Court Opinion

ID: 9583960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:43:19.836327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:07.801846
License: Public Domain

*1138SIMMS, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
While I wholly concur in that part of the majority opinion whereby this Court assumes original jurisdiction, I respectfully dissent to this Court’s holding in abeyance the issuance of the peremptory writ of mandamus.
The majority anticipates good faith performance by the State Board of Equalization of their mandatory constitutional and statutory duty. Unquestionably, this anticipation is founded upon the long recognized legal presumption that public officers will perform their public duties in accordance with their trust.
Either oversight or inaction on the part of the Board since 1960, as distinguished from the new members thereof, renders this presumption nugatory.
If the majority believes the Board will now perform in accordance with the Constitution and statutes, we should deny mandamus.
I submit we should adjudicate the matter now before us to finality and issue the writ of mandamus.