Opinion ID: 2120497
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Special Privileges and Public Purpose

Text: Appellants further argue that LB 1116 violates article III, § 18, because it gives specific and exclusive grants of franchise, property, and privileges to specific groups. [23] In support of their argument that LB 1116 constitutes unconstitutional grants of franchise, property, and privileges, appellants cite to Haman v. Marsh. [24] In Haman, the statute in question would have paid $33.8 million of state tax money to depositors who had suffered losses due to the failure of industrial loan and investment companies in Nebraska. When it was passed, the statute limited the defined class of recipients to three such companies. We found that the legislation was passed with the sole benefit of those three recipients in mind. [25] The benefit granted in Haman was the intended purpose of the statute, whereas the purpose of LB 1116 is to designate a permanent location for the state fair. Unlike the situation in Haman, the state fair is something of interest to the entire state and is intended to benefit all Nebraskans. Indeed, appellants do not dispute this. We have upheld expenditures for state fairs and other expositions as expenditures for a public purpose. [26] We have also previously held that incidental benefits do not render a statute unconstitutional when enacted for a public purpose. [27] And, while proximity to the state fair may benefit local businesses, those benefits are incidental to the public purpose behind LB 1116. Hence, we find that appellants have neither overcome the presumption of constitutionality nor met their burden of showing that LB 1116 is an unconstitutional grant of special privileges or benefits.