Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> <br /> The local government aid formula is an attempt by the <br />legislature to address a difficult and complex problem. The issue <br />by its very nature engenders controversy and disagreement about the <br />proper solutions. The democratic process has been at work, <br />resulting in continuous amendment and refinement of the formula in <br />an effort to balance competing interests and achieve an equitable <br />distribution of limited funds. Because there must always be some <br />losers in such a process, the courts have developed standards to <br />insulate legislation from constant attack by those disenchanted with <br />the results of the legislative give and take. <br /> <br /> The Minnesota Supreme Court recently summarized its <br />approach to such equal protection challenges in Petition of U.S. <br />Steel Cor~_L, explaining that: <br /> <br /> the legislature must be allowed to develop <br /> solutions to social problems free from undue <br /> restraints by the courts; that the courts will <br /> not disturb a legislative determination unless <br /> the classification is clearly arbitrary and has <br /> no reasonable basis; that states are not bound <br /> in tax matters to precise, scientific <br /> uniformity; and that "even improvident decisions <br /> will eventually be rectified by the democratic <br /> process" .... <br /> <br />324 N.W.2d 638, 645 (Minn. 1982). Moreover, those dissatisfied with <br />legislative classifications regarding state finances must meet a <br />stringent burden: <br /> <br /> IT]he presumption of constitutionality can be <br /> overcome only by the most explicit demonstration <br /> that a classification is a hostile and <br /> oppressive discrimination .... <br /> <br />-32- <br /> <br /> <br />