OPINION

PANELLI, J.

Section 28 of article XIII of the California Constitution (section 28) provides generally that insurance companies doing business in California (other than companies issuing title and ocean marine insurance) must pay to the state a tax based on gross premiums. Subdivision (f) of section 28 provides that with the exception of taxes on real estate and motor vehicles, the gross premiums tax is "in lieu of all other taxes and licenses, state, county, and municipal, upon such insurers and their property. . . ." This case presents the issue whether under section 28 an insurance company is exempt from taxes imposed by a city on revenues derived from the rental of an office building and operation of a parking lot owned by the company, and from a tax on use of electric power in the building. A unanimous Court of Appeal held an insurance company is exempt from all taxes except those specified in section 28. For the reasons that follow, we believe this determination was correct and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Background

Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (MONY), a mutual life insurance company licensed to transact business in California, brought suit for a refund of parking lot fee taxes, taxes on rental revenues, and utility users taxes paid to the City of Los Angeles (city) and imposed pursuant to various provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. MONY alleged these taxes were in contravention of section 28 and were therefore void.

The trial was conducted largely on a stipulation of facts entered into by the parties. Their stipulation was that "MONY was subject to taxation by the State of California pursuant to Article XIII, Section 28(f) of the California Constitution. . . . [P]rior to 1980 through 1984 MONY owned two office buildings located . . . in the City of Los Angeles, at each of which it operated an automobile parking facility . . . and engaged in commercial rentals. . . . [¶] From July, 1980 through April, 1984 MONY paid the charges made for the electricity used by its tenants in the two office buildings owned by it." During this period "MONY did not occupy or use any of the office space in either of the two office buildings owned by it."

At trial, Walter K. Korinker, vice-president of real estate investment for MONY, testified that MONY's purchase of the two office buildings was pursuant to an "overall investment plan . . . in the normal course of MONY's investment activities." Mr. Korinker explained that in his experience "investment in real property [is] an activity traditionally associated with the business of life and health insurance."

Following trial, the court rendered judgment against the city and in favor of MONY. The Court of Appeal affirmed. In so doing, the Court of Appeal refused to follow Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 876 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 370]. We granted review to secure uniformity of decision.

Discussion

Our sole task in deciding the issue before us is to determine the meaning of the governing constitutional provision. In approaching this task, we start with established principles of construction, applicable to statutes and constitutional provisions alike. ( County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 979 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 777]; see Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299].) (1) "[I]n arriving at the meaning of a [constitutional provision], consideration must be given to the words employed, giving to every word, clause and sentence their ordinary meaning. If doubts and ambiguities remain then, and only then, are we warranted in seeking elsewhere for aid. . . . Among these aids is a consideration of the object to be accomplished." ( State Board of Education v. Levit (1959) 52 Cal.2d 441, 462 [ 343 P.2d 8].) When, however, "the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute) or of the voters (in the case of a provision adopted by the voters). [Citations.]" ( Lungren v. Deukmejian, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 735.)

(2a) In the instant case, we perceive no ambiguity either patent or latent in section 28 that would authorize us to look beyond the plain meaning of the words. Nor, to our knowledge, has any court faced with the issue ever found the provision to be ambiguous. (See, e.g., Hughes v. Los Angeles (1914) 168 Cal. 764 [ 145 P. 94]; Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Roberts (1914) 168 Cal. 420 [ 143 P. 700]; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Jordan (1914) 168 Cal. 270 [ 142 P. 839]; First American Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 343, 346 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 177]; Groves v. City of Los Angeles (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 17 [ 208 P.2d 254].) Even in Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d 876, discussed hereafter, the court implicitly acknowledged that its interpretation, allowing a tax other than those specified in section 28, was contrary to the "plain meaning" of the provision. (129 Cal.App.3d at pp. 881, 883.)

As this court stated when first called upon to apply the almost identical "in lieu" provision then applicable to utilities, as well as insurance companies, "Where is there room for the play of construction upon language so plain as this . . .? With the argument of respondents, that the framers of this article were intelligent men and must be presumed to know what they meant to say, we are in perfect accord. What they said is so plain, so clear, so free from ambiguity and the possibility of construction as to forbid debate. They declared that the state tax should be in lieu of all other taxes and licenses. If they meant that it should be in lieu of but some of those taxes they would have said so. . . . What they did say was that this state tax, with the state's ability to increase it at will, should be in lieu of all other taxes and licenses. If argument is required upon the meaning of plain words so clearly expressing an obvious idea, it can only be because of an utter breakdown in our written language in its ability to convey thought." ( Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Roberts, supra, 168 Cal. at p. 432, italics in original.)

The city, however, suggests there is an ambiguity in section 28's references to an insurer's "business." Subdivision (b) imposes a tax on each insurer "doing business" in California, and subdivision (c) states that the basis of the tax is the gross premiums received by such insurer "upon its business" done in the state. Subdivision (b), it is argued, could refer to any kind of business done by an insurer, rather than just the insurance business, whereas subdivision (c) with its reference to gross premiums can mean only insurance business.

