What did Idaho's AG say about the proposed 'Residential Property Tax Relief and Bonding Act' that would have capped property tax at 1% and required a two-thirds vote for state revenue increases?
Plain-English summary
This is the Idaho AG's statutory review (under Idaho Code § 34-1809) of a 2005 ballot initiative titled the "Residential Property Tax Relief and Bonding Act," which would have added six new subsections to Idaho Code § 63-205. The petitioner was Fritz R. Dixon. The proposal had four main planks: (1) a one-percent cap on property tax; (2) a frozen "full cash value" base tied to 2001-2002 assessments; (3) a two-thirds legislative supermajority requirement to raise state taxes; and (4) authority for cities, counties, and special districts to impose "special taxes" by two-thirds vote of qualified electors.
Wasden's review concluded the proposal had several recurring constitutional and operational defects that prior AGs had identified in essentially identical initiatives in 1978, 1991, and 1996.
One-percent cap (§ 63-205(3)). Inoperable as drafted. Neither existing law nor the initiative gave any entity authority or instructions for adjusting tax levies to comply with the cap. The 1991 opinion called this defect a "slogan" without a procedural mechanism. A reviewing court would more likely strike the cap than invent a tax-apportionment system from whole cloth.
Frozen value base (§ 63-205(4)). Violates the Idaho Constitution's uniform-taxation requirement (Art. 7, § 5). The proposal would have created two valuation regimes, one for property taxed at 2001-2002 levels and one (post-2002 sales or new construction) at appraised value. The Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly held that property tax valuations must reasonably approximate fair market value. A value freeze of that kind requires a constitutional amendment, not a statute.
Two-thirds supermajority on state revenue increases (§ 63-205(5)). Of no legal effect. A statute cannot override the constitutional quorum rule (majority of each house, Art. 3 § 10), nor can a statute bind future legislatures from amending or repealing the supermajority requirement. The provision also raised single-subject concerns, since it addressed state taxes in a measure principally about local property taxes.
Special taxes by two-thirds of qualified electors (§ 63-205(6)). Functionally unenforceable. The number of "qualified electors" in many Idaho special taxing districts (water and sewer districts under former Idaho Code § 42-3202, irrigation districts under § 43-113) is impossible to determine because there is no registration requirement; voters can sign an oath at the polling booth. Even in registered districts, voter rolls are stale by up to four years (Idaho Code § 34-435). Counting non-voters as "no" votes also violates the "elections by ballot" guarantee in Art. 6, § 1.
The AG also flagged that "special taxes" was undefined except by exclusion (no ad valorem real-property taxes, no real-property transaction or sales taxes), and that "special district" was undefined.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
The constitutional analysis (Art. 7, § 5 uniformity; Art. 3, § 10 quorum) reflects long-standing Idaho doctrine and remains generally applicable, but the specific Idaho Code sections cited (§ 63-205, § 42-3202, § 43-113, § 34-435) have all been amended since 2005. Anyone drafting or analyzing a similar initiative today should pull current statutes and check for newer Idaho Supreme Court decisions on uniform taxation.
Common questions
Q: What is a Certificate of Review?
A: When an Idaho ballot-initiative petition is filed, Idaho Code § 34-1809 requires the Attorney General to review the petition for form, style, and matters of substantive import, and to send written advisory comments to the petitioner. The recommendations are advisory only, the petitioner is free to accept or reject them.
Q: Did this initiative make the ballot?
A: This certificate addressed only the legal form of the proposal. Whether the petitioner gathered enough signatures to qualify the initiative for a subsequent general election is a separate question. The certificate itself does not determine whether the measure proceeded.
Q: Why did the AG say the 1% cap is "inoperable"?
A: Because the initiative did not specify which entity would adjust which tax levies to bring total taxation down to 1% of cash value. Counties, cities, school districts, and special-purpose taxing districts each set their own levies. Without an explicit allocation rule (or authority for a single body to issue one), the cap is just a target with no implementation path.
Q: What is the "uniform taxation" requirement?
A: Idaho Const. art. 7, § 5 requires that all property taxes "be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax." The Idaho Supreme Court has read that to mean property tax valuations must reasonably approximate fair market value. Two valuation regimes (one frozen, one current) for substantially identical property fail uniformity.
Q: Why can't a statute require a legislative supermajority?
