explaining that drainage districts, as quasi-municipal corporations, were not intended to be included -within the ambit of the home rule amendment
How later courts described this case
- explaining that drainage districts, as quasi-municipal corporations, were not intended to be included -within the ambit of the home rule amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Swepston, Justice
(concurring).
It is my view that the so-called Home Rule Amendment was never intended to apply to any type of governmental corporation other than the cities of the different classes. In addition to what is stated in the opinion prepared by Tomlinson, Justice, it will be revealing to examine the Journal of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings, beginning on page 1038 and running down through 1059. A perusal of these pages will disclose that the word “cities” and the word “counties” are used throughout the discussion and that the word “municipality” appears only two or three times. There is not the slightest indication that there was any thought in the minds of the different speakers of any type of municipality other than a “city” of one or the other class. See especially pages 1042, 1043, 1045, 1047, 1051, 1058 and 1059.
Therefore, it is plain why the caption to Section 9 reads as follows:
“Power over local affairs — Home rule for cities and counties — -Consolidation of functions. — ”
It, therefore, seems to me to be utterly nondeterminative that drainage districts, water districts, sanitary districts, school districts, etc., may properly be designated quasi municipal corporations or that many of them have a number of powers that are similar to or the same in substance as certain power possessed by cities. They ara *36 simply not included within the intention of the framers of the Home Rule Amendment.
For this additional reason, I concur in the majority opinion.