Court Opinion

ID: 9630067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:59:08.921017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:40.794356
License: Public Domain

LUSK, J.,
dissenting.
The provisions of Art. XI, § 11, of the Constitution of Oregon, which we are called upon to construe read as follows:
“(1) Unless specifically authorized by a majority of the legal voters voting upon the question, no taxing unit, whether it be the state, any county, municipality, district or body to which the power to levy a tax shall have been delegated, shall in any year so exercise that power as to raise a greater amount of revenue for purposes other than the payment of bonded indebtedness or interest thereon than its tax base, as hereinafter defined. The tax base of each said taxing unit for any given year shall be: (a) The total amount of tax lawfully levied by it in any one of the three years immediately preceding for purposes other than the payment of bonded indebtedness or the interest thereon and exclusive of any levy specifically authorized as aforesaid in excess of the tax base, plus six pereentum of said total amount; or, (b) an amount approved by a majority of the legal voters voting upon the question of establishing a tax base.
“(2) The question of establishing a tax base shall be submitted at a regular general or primary election. Every such measure shall specify in dollars and cents the amount of the tax base in effect and the amount of the tax base sought to be established, and the new tax base, if adopted, shall first apply to the levy for the fiscal year next following its adoption.”
Prior to November 4, 1952, Art. XI, § 11, contained the substance of the limitation now found in § 11 (1) (a) *626above set forth. The language was different, but the effect of the present provision is the same as before the adoption of the amendment. The provision of § 11 (1) (b), however, is new. The proposed amendment was referred to the people by the Forty-sixth Legislative Assembly (Oregon Laws 1951, p. 1168) and was adopted at the general election on November 4, 1952. It is conceded on all sides that the reason for including in the amendment authority to the legal voters of a taxing unit to adopt a new tax base, as provided in § 11 (1) (b), was that the six percent limitation had proved to be too restrictive in a time of inflation and rapidly growing population. School districts and other taxing units found it impossible to raise enough revenue under that'limitation to meet their financial requirements, and hence resort was repeatedly had to special elections at which specific authority was sought and obtained to levy a tax in excess of the highest levy of the preceding triennium plus six percent. Since, however, under the terms of former § 11 (as well as under the present section) a tax levy thus specifically authorized could not be used to augment the tax base, it was necessary, as expenses continued to mount, to repeat the process of special elections year after year. This proved to be an extremely expensive and unsatisfactory method of ordering the fiscal affairs of the various taxing units. Hence, the adoption of § 11 (1) (b).
For convenience I shall refer to the base defined in § 11 (1) (a) by its popular name, the six percent limitation, and to the base defined in § 11 (1) (b), as the new tax base.
The present case arises in this way: In 1954 School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, the respondent here, finding that its financial requirements could not be met by a levy made subject to the six per*627cent limitation, a measure was submitted to tbe electors, and approved by them, at the primary election held May 21,1954, authorizing a new tax base of $12,704,644. Without this authorization the greatest amount of revenue which the School District could have raised under thé six percent limitation was $7,419,476. In submitting the proposal to the voters the School Board was at pains to explain that a levy in the full amount of the new base was necessary to meet the financial requirements, not for the fiscal year 1954-55 next following the election, but for the fiscal year 1955-56, and that the levy for 1954-55 would not be in the amount of the new tax base but in the amount of $11,190,000. Such a levy was accordingly made a year ago. It was far in excess of the six percent limitation. At the same time it was more than a million and a half dollars less than the amount of the new tax base. The district now proposes to levy a tax for the fiscal year commencing July 1,1955, in the full amount of its new tax base. It claims the right to do so because the people adopted that base pursuant to a provision of the Constitution, and it insists that it may, as long as that tax base remains undisturbed by another vote of the people, indefinitely levy, year after year, the amount thereof or any lesser amount. The Attorney General, on the other hand, appearing for the appellant, the Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission, contends that the authority of the district’s school board is now controlled by the six percent limitation, and that, since $11,190,000 was the highest levy for any of the past three years, the district is forbidden to levy any greater amount than $11,190,000 plus six percent. As the proposed levy far exceeds that limitation, it is invalid under the Attorney General’s contention.
