Court Opinion

ID: 9504245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:56:00.304028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:55.391758
License: Public Domain

KELLY, J.
(concurring in the result only). I concur with the majority that general sales tax revenues are not constitutionally dedicated funds for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals opinion. The Governor has the authority to reduce the Legislature’s allocation of general sales tax revenues to the Comprehensive Transportation Fund.
I write separately because, unlike the majority on this Court, I agree with the Court of Appeals that Const 1963, art 9, § 9 is ambiguous. It is ambiguous because it *20reasonably has “several possible meanings or interpretations.”1
The Court of Appeals panel accurately explains the nature of the ambiguity:
[The section] unequivocally exempts all general sales taxes from the restrictions imposed on specific taxes but then simultaneously subjects up to twenty-five percent of general sales taxes to the very same restrictions. [260 Mich App 299, 306; 677 NW2d 340 (2004) (emphasis in original).]
When interpreting an ambiguous constitutional provision, it is proper for a court to consider its history and purpose. The Court of Appeals did not err when it looked outside the text to the section’s history and purpose to determine which of the text’s several possible meanings was intended. The majority’s criticism of this approach is misplaced.
For these reasons, I concur only in the result of the majority opinion.

 This is the first definition of “ambiguous” found in the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001).