You asked if the Connecticut Constitution has provisions that are the same as or similar to three provisions in the Arizona Constitution that are the basis of a state corporate subsidy lawsuit described in a column by George Will published in the Hartford Courant on March 17, 2008.

SUMMARY

The Connecticut Constitution does not have any of the three provisions. But, Connecticut has a provision that appears to have a similar effect as one of the Arizona provisions, although, so far, it has been invoked against special legislation to benefit individuals rather than companies.

ARIZONA LAWSUIT AND STATE CONSTITUTION

Will's column described a lawsuit filed by Arizona's Goldwater Institute on behalf of six taxpayers against a $ 100 million subsidy the City of Phoenix is providing to Chicago developer, Thomas J. Klutznick Company, for a retail, restaurant, hotel, office, and parking development known as CityNorth (Complaint, Meyer Turken, et al. v. Phil Gordon, et al. , Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, CV 2007-013766).

The lawsuit alleged that the city's subsidy violated the following three provisions of the Arizona Constitution:

1. The “gift clause” (Art. 9, §7), which bars the state or any city from “giv[ing] or loan[ing] its credit in aid of, or mak[ing] any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association or corporation. . . . ”

2. The “privileges and immunities clause” (Art. 2, § 13), which provides that “No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations. ”

3. The “special law clause” (Art. 4, part 2, § 19), which provides “No local or special laws shall be enacted in any of the following cases” including “(9) assessment or collection of taxes,” “(13) granting to any corporation, association, or individual, any special or exclusive privileges, immunities or franchises,” and “(20) when a general law shall be made applicable. ”

On April 2, 2008, Superior Court Judge Robert E. Miles ruled against the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment in the case to the city of Phoenix.

He found that (1) the privileges and immunities clause was not violated because the city's action had a rational basis in that the city council believes that the development benefits the city; (2) the special law clause was not violated because the city ordinance in question was expressly authorized by the legislature and could not be ruled unconstitutional if the underlying state law, which the plaintiffs did not challenge, is constitutional; and (3) the gift clause was not violated because the project (a) has a public purpose and (b) is projected to provide tax revenue that exceeds the value of the subsidy, thereby giving fair consideration for the city's contribution (Ruling, Meyer Turken, et al. v. Phil Gordon, et al. , Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, CV 2007-013766).

CONNECTICUT'S CONSTITUTION

Connecticut's Constitution does not contain any of the provisions described above. But it has an “equal rights” provision that is similar to the equal privileges and immunities provision of the Arizona Constitution. It bars the General Assembly from enacting any legislation that provides special benefits to a single person. Article I, § 1 of the Connecticut Constitution states: “All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community. ”

This constitutional provision most recently served as the basis of a Connecticut Supreme Court opinion overturning a 1994 special act that extended a statutory time limit to allow a particular judge's widow to file a lawsuit against the state. The Court found that the special act “constitutes an unconstitutional exclusive public emolument or privilege because it does not serve a public purpose” (Kinney v. State, 285 Conn. 700, March 4, 2008). For your further information, I am attaching an OLR report that discusses this constitutional point and various court rulings on it (2003-R-0211).

The Connecticut cases in which the provision has been invoked involve special legislative benefits provided to individuals rather than companies.

JL: ts