Our former opinion proceeded upon the assumption that the constitutional provisions in question are plain *628and unambiguous and admit of no construction and no resort to extrinsic aid for ascertainment of their meaning. Further consideration of the case, aided by additional briefs and ably presented oral arguments of all counsel engaged, demonstrates that this was a mistaken assumption. The words of the constitutional amendment are plain and understandable enough—the difficulty is in reading them correctly in their context. Speaking of what he terms “enacted law”, Judge Learned Hand says: “The duty of ascertaining its meaning is difficult at best, and one certain way of missing it is by reading it literally, for words are such temperamental beings that the surest way to lose their essence is to take them at their face.” Hand, The Spirit of Liberty, p. 157. In the present instance, when it becomes necessary to apply the words—not just some of them but all of them—to the situation created by the action of the School Board in 1954, to take the words at their face is, in my opinion, to lead to error.
It is, of course, possible to say, as we said formerly, that the six percent limitation and the new tax base are separate and distinct things, that the taxing power is subject in “any given year” to either one or the other, and not to both, and, therefore, that a new tax base having once been adopted, the six percent limitation no longer has any function to perform so far as the particular taxing unit is concerned. But the contention of the School District, first pressed upon us in its brief in support of its petition for a rehearing, that it is authorized under the six percent limitation to add six percent to $12,704,644 in its levy of some future year brings into sharp focus the question of the correctness of that view.
That contention is based upon the fact that the six percent limitation permits the addition of six percent to the amount of the highest levy in any of the three *629years immediately preceding. It is so stated in the School District’s brief in support of its petition for rehearing, from which I quote:
“ # * A tax base for cmy given year is stated to be (a) the highest triennium levy plus six per cent or (b) an amount approved by the voters voting upon the question of establishing a tax base. Accordingly, the levy in any year of a base determined under clause (b) does not exclude subsequent application of clause (a) to such levy if that particular levy was the highest during the preceding triennium, for, regardless of the source of authority for the levy, it is nevertheless an ‘amount of tax lawfully levied * # * in any one of the three years immediately preceding’ and under the plain language of clause (a) that amount plus six per cent thereof is a tax base which may be lawfully levied in the year in question.”
Thus, the School District would apply the six percent limitation—take the benefits of it, so to speak— in addition to levying the full amount of its new tax base. It says that it is authorized to go on indefinitely levying taxes within its new tax base, without incurring the hazard of the six percent limitation because then the new tax base is in control. That is the very question at issue in this case. It is only when the levy equals the amount of the new tax base that, according to the School District’s contention, the six percent limitation comes into operation. In other words, the prohibition of the six percent limitation does not apply to the School District to its disadvantage, but may be used by it to its advantage.
Whether right or wrong, the argument brings into view the existence of an ambiguity in Art. XI, § 11, for it is nowhere expressly stated in those provisions that the six percent limitation has anything to do with a levy made pursuant to a new tax base. Yet the six percent limitation does prohibit the raising of any *630greater amount in any given year than the highest levy of the triennium plus six percent; and a levy, though made pursuant to a new tax base, is nevertheless, indubitably a levy. We have in this case a proposed levy in an amount far in excess of the highest levy of the last triennium plus six percent. It is also in an amount not in excess of the new tax base. In that situation, which limitation is to control, the six percent limitation or the amount of the new tax base? Article XI, § 11, offers no certain answer to that question. Plausible arguments can be made in support of either view. The court is required to construe the language of the amendment, and is clearly entitled to seek aid from legitimate extrinsic sources in order to determine the people’s intention—the ultimate object of its quest.