We are unpersuaded. The tax is on "gross premiums . . . received . . . by such insurer upon its business done in this state." (§ 28, subd. (c).) If the insurer does no insurance business here, there are no gross premiums received and section 28 does not apply. If the insurer does insurance business, section 28 does apply and the insurer pays the gross premiums tax on its insurance business. In that case, pursuant to subdivision (f), the gross premiums tax is in lieu of all other state and local taxes and fees, not merely on the business of the insurers, but " upon such insurers and their property." In other words, doing insurance business that is subject to the gross premiums tax confers upon the insurer a status that entitles it to the broad exemption from paying state and local taxes of any kind except real property and motor vehicle taxes and fees. That such was the intent of the electorate is supported by the language and history of the "in lieu" provision.

As originally adopted, section 28 provided that the gross premiums tax was in lieu of all other taxes on the insurer's "property" (except county and municipal taxes on real estate). (See Historical Note, 3 West's Ann. Cal. Const., supra, art. XIII, former § 14, p. 175, col. 2.) In 1933 the electorate amended the provision to provide that the gross premiums tax was in lieu of all other taxes on " such companies or their property." (Italics added.) (Historical Note, 3 West's Ann. Cal. Const., supra, art. XIII, former § 14, p. 178, col. 2, par. 2.) In 1942 the electorate again amended the provision to its present form, which provides that the tax imposed is in lieu of all other taxes "upon such insurers and their property." (Italics added.) (See Historical Note, 3 West's Ann. Cal. Const., supra, art. XIII, former § 14 4/5, pp. 205-206; see now § 28, subd. (f).) As this court recognized in Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Roberts, supra, 168 Cal. 420, "as in the case of every tax and upon whatsoever form or kind of property it may be laid, in its essence, it is a tax upon the owner of the property." ( Id. at p. 430.) By these amendments, therefore, the electorate assured the broadest possible exemption for insurance companies subject to the gross premiums tax.

Even assuming, however, that section 28 requires "interpretation" beyond its plain meaning, the result would be the same. This follows from an examination of the evident purpose of the provision as well as a comparison of the language applicable to insurance companies generally with the language used in relation to title insurance companies.

The tax on gross premiums and the "in lieu" provision first appeared in the Constitution in 1910 as part of an overall revision of the state tax system with respect to corporations involved in certain kinds of businesses. The constitutional amendment "worked a radical change" in the system of taxation. Its purpose "was to divide the subjects of state and local taxation by imposing upon persons and corporations engaged in certain callings — those of public service corporations, insurance companies, banks and trust companies — the obligation to pay certain taxes to be applied exclusively to state purposes. At the same time, the persons engaged and the property employed in these callings were, to a greater or less degree, to be free from the burden of local taxation. . . . [¶] Under the old system, the property and franchises of the corporations . . . were taxed for both state and local purposes. The amendment create[d] a new mode of taxing such property and franchises, and appropriate[d] the revenue so raised to state purposes solely. . . . The percentages enumerated in the amendment are declared to be `in lieu of all other taxes,' etc., and such percentages were, doubtless, fixed at higher rates than would have been adopted in the absence of a restriction on other taxation." ( San Francisco v. Pacific Tel. Tel. Co., supra, 166 Cal. at pp. 247-248; see also Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Roberts, supra, 168 Cal. at pp. 423-425.)

(3) In short, the "in lieu" provision was intended to preclude the state or any of its subdivisions from exacting any other revenue from the specified corporations (except local taxes on real estate) and was granted in exchange for the payment of a tax on gross, rather than net, premiums, and at an adjustable rate higher than would otherwise be applied. By excepting real property taxes from the "in lieu" provision, however, the constitutional provision kept in place the traditional funding source for local governments, thereby accommodating the revenue needs of counties and municipalities.

The very existence of express exceptions — originally, real property, and later, motor vehicle taxes (§ 28, subd. (f)(1), (5)) — serves to buttress the view that the "in lieu" provision means what it says. (4) "Under the familiar rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, where exceptions to a general rule are specified by statute, other exceptions are not to be implied or presumed." ( Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 195 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 377, 553 P.2d 537]; see San Francisco v. Pacific Tel. Tel. Co., supra, 166 Cal. at p. 251.) As this court stated over 75 years ago, "the purpose of the constitution to exclude all other taxes and licenses is emphasized and accentuated by the one exception which that instrument itself declares. . . ." ( Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Roberts, supra, 168 Cal. at p. 432 [construing the "in lieu" provision applicable to utilities].) (2b) The electorate, in excepting from the "in lieu" provision taxes on real property and motor vehicles, could have made a further exception for taxes incidental to the operation of a commercial real estate business, but they did not.

