Opinion of the Justices, 383.

• Decision Date: 16 February 2006
• Docket Number: No. 383.,383.
• Citation: 925 So.2d 193
• Parties: OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

925 So.2d 193

OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

No. 383.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 16, 2006.

                Members of the House of Representatives
                Alabama State House
                Montgomery, Alabama 36130
                

Dear Representatives:

We have received House Resolution No. 123, requesting the opinions of the Justices of the Supreme Court as to whether the constitutional amendment proposed by House Bill 434, if ratified, would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. House Resolution No. 123 reads as follows:

"BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, That we respectfully request the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court or a majority of them, to give this body their written opinions on the following important constitutional question which has arisen concerning the pending bill, House Bill 434, a copy of which is attached to this resolution and made a part hereof by reference.

"House Bill 434 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, stating that the county-by-county reappraisal of property conducted and supervised by the Department of Revenue pursuant to Chapter 7 of Title 40 of the Code of Alabama 1975, shall not be conducted more often than once every four years in Escambia County, Alabama.

"If ratified, the constitutional provision will impose different intervals of property assessments in Escambia County than are provided for in other parts of the state. Such distinct classification plan raises certain constitutional issues.

"Accordingly, pursuant to Section 12-2-10 of the Code of Alabama 1975, and in deference to this legislative body, so that we may properly and constitutionally dispatch the duties of our office, written opinions are respectfully requested concerning the following important constitutional question regarding this matter:

"If ratified, would the constitutional provision violate the equal protection or due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?"

House Bill 434, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, states, in part:

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:

"Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, is proposed and shall become valid as a part of the Constitution when all requirements of this act are fulfilled:

"PROPOSED AMENDMENT

"The county-by-county reappraisal of all property in the State of Alabama which is conducted and supervised by the Department of Revenue pursuant to Chapter 7 of Title 40, Code of Alabama 1975, shall not be conducted more often than once every four years in Escambia County, Alabama.

"Section 2. An election upon the proposed amendment shall be held in accordance with Amendment 555 to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 284.01 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, and the election laws of this state.

"Section 3. The appropriate election official shall assign a ballot number for the proposed constitutional amendment on the election ballot and shall set forth the following description of the substance or subject matter of the proposed constitutional amendment:

"`Relating to Escambia County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that property in Escambia County, Alabama, would not be subject to reappraisal more often than every four years.'"

Section 12-2-10, Ala.Code 1975, provides that "[t]he Governor, by a request in writing, or either house of the Legislature, by a resolution of such house, may obtain a written opinion of the justices of the Supreme Court of Alabama or a majority thereof on important constitutional questions." In responding to the first request for an advisory opinion, the Justices of the Supreme Court, in considering the constitutionality of the Advisory Opinion Act, Act No. 43, Ala. Acts 1923, now codified at § 12-2-10, stated:

"Interpreting the act according to its manifest effects, these conclusions must, of necessity, prevail: (a) That the act does not at all contemplate the advice or the advisory opinions of the Justices upon any matter relating to the wisdom, desirability, or policy of prospective legislative or executive action; (b) that the merely advisory opinions contemplated are those of the individual Justices, not the Supreme Court of Alabama in its judicial capacity; (c) that specific inquiries, within the intent of the act, must involve or concern concrete, important constitutional questions upon matters or subjects of a general public nature, as distinguished from questions involved in the ascertainment or declaration of private right or interest; (d) and that responses to questions within the purview of the act are designed to be advisory, consultative only, not concluding or binding the Governor or the House or Houses propounding inquiries or the Justices responding thereto."

Opinion of the Justices No. 1, 209 Ala. 593, 594, 96 So. 487, 488-89 (1923).

