Lance v. Board of Ed. of Roane County

• Decision Date: 02 December 1969
• Docket Number: No. 12809,12809
• Parties: Granville H. LANCE et al. v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COUNTY OF ROANE, etc., John W. Stone, et al.,Members, and Mirrell Clark, Superintendent of Schools of Roane County, WestVirginia.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 783

170 S.E.2d 783

153 W.Va. 559

Granville H. LANCE et al. v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COUNTY OF ROANE, etc., John W Stone, et al.,Members, and Mirrell Clark Superintendent of Schools of Roane County, WestVirginia.

No. 12809.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted May 7, 1969.

Decided July 8, 1969.

Dissenting Opinion July 31, 1969.

On Rehearing Nov. 11, 1969.

Further Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1969.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In a civil action in which the plaintiffs allege that the weight and force of their votes in a public election, and the votes of other persons similarly situated, are debased or diluted when considered in relation to the votes of other persons voting in such election, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there is thereby presented a justiciable issue, cognizable by the courts, upon which the plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial decision.

2. The Constitution of the United States, and the treaties and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, constitute the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state are bound thereby. When a provision of the Constitution of West Virginia or of a statute enacted by the legislature of this state is contrary to and in violation of a provision of the Constitution of the United States, the latter provision must be regarded as paramount and must prevail; and in a case properly presenting such a conflict, it is the right and duty of this Court to declare the provision of the state statute or the provision of the state constitution to be unconstitutional and unenforceable.

3. The three-fifths vote requirement of Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution of West Virginia and of Sections 4 and 14 of Article 1, Chapter 13, Code, 1931, as amended, and the sixty percent vote requirement of Article X, Section 1 of the Constitution of West Virginia and of Section 16 of Article 8, Chapter 11, Code, 1931, as amended, are in conflict with and violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States and are therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Lively, Francis & Hereford, J. Henry Francis, Jr., Charleston, McClintic, James, Wise & Robinson, Charles C. Wise, Jr., Charleston, for appellants.

Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, William T. O'Farrell, Charleston, George M. Scott, Spencer, for intervenors as parties defendant.

CALHOUN, Judge:

This case, on appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Roane County, involves two declaratory judgment actions instituted in that court pursuant to Article 13, Chapter 55, Code, 1931, as amended, and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, by Granville H. Lance, Fred Hill, Chester C. Dodd, Jr., Brady D. Hickel, Jr., and Joe A. Craddock, as plaintiffs, against the Board of Education of Roane County, a corporation, the individual members of that body and Mirrell Clark, Superintendent of Schools of Roane County, West Virginia, as defendants. Inasmuch as the two actions involve identical parties plaintiff, identical parties defendant, and similar or identical legal questions, they were consolidated in the trial court for hearing and for decision. In this Court, for the sake of brevity and clarity, the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and as defendants in accordance with their designation in the civil actions in the trial court.

In one action, the plaintiffs challenge the validity of the three-fifths vote requirement of Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution of West Virginia and Sections 4 and 14 of Article 1, Chapter 13, Code, 1931, as amended, dealing with elections held by political subdivisions of the state for determination whether bond indebtedness shall be incurred. In the other action, the plaintiffs challenge the validity of the sixty percent vote requirement provided by Article X, Section 1 of the Constitution of West Virginia, commonly referred to as the Tax Limitation Amendment, relating to elections to authorize local tax levying bodies to make additional levies for tax purposes in excess of the levies provided for in the Tax Limitation Amendment.

The plaintiffs contend that the constitutional and statutory provisions in question are invalid and unenforceable on the ground that they are in contravention of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Guaranty Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

By an order entered in the consolidated actions on November 22, 1968, the trial court sustained the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings made pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; held that the West Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions in question are constitutionally valid and enforceable; and directed that the complaints be dismissed and that the consolidated actions be stricken from the docket. From the final judgment on the trial court, the plaintiffs have been granted the appeal to this Court. After the appeal was granted, this Court granted to the plaintiffs leave to move to reverse the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Code, 1931, 58--5--25 and Rule IX of the Rules of this Court. In these circumstances, the case was submitted for decision by this Court upon the original record, upon typewritten briefs and upon oral argument of counsel.

The defendants, particularly the board of education, at a special election held on April 29, 1968, submitted to the voters of Roane County the question of issuing bonds in the amount of $1,830,000 for the purpose of alleviating the overcrowded condition of school classrooms and facilities, removing fire hazards, providing for more adequate and more modern vocational and educational facilities, and for the purpose of meeting the needs of disadvantaged children. At the same special election, there was submitted to the voters of the county a proposal for the laying of additional tax levies in excess of the regular authorized levies for a period of five years, a part of the proposed additional revenue to be used for current expenditures and a part for capital improvements. A canvass of the votes revealed that 2,887 or 51.55% Of the total votes cast favored the issuance of the bonds and 2,866 or 51.51% Of the total votes cast were in favor of the additional levy.

Subsequently the plaintiffs appeared before the board of education in their own behalf and in behalf of other persons who had voted with the majority on the two issues and demanded that the board authorize the laying of the additional tax levies and the issuance and sale of the proposed bonds on the ground that the sixty percent vote requirements in the constitution and the statutes were invalid in that they denied to the plaintiffs and others similarly situated the equal protection of the laws guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment and the republican form of government guaranteed to every state by Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

Upon the refusal of the board to grant these requests or demands, the plaintiffs instituted the two declaratory judgment actions in the Circuit Court of Roane County by which they requested that the court declare the sixty percent vote requirements in question to be unconstitutional and void; and, by way of affirmative relief, the plaintiffs prayed in one action that the court require the board of education to proceed to authorize the issuance of the proposed bonds, to take all necessary steps in accordance with law to effectuate the sale of the bonds, and to provide for the application of the proceeds of the sale thereof, in accordance with the board's original proposal submitted to the voters at the special election; and similarly, in the other action, the plaintiffs prayed that the board of education be required to proceed according to law to impose the additional levy in accordance with the expressed will of the majority of the voters who voted upon that issue at the special election.

An answer was filed to the complaint in each of the two actions but, we believe they raise no material issue of fact. A decision of the case involves primarily the legal question whether the West Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions in question are in contravention of the Constitution of the United States and are therefore void and unenforceable; and also the question whether the case presents a justiciable controversy.

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States contains the following language: 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.' Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of West Virginia provides: 'The State of West Virginia is, and shall remain, one of the United States of America. The Constitution of the United States of America, and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land.' By that clear and unambiguous language of the constitution of this state, it is expressly recognized that if there be an inconsistency or conflict between a provision of the constitution of this state and a provision of the Constitution of the United States, the latter must be regarded as paramount, must prevail, and the former must yield. In Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675, the Court held that a provision of the Constitution of the State of Texas was in conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the provision of the state constitution was therefore unconstitutional and invalid. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 584, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1393, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 584, contains the following...