A dozen Kearsarge Regional School District residents filed suit claiming the home rule charter adopted by the District was unconstitutional and unlawful with respect to the school district budget. The Charter was adopted pursuant to RSA 197:5-b for official ballot budget voting. The plaintiffs argued that because the Charter did not provide an opportunity for a “no” vote on the budget at the second session ballot question, it violates Part I, Article 28 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which provides no tax “shall be established, fixed, or levied … without the consent of the people.” In short, the plaintiffs argued that voters “lacked true choice” and have been “unlawfully disenfranchised.” They also argued that because the Charter does not have a procedure allowing for a default budget in the event that no operating budget is adopted, the Charter violated RSA 40:13, X. The Court disagreed on both points.
Under the Charter, the school district’s annual meeting is held in two sessions—a deliberative session in January followed by official ballot voting on election day in March. Consistent with state statutes, the Charter provides that voters at the first session may vote to amend the proposed operating budget ensuring that voters have the power to determine the proposed operating budget figure that will be included on the ballot. The official ballot instructs voters to pick either the school board’s figure, the budget committee’s figure, or, if a motion to amend the operating budget amount has been adopted at the first session, the amended budget figure. The Court observed that, contrary to the position taken by the plaintiffs, the statutes do not require that home rule charters provide for the operating budget on the ballot to contain only one budgeted figure or be framed as a “yes” or “no” question.
The Court held that voters of the school district do have an opportunity to vote “no” on the school budget at the deliberative session of the annual meeting because of the right to amend the operating budget article. As to plaintiff’s claim that the Charter violates RSA 40:13 with regard to the requirement for a default budget, the Court pointed out that the Charter was not adopted under the authority of RSA 40:13, and the applicable authorizing statutes do not require a default budget.