Since 1959, it has been the policy of members of this Court to decline to answer an advisory opinion on prospective legislative action involving a question on a local matter. In Opinion of the Justices No. 164, 269 Ala. 127, 111 So.2d 605 (1959), the Governor had requested an advisory opinion as to whether a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with the levy of special school taxes in Cleburne County was constitutional. The Justices stated:

"Our chief difficulty is whether questions relating to a school tax in a single county `involve or concern concrete, important constitutional questions upon matters or subjects of a general public nature,' ... as to require an advisory opinion.... But we do feel that no more advisory opinions should be issued by the members of this Court when the only questions, constitutional or otherwise, involve purely local matters."

269 Ala. at 130, 111 So.2d at 608 (quoting Opinion of the Justices No. 1, 209 Ala. at 594, 96 So. at 489). See also Opinion of the Justices No. 348, 665 So.2d 1377, 1378 (Ala.1995) ("The Justices [in Opinion of the Justices No. 164] wrote that it was difficult to say that questions relating to a single county `involve or concern concrete, important constitutional questions upon matters or subjects of a general public nature.'" (quoting Opinion of the Justices No. 164, 269 Ala. at 130, 111 So.2d at 608, quoting Opinion of the Justices No. 1, 209 Ala. at 594, 96 So. at 489)); Opinion of the Justices No. 333, 598 So.2d 1362, 1367 (Ala.1992) ("We note that for almost 30 years it has been the policy of this Court to decline to give advisory opinions on legislation involving purely local matters...."); Opinion of the Justices No. 304, 436 So.2d 832, 833-34 (Ala.1983); Opinion of the Justices No. 207, 287 Ala. 342, 342, 251 So.2d 759, 760 (1971) (declining to issue an advisory opinion because the question involved "purely local matters"); Opinion of the Justices No. 192, 281 Ala. 231, 231, 201 So.2d 103, 104 (1967); and Opinion of the Justices No. 191, 281 Ala. 187, 200 So.2d 486 (1967).

The members of this Court have, however, made exceptions to the policy that they will not render advisory opinions on local matters. First, they have addressed questions concerning local matters when "necessary to decide such matters in developing rationale to answer other questions of an important constitutional nature which involved general laws." Opinion of the Justices No. 304, 436 So.2d at 834. See also Opinion of the Justices No. 362, 692 So.2d 828, 829 (Ala.1997); Opinion of the Justices No. 348, 665 So.2d at 1378; and Opinion of the Justices No. 333, 598 So.2d at 1367. This exception does not apply in regard to the request currently before us.

Additionally, in Opinion of the Justices No. 333, 598 So.2d at 1367, the Justices made a further exception to this policy when a proposed constitutional amendment involving a local matter required a statewide referendum and affected the funding of the Mobile County School District, which, constitutionally, stood in a unique position in regard to Alabama's other county school systems. However, it would appear that the proposed constitutional amendment at issue here would not be subject to a statewide vote unless the occurrence of the circumstances outlined in Art. XVIII, § 284.01(d), Ala. Const.1901,¹ were to occur. Moreover, we recognize nothing constitutionally distinct regarding property appraisals in Escambia County that, like the constitutionally unique school-funding situation in Mobile County, would necessitate that the members of this Court carve out yet another exception to the policy declining to answer questions involving local matters. Instead, "we remain committed to our general policy of not issuing an advisory opinion on purely local matters." 598 So.2d at 1367.

We further note that "[i]n order for a state taxing classification to withstand a challenge on constitutional grounds under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, there must be a `rational basis' for the possible discriminatory effect of that tax." Howell v. Malone, 388 So.2d 908, 911 (Ala.1980). A determination of whether a rational basis exists requires the members of the Court to "inquire (a) whether the classification furthers a proper governmental purpose, and (b) whether the classification is rationally related to that purpose." State v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 471 So.2d 408, 412 (Ala. Civ.App.1984). An inquiry into the governmental purpose of the proposed amendment, and whether the classification it purportedly creates is rationally related to that purpose, necessarily involves a determination of the "`facts which afford a reasonable basis'" for the legislature's action. 471 So.2d at 412 (quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 510, 57 S.Ct. 868, 81 L.Ed. 1245 (1937)). However, there are no facts before us elaborating...