Lawsuit claims Alabama property tax caps racially discriminatory
In a case that could have far-reaching consequences for Alabama's education and tax system, parents in two Black Belt counties have sued the state in federal court, claiming caps on property taxes are a form of racial discrimination that prevents their children from receiving an adequate education. The plaintiffs in Lynch v. Alabama want the court to suspend the property tax caps in the 1901 constitution and related amendments as violations of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act. If they win, the governor and Legislature could be forced to draft amendments lifting caps on both millage and assessments. Critics say the limits have led to chronic underfunding of the state's K-12 system.
The suit was filed March 13 in U.S. District Court in Birmingham on behalf of 10 public school students in Lawrence and Sumter counties. Lawyers say the schools have been hurt by the way Alabama assesses taxes. They're seeking class-action status that could impact schools across the state. The state government counters in its filings that the plaintiffs have no standing in federal court because they have not cited a specific injury brought by the property tax system. Alabama spent $6,896 per pupil in state and local spending in 2004-05, according to the Southern Regional Education Board, a nonprofit, Atlanta-based educational advocacy group. That put Alabama 46th out of 50 states, far below the national average of $9,466 per student and the Southern average of $8,011 per student. Property taxes were first capped in the state's 1875 Constitution. The 1901 Constitution, framed in part by Black Belt planters who strongly opposed black education, restricted property taxes to 6.5 mills, with an optional 1 mill county assessment. Subsequent amendments adopted in the 1970s set up a three-tiered property tax assessment system that limited residential and agricultural property assessments to 10 percent of current use value. John Dinan, a political science professor at Wake Forest University who studies school funding lawsuits, said most of these lawsuits are a way of getting around legislatures that may be captive to powerful special interest groups.
Lawyers in Lynch v. Alabama argue that the low property taxes dictated by the constitution disadvantage low-income students around the state and lead to lower academic performance and poorer preparation for college. In a dismissal motion, the state argues that the plaintiff's injuries are "hypothetical and conjectural" because they do not cite a specific injury to the children in the suit, as required under the U.S. Constitution. The government also argues the plaintiffs seek to have the court legislate from the bench and that it would be an undue imposition on the state's tax system.
Source: Mobile Press-Register, 5/26/08, By Brian Lyman
[Editor’s Note: The legal complaint is below.]
Complaint in Lynch v. Alabama