concurring in result.
I concur in result. I would strike down the portion of the statute in question on equal protection grounds and also as special legislation. Actually there is little difference in the analysis for an equal protection violation and legislation deemed special. This is especially so where the classification does not “bear any reasonable relationship to the object to be accomplished.” Bopp v. Spainhower, 519 S.W.2d 281, 286 (Mo. banc 1975).
Whether a statute is challenged on equal protection or special legislation grounds, therefore, the standard of review is the same: Are the classifications created by the statute reasonable because these classifications are rationally related to achievement of the statute’s legitimate goals in that particular condition or attribute upon which the classifications are based constitutes a plausible distinction between the classes in view of the statute’s legitimate goals?
County of Bureau v. Thompson, 139 Ill.2d 323, 151 Ill.Dec. 508, 564 N.E.2d 1170 (1990).
The disputed portions of § 137.115.1(2) do constitute special legislation. There is no rational basis presented by the respondents why subdivisions in the first and third largest assessed areas in the state (St. Louis County $11.6 billion, St. Louis City $2.4 billion) are exempted from retaining the inflationary factor without a vote, while those in Jackson ($4.9 billion) and all others need not submit to a vote under the Hancock Amendment. Mo.Const. Art. X, § 22(a). The portion of the statute is invalid because the exception created a stated class omitted which those whose “relationship to the subject matter cannot by reason be distinguished from those included.” State ex rel. Public Defender v. County Court of Greene County, 667 S.W.2d 409, 412-13 (Mo. banc 1984).
In fact this is a classic case of an equal protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its counterpart Article I, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution — the criteria used for special legislation, no “rational relationship to a legislative purpose” and “no rational basis ... for the disparate treatment,” apply to equal protection.
Where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are present, a rational basis test for the classification pertains. The question under equal protection analysis is whether the legislation bears some rational basis to a legitimate state purpose. Labor’s Educational & Political Club Independent v. Danforth, 561 S.W.2d 339, 347 (Mo. banc 1978). Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, 807 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Mo. banc 1991). The rational basis test applies to this case.
In matters of taxation the states are not compelled to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation. Bell’s Gap R. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 10 S.Ct. 533, 33 L.Ed. 892 (1890); State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte, 350 Mo. 271, 165 S.W.2d 632, 636 (banc 1942). In Bopp v. Spainhower, supra, the Court held a transportation sales tax for St. Louis County was for a legitimate purpose due to the immediate needs of a densely populated county with many cities, and it was “logical,” and on a “reasonable basis” that the tax could be imposed by a vote of the County rather than of all the individual cities. Id. On the other hand in Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 652 S.W.2d 128 (Mo. banc 1983), the Court found “invidious discrimination” in a domestication or extra tax on the capital and surplus of a foreign corporation that was not placed on Missouri corporations. Id. at 130 and 131. The Court found, “the challenged statute serves no legitimate purpose,” so it was unnecessary to answer the second prong of the test as to whether it was reasonable for the lawmakers to believe its use would promote that purpose. Id. at 133.
*226Counsel for the respondents heroically presented several explanations of the statute’s disparate treatment in singling out St. Louis City and County. The following are provided as rational basis for promoting a valid state interest:
1) This is a reasonable attempt to meet local needs. The city’s valuation of $2.4 billion and the County’s of well over $11 billion put them in a classification far above the state's other counties as far as a tax base.
2) Real assessment growth in terms of new construction and improvements is relatively strong in the city and county-
3) Restraints on the inflationary growth of the tax burden on city and county taxpayers will:
a) promote long term economic growth (presumably more businesses moving to these areas because of restraint on inflationary revenues by the schools and other political subdivisions, and, b) protection of “taxpayers on limited or fixed incomes.”
These arguments are a sophistic exercise and should not allow the state to make this arbitrary and unreasonable distinction in requiring only the political subdivisions of the City and County to hold an election to retain tax revenues equal to the agreed rate of inflation. In re Ext. of Boundaries of Glaize Creek, 574 S.W.2d 357, 363 (Mo. banc 1978). The only similarity the City and County have for the purposes of this legislation is they are located next to each other in the eastern part of the state. That puts them next to smaller valued but very rapid growth areas like St. Charles and Jefferson Counties.
This is not a case of approving a statutory classification based on a poor reason, State ex rel. Dreer v. Public School Retirement System of City of St. Louis, 519 S.W.2d 290, 298 (Mo.1975), it is a classification based on no apparent reason and in furtherance of no legitimate state interest. The law results in an “invidious discrimination,” Milliken v. Green, 390 Mich. 389, 212 N.W.2d 711, 715 (1973), as against the schoolchildren-appellants. Persons in school throughout the state, no matter their county of residence, have been given a uniform right to have their schools keep these inflationary revenues. Persons in the City and County, standing in no different stead, and for no rational reason, have not been afforded the same right, bringing about a violation of equal protection. Haeussler Inv. Co. v. Bates, 306 Mo. 392, 267 S.W. 632, 636 (1924) aff'd 271 U.S. 647, 46 S.Ct. 487, 70 L.Ed. 1131 (1926); State ex rel. Classics Tavern v. McMahon, 783 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Mo.App.1990).
Making a “class” of the City and County or exempting them into having a more onerous burden than Jackson and all the others creates a distinction that cannot be explained or condoned on equal protection grounds. Kirk v. Board of County Comm’rs, Muskogee County, 595 P.2d 1334 (Ok.1979).
The students have standing on the special legislation issue as well as equal protection. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 of King County v. State, 90 Wash.2d 476, 585 P.2d 71, 83 (banc 1978). It would appear Riverview Gardens has standing on the special legislation issue, but not equal protection. City of Chesterfield v. Director of Revenue, 811 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Mo. banc 1991); see also State ex rel. Mehlville Fire Protection Dist. v. State Tax Common of Missouri, 695 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Mo.App.1985); School District of the City of Independence v. Jones, 653 S.W.2d 178, 185 (Mo. banc 1983); (citing art. IX, § 1(a), Mo.Const. (1945, as amended August 3, 1976)). The taxpayer plaintiffs do not have standing on either ground. Harrison v. Monroe County, 716 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Mo. banc 1986); Berghorn v. Reorganized School Dist. No. 8, 364 Mo. 121, 260 S.W.2d 573, 581 (1953).
In ruling the portions of the statute unconstitutional on equal protection and special legislation grounds, this decision should have only prospective application. Scholle v. Carrollton R-VII School District, 771 S.W.2d 336 (Mo. banc 1989).