For light on the question we naturally and properly turn to the explanations of the measure found in the Voters’ Pamphlet. Eugene School District v. Fish, 159 Or 245, 256-257, 79 P2d 262. Both sides have quoted freely from these statements in their briefs on rehearing, and I shall do the same here. As a part of the joint resolution submitting the proposed constitutional amendment to the people, a committee consisting of one senator and two representatives was provided for and charged with the duty of preparing an argument in support of the amendment to be published in the Voters’ Pamphlet. This duty was carried out. Another of the statements was prepared by a committee of three citizens designated pursuant to Oregon Laws 1951, ch 546, (ORS 254.210, 254.220), which provides for appointment by the Grovernor of two members of such a committee, one to be from among the proponents, if any, of the particular measure, and the other from the opponents if any, the two thus appointed to select the third member. The *631function of this committee, as stated in the statute, was to prepare and file “as a public document with the Secretary of State, an impartial, simple and understandable statement explaining the measure and its effect.” I quote from this committee’s statement:
“The proposed amendment does not authorize any tax increase. It would enable any taxing body so desiring, to submit to its electorate in any primary or general election, a ballot measure authorizing the taxing body to adopt a new tax base geared to its current costs of operation. Such a proposal appearing on the ballot must contain in dollars and cents the amount of the requested tax base. If the new base is accepted by the voters, it automatically becomes subject to the 6% limitation described above.
‘ ‘ THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH THE 6% LIMITATION.” (Italics added.)
In the argument prepared by the legislative committee appear the following statements:
“The amendment to the Oregon Constitution known as the six percent limitation was passed in 1914 in an effort by taxpayers to prevent the growth of property taxes at a rate of more than six percent per year.
“It is still a popular part of the constitution. It affects all taxing units.
“Changes in the state, growing communities, more school expense have rendered it ineffective in many cases. The amendment herewith proposed has been written to preserve and again make workable and effective the six percent limitation.
* * * * *
“ This measure would permit a new tax base to be voted, after which the six percent limitation would apply. More economy might result if a realistic tax base were established, thereby making the voters less inclined to vote sums outside the six percent limitation.
*632“This amendment is an effort to make the six percent limitation work more effectively by bringing levies np to amounts now needed—if the voters desire it.” (Italics added.)
No one, I suggest, can read the full text of these statements in the Voters’ Pamphlet—one prepared by an official committee of the legislature, the other by a committee appointed by the Governor pursuant to statute and constituting a “public document”, and both intended to enlighten the electorate as to the meaning of the measure they were to vote upon—without being impressed by the emphasis which the authors deemed it necessary to place upon the continued preservation of the six percent limitation as a brake on public spending which might inordinately increase taxes on property. That was the original purpose of the limitation. It was “to give assurance that an amount shown by actual experience during the preceding triennium to have been sufficient plus six per centum thereof could be made available to the public without the necessity of a referendum thereon.” School Dist. No. 1, Mult. Co. v. Bingham, 174 Or 540, 547, 149 P2d 963. Now, it was not necessary to make any representations to the people that the limitation would continue to apply in the absence of the adoption of a new tax base. That was written large for all to see. The doubt that might arise in the voter’s mind could only be as to whether it would control levies made after the adoption of a new tax base. And so it was that one of the committees stated that “If the new tax base is accepted by the voters, it automatically becomes subject to the 6% limitation” and published in bold face type the statement “THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH THE 6% LIMITATION”; and the other committee stated that the amendment proposed was “to preserve and again make workable and effective the six percent limitation” and that “This measure would *633permit a new tax base to be voted, after wbieb the six percent limitation would apply.”
If we are to pay any attention at all to this interpretation of the measure, the position of the School District cannot be sustained, for under its contention it can make as many successive levies as it pleases within its new base, in complete disregard of the six percent limitation and of its “actual experience” during the preceding triennium. To approve this contention would be to approve an effective device for evading the Constitution. All that any taxing unit need do hereafter for the accomplishment of that end is to vote a new tax base, in however large an amount and however unrelated to its present necessities, and thereafter keep its levies within that amount.
