Julie Rubenstein

Does Voter Refusal to Raise Taxes Constitute a Violation of Civil Rights?

County voters have repeatedly refused, by wide margins, to raise property taxes aimed at funding essential public services. The Josephine County Long Term Funding Task Force struggles to come up with a politically viable recommendation, while County Commissioners bicker among themselves. They’re still hoping for a reprieve from Congress as the clock ticks down.

Josephine County enjoys the lowest permanent property tax rate in the State of Oregon. Curry County has the next lowest rate, and they’re already essentially bankrupt. Adequate public services – law enforcement, public health, public works, etc. – were not designed to rely on this extremely low tax rate. They were designed to rely on O&C funding.

In a discussion with the Editor of Grants Pass Now, he proffered an argument that refusing to levy a tax that would adequately fund public services might constitute a violation of our civil rights. He gave as examples the abandonment of vehicles and dead animals along public roadways, and the premature release of criminals because there aren’t enough jailers to secure them. So I looked up the Civil Rights language in the Oregon Constitution. Here’s what it says:

Article 1, Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

You could make the argument that refusing a levy grants privileges and immunities to property owners – who’ve escaped paying a higher tax – that don’t apply to the rest of the citizenry. The privilege of paying a lower tax comes at the expense of non-property owners, who must suffer the consequences of making that 911 call and being told there’s no one to help. However, I think it’s a big stretch.

More interesting, though, is this provision:

Article 1, Section 22. Suspension of operation of laws. The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by the Authority of the Legislative Assembly.

It’s possible to argue that the nay-saying voters have caused the County to violate its own charter, in effect suspending it, by making its laws unenforceable and thus inoperable. If that’s the case, then it begs the question – what remedy is available? Sue the County? It can’t raise taxes without voter approval, and you can’t sue the voters. So while it might make a neat argument, I don’t see a real solution at hand.