A: Because the legislature derives its quorum and voting rules from the Idaho Constitution itself (Art. 3, § 10: majority of each house). A statute cannot strip the legislature of constitutionally granted authority. A separate, unrelated obstacle: any statute, including one passed by initiative, can be repealed or amended by a later legislature. So even if the supermajority rule were valid, the next legislature could simply repeal it by majority vote.
Q: Why is "two-thirds of qualified electors" unworkable?
A: Because in Idaho's water districts, irrigation districts, and similar special districts, there is no voter-registration requirement. Eligibility is established at the polling place by signed oath. The denominator (total qualified electors) cannot be fixed at any moment in time. Even in registered districts, rolls lag actual residency by years. Treating non-voters as "no" votes also conflicts with the Art. 6, § 1 guarantee that elections be by ballot.
Q: What about the single-subject rule?
A: Art. 3, § 16 requires every act to embrace one subject. The initiative mostly addressed local property taxation, but subsection (5) reached state taxes generally, which is a different subject. The Idaho Supreme Court has invalidated statutes for combining unrelated subjects (American Federation of Labor v. Langley, 66 Idaho 763 (1946); State v. Banks, 37 Idaho 27 (1923)).
Background and statutory framework
Idaho's initiative power comes from Idaho Const. art. III, § 1 and is implemented by Title 34, Chapter 18 of the Idaho Code. Section 34-1809 specifically requires the Attorney General to review every initiative petition for form and substantive import, and to write a Certificate of Review with advisory comments. Initiative legislation is on equal footing with bicameral-passed legislation (Westerberg v. Andrus, 114 Idaho 401 (1988)), so it is subject to the same constitutional constraints.
This 2005 proposal was part of a long line of California-style "one percent initiatives" filed in Idaho. Three prior AG Certificates of Review on essentially identical proposals (1978 Op. 78-37, 1991 Op. 91-9, 1996 Op. 96-3) had identified the same defects. The 2005 review reaffirmed those conclusions almost verbatim.
Citations and references
Statutes and constitutional provisions:
- Idaho Code § 34-1809 (initiative review)
- Idaho Code §§ 63-201, 63-205, 63-308 (property assessment)
- Idaho Const. art. 3, § 10 (quorum), § 16 (single subject)
- Idaho Const. art. 6, § 1 (elections by ballot)
- Idaho Const. art. 7, § 2, § 5 (taxation by valuation; uniform taxation)
Cases:
- Idaho Telephone Co. v. Baird, 91 Idaho 425 (1967)
- Merris v. Ada County, 100 Idaho 59 (1979)
- Westerberg v. Andrus, 114 Idaho 401 (1988)
- Luker v. Curtis, 64 Idaho 703 (1943)
- Gibbons v. Cenarrusa, 140 Idaho 316 (2002)
- Greater Boise Auditorium District v. Royal Inn, 106 Idaho 884 (1984)
- American Federation of Labor v. Langley, 66 Idaho 763 (1946)
Prior AG opinions on similar proposals: Idaho Op. Att'y Gen. 78-37, 91-9, 95-3, 96-3.
Source
- Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/C092705.pdf
Original opinion text
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
September 27, 2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Ben Ysursa
Idaho Secretary of State
Statehouse
RE: Certificate of Review
Proposed Initiative to Amend Idaho Code Section 63-205 Relating to Property Tax
Dear Mr. Secretary:
An initiative petition was filed with your office on August 30, 2005. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 34-1809, this office has reviewed the petition and prepared the following advisory comments. It must be stressed that given the strict statutory timeframe in which this office must respond and the complexity of the legal issues raised in this petition, this office's review can only isolate areas of concern and cannot provide in-depth analysis of each issue that may present problems. Further, under the review statute, the Attorney General's recommendations are "advisory only." The petitioners are free to "accept or reject them in whole or in part." The opinions expressed in this review are only those that may affect the legality of the initiative. This office offers no opinion with regard to the policy issues raised by this proposed initiative.
[The certificate then walks through, in order: Ballot Title; Matters of Substantive Import (one-percent limitation, limitations on value, limitations on legislative enactments increasing state revenue, authorization of special taxes); and Conclusion. The full text runs approximately 10 pages and is available in the linked PDF.]
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed measure has been reviewed for form, style and matters of substantive import and that the recommendations set forth above have been communicated to the petitioner, Fritz R. Dixon, by deposit in the U.S. Mail of a copy of this certificate of review.
Sincerely,
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
Attorney General
Analysis by:
Theodore V. Spangler, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General