I have deferred until now consideration of Subdiv. 2 of Art. XI, § 11, which provides in part that “the new tax base, if adopted, shall first apply to the levy for the fiscal year next following its adoption.” In this case that would be the fiscal year 1954-55. The Attorney General contends that the word “apply”, as thus used, means that the full amount of the new tax base must be levied for the fiscal year next following its adoption. I am inclined to think that it was the expectation of those who drew the measure that this course would be followed by taxing units. It is not reasonable to suppose that it was contemplated that the new tax base would bear no relation to the actual needs of the taxing unit at the time of its adoption— that it would, for example, establish a base known to be one and a half million dollars in excess of the budget for the fiscal year following its adoption, as the School District did in this case. The requirement of Subdiv. 2 that the measure shall specify “in dollars and cents” the amount of the base sought to be established would seem to indicate that it must be in an *634amount needed in the year in which the tax base shall “first apply”, for taxing units do not ordinarily make up their budgets a year in advance. But the language of Art. XI, § 11, is in the negative. It prohibits the levying of a tax in excess of the new tax base, and, thereby, it would seem to me, would impliedly authorize a levy in a lesser amount. It could well occur that the amount of a new tax base adopted at a general election in November would, owing to some unforseen change in conditions during the eight months elapsing before the beginning of the next fiscal year, turn out to be in excess of the anticipated requirements of the taxing unit. In that case a levy in the full amount of the new tax base would scarcely seem to be a reasonable exercise of the taxing power. Begardless, however, of this question, the application of the six percent limitation to the levy remains unaltered. Whether it be in the full amount of the new tax base or in a lesser amount, the levy immediately becomes subject to the limitation. For, as counsel for the School District well says, “regardless of the source of authority for the levy, it is nevertheless an amount of tax lawfully levied * * * in any one of the three years immediately preceding.” Holding to these views, I would, of course, agree that if the School District could constitutionally levy the full amount of its new tax base now, it would have the power in the year following to levy that amount plus six percent.
Much has been said in argument about whether a tax base is a “floor” or a “ceiling”, but little is to be gained by indulging in a battle of semantics. The Constitution itself twice defines the phrase in language that is simple and easily understood. It means one thing under one definition and something different under the other. Under either definition it is an amount beyond which a taxing unit is not permitted to go in *635raising revenue. The only question is whether the first limitation has any impact upon the second. Both parties to the litigation agree that there is an interrelationship. They disagree only as to how and when the six percent limitation operates upon a new tax base adopted by the people. The School District claims the right to use the six percent limitation as a kind of benefaction, although it is obviously and historically intended as a curb on spending. The Attorney General asserts that under the 1952 amendment it was to continue to operate as such a curb, notwithstanding the adoption of a new tax base. To my way of thinking, having in mind the history of the six percent limitation and the place which it holds in the regard of the people of Oregon, the construction of the measure in the Voters’ Pamphlet settles the question. To quote Mr. Justice Holmes’ phrase, used by him in quite another connection, the School District’s new tax base is not a “brooding omnipresence in the sky’’, forever protecting it from the menace of the six percent limitation. On the contrary, the Constitution authorizes the adoption of such a base only for the purpose of enabling a taxing unit to get a new start on a higher plane from which the six percent limitation once again begins to operate. Boards of directors of school districts and governing bodies of other subdivisions of the state which exercise the power of taxation are still required, once a levy has been made pursuant to a new tax base adopted by the electorate, to measure their subsequent levies by the experience of prior years.
In my opinion, the only lawful levy which the School District may make for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1955, is an amount not to exceed $11,190,000, the amount of last year’s levy, plus six percent. I would overrule our former opinion and reverse the decree of the Circuit Court.