Taxation by Annexation Is Still Taxation Without Consent

Photo by GeoJango Maps on Unsplash

Municipal annexation in Mississippi has a dirty little secret. Too often it is less about “smart growth” and more about expanding a city’s taxing and regulatory footprint. A line gets drawn on a map, a neighborhood gets swept in, and folks who never asked for city government suddenly wake up owing city taxes and living under city rules.

House Bill 4 fixes that problem the way it should be fixed in a free state. It puts the decision back in the hands of the people who have to live with it.

Right now, annexation fights tend to be decided in chancery court. Cities hire lawyers, residents try to keep up, and a judge weighs whether the annexation is “reasonable” or serves “public necessity.” That process might sound objective, but it stacks the deck against ordinary citizens. Worse, it lets government growth happen without a clear, direct yes from the people being pulled into the city.

HB4 changes the basic assumption. It removes annexation approval from chancery courts and moves annexation to an election process. Here is the key protection. If 20 percent of the electors in the area targeted for annexation petition for an election, the city must hold one. Annexation cannot happen unless it wins separate majorities: a majority vote inside the city and a majority vote in the territory being annexed.

That separate approval requirement matters. Cities have built in incentives to annex. They gain more taxpayers, more revenue, and more political control. But residents outside city limits often live there on purpose. They want fewer rules, fewer fees, lower taxes, and more freedom to use their property without city hall hovering over their shoulder. HB4 respects that choice instead of treating it as an obstacle to be overcome.

The bill also blocks repeat pressure campaigns. If voters reject annexation, the city cannot just come right back the next year and try again until people are worn down. HB4 imposes a five year timeout before another annexation attempt can be made in the same area. That is simple fairness and a real check on government persistence.

To be clear, HB4 does not eliminate courts from the process entirely. It keeps court involvement primarily for municipal boundary contractions and related appeals, meaning cases where a city is shrinking rather than expanding. That is appropriate. The liberty concern is government expansion, because expansion is where new taxes and new regulations follow.

At the end of the day, annexation is about jurisdiction. It is about who gets to tax you, regulate you, and tell you what you can and cannot do with your property. That kind of power should not be expanded by default, and it should not hinge on courtroom maneuvering.

HB4 makes annexation earn legitimacy the old fashioned way. Get a clear yes from the people. If a city wants to annex an area, it should make its case and it should win the vote on both sides of the line. That is consent of the governed, applied where it counts.