Court Opinion

ID: 9719759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:02:35.086871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.763799
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Achor, J.
— Article 13, §1 of the Indiana Constitution provides:
*680“No political or municipal corporation in this State shall ever become indebted in any manner or for any purpose to an amount in the aggregate exceeding two per centum on the value of the taxable property within such corporation, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county taxes, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness; and all bonds or obligations, in excess of such amount, given by such corporations, shall be void: . . [My italics.]
It occurs to me that, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary, the phrase “the value of the taxable property . . . ascertained by the last assessment for . . . taxes,” can mean only the valuation ascertained and entered by the assessing officers and entered for tax purposes.
The fact that the legislature has directed that this amount be fixed at a percentage of actual value does not alter the limitation, as clearly stated in the constitution.
If the legislature is of the opinion that the base which limits the bonding authority of school corporations, etc. should be enlarged (as provided by Chapter 122 of the Acts of 1961), this purpose can be achieved by either directing that property be assessed at more nearly its true cash value or by initiating a constitutional amendment which would authorize a bonded indebtedness of more than “two per centum on the value of taxable property . . . ascertained by the last assessment for . . . taxes,” as is now provided by Art. 18, §1, supra. The result cannot be accomplished by a legislative declaration which provides, in substance, that actual value, rather than assessed value, shall, be used as a base for limiting the bonding power of a municipality.
*681Neither can the result properly be accomplished by judicial construction of the constitution in a manner contrary to the established meaning of its expressed provisions, in order to accomodate a present situation which members of the court are persuaded the constitution would have been made to accommodate had the same condition existed at the time of the adoption of the applicable constitutional provision.
Although by common usage, the meaning of the terms used in the constitution may be altered by social economic and political change, the judiciary has no authority itself to alter or pervert the meaning of terms clearly expressed in the constitution in order to accomplish what is presently considered to be a desired result. If our constitutional form of government is to be preserved such changes must jbe made by constitutional amendment. Only in this manner can it be ascertained that such changes in the fundamental law of the land are in accord with the clear and considered will of the people.