Home Constitutional Constraints State Constitutions and Public Purpose Requirements

State Constitutions and Public Purpose Requirements

Introduction

State constitutions serve as the fundamental law that outlines the governance of each state. These documents establish the powers and limitations of state government, as well as the rights and protections for its citizens. Part of these provisions is the inclusion of public purpose requirements that dictate the ways the state must use its funds and resources for public use.

Public Purpose Requirement Defined

Public purpose requirements set out the specific ways the state should use its resources and funds that benefit the public good. It includes the promotion of health and safety, education, infrastructure, and the environment, among others. These requirements are enshrined in the state constitutions and act as a mandate to ensure that public resources are used for the greater good, not private interests.

Examples of Public Purpose Requirements

Every state has its public purpose requirements, depending on their priorities. Here are some examples:

1. Education: Some state constitutions state that at least a specific percentage of state funds should go directly to K-12 education. For instance, Georgia’s state constitution requires at least 50% of annual state bond proceeds to fund public school construction and equipment.

2. Health Care: States such as California have made public health a priority in their constitutions. The state has enacted provisions that require a certain amount of the state funds to be set aside for Health and Human Services Programs. The constitution states public resources should be used to provide affordable, quality health care to every citizen of the state.

3. Natural Resources: In Montana and Wyoming, state constitutions require the conservation and protection of natural resources. These provisions require the state to manage public land and water resources for the benefit of the public. The aim is to prevent degradation or depletion of these resources.

How Public Purpose Requirements Protect the Public Interest

Public purpose requirements are necessary safeguards that ensure public resources are not misused or diverted for private gain. By mandating the ways the funds can be used, it helps to prevent misuse and corruption. The requirements encourage transparency and accountability in that state’s actions.

Furthermore, public purpose requirements help to promote the greater good. By emphasizing statewide concerns, they ensure that public resources are distributed to areas with the most pressing needs. This can range from education, healthcare, infrastructure, and the environment.

Conclusion

State constitutions are vital documents that define the governance of each state. Public purpose requirements are a crucial part of these constitutions that set out specific ways the state should use its resources and funds to promote the common good. These requirements ensure that public resources are used transparently, accountably, and for the benefit of the broader society. As such, public purpose requirements play a critical role in promoting and protecting the public interest in each state.


Each state in the United States has its own state constitution which operates under the federal constitution. The public-purpose doctrine is a provision that is present in almost all of the state constitutions. This doctrine’s main purpose is to put certain restrictions on how the government spends the public’s tax dollars.

It prohibits the use of public monies from being used for anything but public purposes. It is intended to limit the government from paying taxpayer money to private corporations for some other gain. However, while the doctrine is meant to protect public monies, it is not entirely clear, and it has sparked controversy about what is considered to be “public purposes”.

There are several landmark court cases that shaped the meaning of the public-purpose doctrine. In Sharpless v. Mayor of Philadelphia (1853), the dispute centered around the city of Philadelphia using taxpayer money to purchase stock in railroad companies. The court ruled in favor of the city because it determined that the railroads provided a “public service” of transportation, and was therefore benefiting the public.

Bay City v. The State Treasurer, 1871, overruled this judgment declaring it unconstitutional to give taxpayer money to the railroads because it is considered paying public money to a private corporation. In Loan Association v. Topeka, 1874, the city government was providing bonds to a business in order to encourage that business to locate itself in the city of Topeka. The government argued that this would in turn bring more jobs and income to the city. The court also ruled in favor of the public-purpose doctrine in this case declaring the city government’s actions unconstitutional because the investment was not for a public purpose.

The public-purpose requirement is meant to restrict the government’s use of taxpayer money from profiting private enterprises and reserving the use of this money only to properly serve the public. However, because the definition of this doctrine can be so widely interpreted, it is difficult to determine whether an investment actually functions to serve the public or not. The danger in this lack of specificity is that the government may use this to their advantage. For example, a city government may provide funds to a private hospital and justify the expenditure by claiming it will provide additional jobs to the public, but this is still considered providing public monies to a private company. This can be seen in subsequent court cases where the rulings have allowed the government to fund private enterprises.

In 1980 an Oregon city was accused of using income from taxpayers to promote private industries when it constructed a parking garage and provided free advertising to local businesses. However, the court ruled in Jarvill v. City of Eugene, that the city was benefiting its economy and therefore providing a public service.

The ruling of the 1984 Bowling v. Brown case further compromised the effectiveness of the public-purpose doctrine by declaring it legal to provide public money to a private organization, as long as it somehow benefited the public. Although the early cases were specific as to prohibiting the use of taxes for this private gain, many later cases have allowed this to happen making the public-purpose doctrine less effective.