[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)


STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6344

February 19, 1986

APPROPRIATIONS:

Constitutional limit on use of designated general sales taxes for comprehensive transportation purposes

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 9-25 percent limit on appropriation of designated general sales taxes for comprehensive transportation purposes

TRANSPORTATION:

Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 9-25 percent limit on appropriation of designated general sales taxes for comprehensive transportation purposes

Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 9 imposes a 25 percent limit on the amount of designated general sales taxes which may be used for comprehensive transportation purposes. Subject to that limit, all or any portion of the said taxes may be appropriated for any lawful purpose, whether transportation or otherwise.

Honorable Jelt Sietsema

State Representative

State Capitol

Box 30036

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have directed my attention to the third paragraph of Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 9 which provides, in pertinent part:

'[N]ot more than 25 percent of the general sales taxes, imposed directly or indirectly on fuels sold to propel motor vehicles upon highways, on the sale of motor vehicles, and on the sale of the parts and accessories of motor vehicles, after the payment of necessary collection expenses; shall be used exclusively for the transportation purposes of comprehensive transportation purposes as defined by law.' (Emphasis added.)

You then ask:

'When the electorate adopted this amendment to the Constitution in 1978, was the 25% earmarked solely for comprehensive transportation purposes or could any part of this 25% be used for other than transportation purposes?'

In Traverse City School Dist v Attorney General, 384 Mich 390, 405; 185 NW2d 9 (1971), the court set forth the primary rule of constitutional construction as follows:

'The primary rule is the rule of 'common understanding' described by Justice Cooley:

"A constitution is made for the people and by the people. The interpretation that should be given it is that which reasonable minds, the great mass of the people themselves, would give it. 'For as the Constitution does not derive its force from the convention which framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked for any dark or abstruse meaning in the words employed, but rather that they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief that that was the sense designed to be conveyed.' (Cooley's Const Lim 81)" (Emphasis supplied by the court.)

For purposes of analysis, the third paragraph of Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 9 may be condensed to state:

'[N]ot more than 25 percent of the general sales tax [imposed on designated items] . . . shall be used exclusively for the transportation purposes of comprehensive transportation purposes as defined by law.' (Emphasis added.)

It is apparent from the common, ordinary meaning of that underlined language that the Constitution does not earmark any funds for comprehensive transportation purposes. Rather, a 25 percent limitation was imposed on the maximum amount of the designated tax which may be expended for comprehensive transportation purposes. Thus, the Legislature is free to appropriate any portion of the designated tax revenues, up to 25 percent, for comprehensive transportation purposes.

It is to be noted that the first paragraph of Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 9 earmarks designated taxes to be used exclusively for transportation purposes, specifically excluding general sales taxes:

'All specific taxes, except general sales and use taxes and regulatory fees, imposed directly or indirectly on fuels sold or used to propel motor vehicles upon highways and to propel aircraft and on registered motor vehicles and aircraft shall, after the payment of necessary collection expenses, be used exclusively for transportation purposes as set forth in this section.' (Emphasis added.)

Since these general sales taxes are not constitutionally earmarked for transportation purposes, the Legislature is free to appropriate the funds thereby raised for any lawful purpose, whether transportation or otherwise, subject to the above described 25 percent limit for comprehensive transportation purposes.

It is my opinion, therefore, that the third paragraph of Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 9 limits appropriations for comprehensive transportation purposes. It is my further opinion that not more than 25 percent of the general sales taxes, imposed directly or indirectly on fuels sold to propel motor vehicles upon highways, on the sale of motor vehicles, and on the sale of the parts and accessories of motor vehicles, after the payment of necessary collection expenses, may be appropriated exclusively for comprehensive transportation purposes as defined by law. It is also my opinion that the Constitution does not earmark 25 percent of the said general sales tax revenue for comprehensive transportation purposes.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General

[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]