1604(18) (Supp.1999). Because the State is under no legal obligation to pay MGFA's debt, the Maine Constitution does not bar MGFA from issuing bonds in excess of $2 million. Cf. Maine State Hous. Auth., 278 A.2d at 706-08. [¶ 13] Collins also asserts that section 1610-A was enacted improperly because it has not been shown that it passed with a two-thirds majority of the Legislature. Maine follows the enrolled bill rule that prevents parties from challenging the process by which bills become law and deems that bills, which are duly certified as having been passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor, cannot be impeached by the showing of any irregularity in the passage. See Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538, 547, 18 A. 325, 327 (1889); see also Twin City Nat'l Bank of New Brighton v. Nebecker, 167 U.S. 196, 201, 17 S.Ct. 766, 42 L.Ed. 134 (1897). Therefore, Collins's attack on the manner of enactment of the statute fails. [¶ 14] For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing Collins's complaint for failure to state a claim. See M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).