Since the counties, towns, cities, and districts of this State do not hold the ultimate sovereign power and are not vested with the duties of government by the constitution agreed to by our people, these political subdivisions have no constitutional powers or duties in their own right. They have no independent constitutional duty to govern and order, to protect, or to provide for the benefit and welfare. Yet, their role is immense, and arises through delegation. Many State duties have been delegated to its political subdivisions, and with this delegation has gone the responsibility to fund. Wooster, 62 N.H. at 216-17. But cf. N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 28-a (no new or expanded unfunded mandates after enactment). Political subdivisions, at their own expense, carry out State duties on elections, fire and police protection, land use control and other exercises of the police power, provisions of highways, sanitation, and the structure and staffing of local government. For much of our history, the counties, towns, and cities provided, at their expense, the facilities, and some level of staffing, for our court system. The local school district, for some time, has financed the education for the children of the district.

Under my determination of duty and delegation, I am driven to a holding that the constitutional education nut is properly delegated and the purpose, for taxation purposes, is demonstrably local. Holt, 64 N.H. at 286, 9 A. at 389. Funds raised by taxation are used for political purposes within the district, for the district's use, and expended by the district to achieve educational standards set by the State and the district, for the sole benefit of the district. See School-District v. Prentiss, 66 N.H. 145, 146, 19 A. 1090, 1090 (1889); cf. Allen v. Bidwell, 68 N.H. 245, 246, 44 A. 295, 295 (1894); Railroad v. The State, 60 N.H. at 96. Given the legislature's proper delegation, its clear designation of the taxing district, the discerned purpose of the tax, and its obvious proportionality within the taxing district, I would hold that the trial court was correct in deciding, in the context of this case, that the part II, article 5 tests of reasonability and proportionality have been met by the current tax system.

The majority gives a passing nod to reasonability, equating it with proportionality. Obviously, these are two different tests since they are separately stated in part II, article 5. Reasonability can involve a number of issues, but not proportionality. Reasonability should be measured against an absolute standard, whereas proportionality involves relative considerations. In this case, I would surmise that reasonability would involve measuring the tax collected against the property assessed, and where the taxing act becomes a taking act, the tax is unreasonable. Cf. Acker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 258 F.2d 568, 574 (6th Cir. 1958), aff'd, 361 U.S. 87 (1959).

And that is the trigger of the State's guarantee which is mandated in the constitution, as interpreted in Claremont I. Failure of the school districts, the primary obligors, to provide funding for the educational nut by virtue of the unreasonability of their respective taxes, measured against the total local tax burden, would trigger the State's guarantee obligation. At that point, the State must step in and provide funding, or such part thereof as will reduce the tax burden to a reasonable level. The test of absolute reasonability is not developed in this case.

Although not the basis of the majority's opinion, the majority presents a learned analysis of the right of the student to education. It finds the right to be fundamental. I do not quarrel with this characterization, but note that its materiality is based on the plaintiffs' claim of a violation of equal protection. The majority does not find such a violation. Based on my definition of the constitutional duty owed to these students, I would hold that the record below demonstrates that the constitutional nut is provided to all students and find the funding scheme is not constitutionally infirm. Thus, there is no equal protection violation.

Although I have some quarrels with aspects of the decision below, none are the subject of this appeal, and I agree for the most part with the result reached by the trial court in a mostly excellent opinion.