McLennan v. Aldredge

159 S.E.2d 682, 223 Ga. 879, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 1000
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 4, 1968
Docket24365, 24387, 24388
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 159 S.E.2d 682 (McLennan v. Aldredge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McLennan v. Aldredge, 159 S.E.2d 682, 223 Ga. 879, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 1000 (Ga. 1968).

Opinion

Undercofler, Justice.

This is a class action brought by a taxpayer of the City of Atlanta and Fulton County to enjoin the officials of Fulton County from collecting a county school tax and to have such county school tax levy declared null and void. The tax was imposed under authority of the 1937 amendment (Ga. L. 1937, p. 18, ratified June 8, 1937) to Art. VII, Sec. VI, Par. II (Code § 2-5402) of the Constitution of 1877 which amendment provides: “Furthermore, in any county in the State which has wholly or partly within its boundaries a city of not less than 200,000 population the county authorities thereof are hereby directed upon the request of the board of education of such county annually to levy a tax not exceeding iy2 mills for educational purposes, on all the taxable property throughout the entire county, including territory embraced in independent school systems, the same to be appropriated to the use of the county board of education and to educational work directed by them.”

The petition alleges that now and at the time of the submission of the 1937 amendment to the people for ratification the City of Atlanta had an independent school system for which an annual ad valorem tax is levied; that Fulton County has a separate and distinct school system outside the City of Atlanta’s independent school system for all county residents residing outside said city; and that the children of the City of Atlanta can not attend the Fulton County school system without paying a fee therefor.

The petition asserts that the tax is illegal for the following reasons: (1) The 1937 constitutional amendment authorizing such levy was not properly submitted to the people for ratification or rejection and consequently did not become a valid amendment to Art. VII, Sec. VI, Par. II (Code Ann. § 2-5402) of the Constitution of 1877 which was in effect at the time of the adoption of the 1945 Constitution; (2) The 1937 amendment was superseded entirely by the adoption of the 1945 Constitution wherein all previous Constitutions were repealed; (3) Said levy violates Art. VII, Sec. IV, Par. I of the 1945 Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-5701) and is illegal, null and void; (4) The 1937 con *881 stitutional amendment was superseded entirely by the adoption of the 1945 Constitution wherein all previous Constitutions were repealed by Art. VIII, Sec. XII, Par. I (Code Ann. § 2-7501) and that the provisions of the 1945 Constitution are exclusive authority for levying school taxes; (5) The 1937 constitutional amendment violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

The defendants filed general demurrers to the amended petition, and’ upon an interlocutory hearing the trial court overruled the demurrers and denied the temporary injunction. The appeals are from these rulings. The appellant contends that the court erred in denying the injunction. The cross appellees contend that the general demurrers should have been sustained.

The 1937 constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 1937, p. 18) set out above was submitted to the people on ballots which provided for or against “ratification of amendment to Paragraph 2, of Section 6, of Article 7, of the Constitution authorizing iy2 mill county-wide tax for educational purposes in counties having cities of more than 200,000 population, wholly or partly within their boundaries.”

The plaintiff contends that the formula adopted by the legislature for the submission of said amendment as above printed on the ballot was vitally and essentially different from the amending Act which sought to affect a county “which has wholly or partly within its boundary a city of not less than 200,000” whereas the formula for the ballots adopted by the legislature for the submission of the amendment to the people contained the language “in counties having cities of more than 200,000' population”; that the language of the amending Act shows that it could never affect or pertain to more than one county and to one city in the State; and that since the formula adopted by the legislature and used on the submission ballot did not specifically state that the tax would be used only for the county schools, as provided in the body of the amendment, the voters were misled concerning the nature, character and scope of the proposed tax. Because of these reasons, the plaintiff insists that the amendment was not properly ratified, never became a part *882 of the 1877 Constitution and accordingly is not a valid part of the 1945 Constitution.

It was held by this court in Cooney v. Foote, 142 Ga. 647, 654 (83 SE 537, AC 1916B 1001), that: “Article 13 of the Constitution did not prescribe the details relating to the manner of submission [of amendments to the Constitution of 1877], but left them to the wisdom of the legislature. It did provide for the publication of the proposed amendment, as a means of giving wide and extensive information of the exact nature of the proposed change or addition. It was never contemplated that the entire proposed amendment should be printed on the ballot. It was within legislative discretion to adopt some formula by which the voter would express his assent or dissent to the proposed amendment. The formula prescribed by the legislature was not intended for the purpose of informing the voter as to the full contents of the amendment. On the contrary, the formula was intended as the declaration by the voter of his approval or disapproval of the amendment which had been published in each congressional district. The amendment was submitted to the elector, and the formula prescribed was simply to elicit his expression as to whether or not the proposed amendment should become a part of the organic law. The formula written or printed on his ballot was but the legislative means of obtaining his expression upon the published proposal; and when he adopted the formula he indicated his vote upon the whole amendment which was submitted, and not a mere part.” See also Townsend v. Smith, 144 Ga. 792, 796 (87 SE 1039).

In Goolsby v. Stephens, 155 Ga. 529, 540 (117 SE 439) this court held: “Section 3 of the Act proposing this amendment provides that the entire amendment should be submitted to the electors of the State for ratification or rejection. It was not necessary that the entire amendment should have been printed on the ballots. The reference on the ballots to the proposed amendment is to inform the voters what they are voting for as an amendment to the constitution; and such reference is sufficient when it contains enough to enable the voters to ascertain for what amendment they are voting. When this is done, the voters can be fully informed as to its full provisions by looking *883 to the proposed amendment. What is adopted as an amendment to the constitution is not what is printed on the ballots, but what is contained in the proposal for amending the constitution. The submission of the proposed amendment was sufficient.”

In this case the formula which the legislature adopted was printed on the ballots submitted to the voters, and the ballot was sufficient under the above quoted decisions of this court and the prevailing provisions of the 1877 Constitution (Art. XIII, Sec. I, Par. I; Code

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

FULTON COUNTY v. CITY OF ATLANTA
305 Ga. 342 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)
Fulton Cnty. v. City of Atlanta
825 S.E.2d 142 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)
Greene County Board of Commissioners v. Higdon
626 S.E.2d 541 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Shadix v. Carroll County
521 S.E.2d 99 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Copeland v. State
490 S.E.2d 68 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Belk v. Westbrooks
469 S.E.2d 149 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
City of Thomaston v. Bridges
439 S.E.2d 906 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)
Burton v. Georgia
953 F.2d 1266 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)
State v. Deason
378 S.E.2d 120 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1989)
Silverstein v. Gwinnett Hospital Authority
861 F.2d 1560 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Sims v. Town of Baldwin
290 S.E.2d 433 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
Lomax v. McBrayer
286 S.E.2d 35 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
Rogers v. DeKalb County Board of Tax Assessors
279 S.E.2d 223 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
DeKalb County v. City of Decatur
279 S.E.2d 427 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Board of Commissioners v. Cooper
264 S.E.2d 193 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Kahalekai v. Doi
590 P.2d 543 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1979)
Anderson v. Little & Davenport Funeral Home, Inc.
251 S.E.2d 250 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)
Clark v. State of Georgia
240 S.E.2d 5 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Chilivis v. Turner Communications Corp.
231 S.E.2d 425 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 S.E.2d 682, 223 Ga. 879, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclennan-v-aldredge-ga-1968.