Court Opinion

ID: 9520263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:34:56.784136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:52.854947
License: Public Domain

Dell, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. I regard this case as one of first impression here. The case of Hamilton v. Village of Detroit, 83 Minn. 119, 85 N. W. 933, relied upon in the majority opinion, to me seems clearly distinguishable. There this court held that a proposition submitted to the voters- for the establishment of an electric-light plant and the payment therefor by the issuance of bonds was not invalid as embodying two distinct propositions. In the instant case we have (1) acquisition of school houses, (2) betterment of schoolhouses and the payment for both projects by the issuance of bonds.
The general test for determining whether a proposition containing authorization for several structures or objects violates the rule that a separate proposition must be placed on the ballot for each distinct and independent object or purpose for which indebtedness is contemplated is whether or not there exists a natural relationship between such structures or objects so that they form but one rounded whole or single plan.7 Other jurisdictions have approved proposals combining new construction and improvement of existing school buildings *486as a single proposition.8 Obviously, however, a legislature may prescribe what objects or proposals must be separately submitted to the voters and the statutes and decisions of the particular state must be examined to determine the classification necessary.
Our legislature saw fit to separately define “acquisition” and “betterment.”9 It maintained this distinction in the statute authorizing issuance of school bonds.10 In the light of these provisions I am of the opinion that the legislature clearly indicated its intent that these objects be considered as separate and distinct purposes. The requirement of M. S. A. 124.02, subd. 2, that each proposition or question submitted shall be stated separately, makes me firmly believe that acquisition and betterment must be submitted to the voters in separate proposals enabling them to express their desire as to each without reference to the other. Although there is no occasion to go beyond the statutory language to arrive at this result, there is a sound basis for separate consideration of each of these proposals.
While I agree with the majority that the holding in Green v. Independent Consol. School Dist. No. 1, 243 Minn. 519, 68 N. W. (2d) 493, does not control the situation before us now, certain considerations expressed there are singularly applicable in this regard. As we mentioned there (243 Minn. 521, 68 N. W. [2d] 495):
“The obvious import of these statutes [the ones involved in the instant case] is to subject the plans of school boards regarding the initiation and issuance of school district bonds for school building construction and improvement projects to electoral approval and to limit the discretionary powers of the board in this area.”
*487And further (243 Minn. 523, footnote 8, 68 N. W. [2d] 496, footnote 7):
“* * * Obviously the conditions compelling a voter to favor betterment of a school building might not lead him to favor construction or purchase of a new school building or vice versa.”
The vice of the ballot in the instant case is that it was drafted in such a fashion as to attract those voters who might only favor acquisition of schoolhouses and also those voters who might only favor betterment of school houses, thus easily permitting log-rolling tactics to secure its passage. And when once passed it would vest in the school board a discretion to spend as much or as little as.it deemed advisable for either acquisition or betterment of schoolhouses. I think the legislature clearly intended that the school board should not have this discretion.
Even under L. 1957, c. 318, recently enacted and apparently guided through the legislature, at least in part, for the purpose of rendering the question pending before us in the instant case moot, the separate character of acquisition and betterment is preserved although the act provides that those propositions may, in the judgment and discretion of the board, be submitted as a single ballot question or as two separate questions in the notice of election and on the ballots. Since this is a dissenting opinion and the majority have decided this case on the merits contrary to my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by discussing the constitutional question. In my opinion the lower court should be affirmed.

Aylmore v. Hamilton, 74 Wash. 433, 133 P. 1027; Blaine v. Hamilton, 64 Wash. 353, 116 P. 1076, 35 L.R.A.(N.S.) 577; Hart v. Board of Education, 299 Mo. 36, 252 S. W. 441.

Pittsburg Board of Education v. Davis, 120 Kan. 768, 245 P. 112; Willis v. School Dist. of Sedalia, 299 Mo. 446, 253 S. W. 741; Parks v. School Dist. No. 1, 22 Ariz. 18, 193 P. 838 (notice of election).

M. S. A. 475.51, subd. 7, provides: “‘Acquisition’ includes purchase, condemnation, construction, and acquisition of necessary land, easements, buildings, structures, machinery or equipment.” Subd. 8 of the same section provides: “ ‘Betterment’ includes reconstruction, extension, improvement, repair, remodeling, lighting, equipping, and furnishing.”

M. S. A. 475.52, subd. 5, provides: “Any school district may issue bonds for the acquisition or betterment of schoolhouses, * * (Italics supplied.)