A comparison of the section 28 tax and "in lieu" provisions applicable to insurance companies in general, with those applicable to companies transacting title insurance, is instructive. As originally adopted, former section 14 of article XIII of the California Constitution applied to all insurance companies, including title insurers. (See Consolidated Title Sec. Co. v. Hopkins (1934) 1 Cal.2d 414, 416 [ 35 P.2d 320]; Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Los Angeles (1923) 61 Cal.App. 232 [ 214 P. 667].) In 1942, the electorate adopted former section 14 4/5 of article XIII of the Constitution, which distinguished between insurers not transacting title insurance in this state and those transacting title insurance. For the former, the basis of the annual tax remained the amount of gross premiums; for title insurance companies, the basis became "all income upon business done in the state," except as provided. The exceptions are interest and dividends, rents from real property, profits from the sale of investments, and income from investments. If the title insurance company has a trust department and does trust business, income from such trust business is also excepted. (Art. XIII, former § 14 4/5, subd. (c); see now § 28, subd. (c).) In that case, however, the trust business is taxable to the same extent as trust companies and the trust departments of banks. (Art. XIII, former § 14 4/5, subd. (f)(2); see now § 28, subd. (f)(2).) (5) The new section recognized that title insurers are engaged in a different type of insurance than other insurers and should be taxed on a different basis. ( Title Ins. etc. Co. v. Franchise Tax Board (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 60, 64 [ 302 P.2d 79].) But while the electorate established income rather than gross premiums as the basis for the title insurers' tax, they expressly excepted income from investments — i.e., interest and dividends, rents and profits from real estate, and income from other investments. In so doing, the electorate assured that title insurers, despite their different basis, would nevertheless, like other insurers, be free of taxation on investment income. (See First American Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, 15 Cal.App.3d 343, 346-347.)

The new section also recognized that the trust business of title insurers is different from insurance business. "It was clearly the purpose of the new section that the trust portion of the business done by [title insurance] companies . . . was not to be considered as insurance business and therefore should not be taxed as insurance business." ( Title Ins. etc. Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, 145 Cal.App.2d at p. 63.) Rather, the provision was so phrased "that the trust business of title companies shall be required to pay the same type tax as trust companies and banks doing a trust business are required to pay." ( Id. at p. 64.)

In the title insurance provision, therefore, the electorate demonstrated both their intention to exempt insurers' investment income from taxation and their ability, when they wish, to tax insurers' noninsurance business. Where the electorate has demonstrated the ability to make their intent clear, it is not the province of this court to imply an intent left unexpressed. (6a) "It is a prime rule of construction that the legislative intent underlying a statute must be ascertained from its language; if the language is clear, there can be no room for interpretation, and effect must be given to its plain meaning. [Citations.] `An intent that finds no expression in the words of the statute cannot be found to exist. The courts may not speculate that the legislature meant something other than what it said. Nor may they rewrite a statute to make it express an intention not expressed therein.'" ( Hennigan v. United Pacific Ins. Co. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 1, 7 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 408].)

In Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d 876, relied on by the city, the Court of Appeal rejected the plain meaning of the "in lieu" provision in favor of an interpretation it believed was consonant with the policy underlying the constitutional provision. In that case, the insurer owned the Hyatt Hotel on Union Square in San Francisco and agreed with another corporation that the latter would operate the hotel for 20 percent of the profits. The Court of Appeal upheld the city's imposition of ad valorem taxes against the insurer on hotel personal property owned by it and leased to the hotel operator.

Stating that the quid pro quo for the "in lieu" tax exemption is the imposition upon insurers of a tax on gross premiums, rather than net profits, as in the common commercial case (129 Cal.App.3d at p. 881), the Massachusetts Mutual court reasoned: "Since the `in lieu' exemption is granted in return for imposition of a tax on gross, rather than net, receipts, and is functionally related to the tax which insurers must pay on gross premiums paid to the company for insurance benefits [citation], in our view it would be inappropriate to allow a tax exemption for property owned by an insurer but not used to produce taxable gross premiums. If it were otherwise, an insurer could entirely escape taxation of all revenue-producing property not used to generate `gross premiums.' Under such circumstances, . . . the quid pro quo for the `in lieu' exemption no longer exists; the insurer retains the privilege of doing business, and derives profits, but pays the state nothing for property owned and used in deriving a conceivably substantial source of its income. We do not think the electors intended such a result." ( Id. at p. 882.)

(2c) Massachusetts Mutual is faulty in several respects. First, the court completely overlooked this court's opinion in Consolidated Title Sec. Co. v. Hopkins, supra, 1 Cal.2d 414. There, in interpreting the in lieu provision, we stated: "The insurance company gross premiums tax frees from local taxation, except taxes on real estate, all `property of such companies.' Use of personal property in the conduct of the insurance company's business is not the factor which determines freedom from local taxation." ( Id. at p. 420, italics added.)

Second, the court based its holding on its unsupported view of the result dictated by the quid pro quo policy underlying the constitutional provision, rather than the particular constitutional language. (6b) The court thereby violated the fundamental principle of interpretation that "[w]hen statutory language is . . . clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction and courts should not indulge in it." ( Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 198 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 460, 561 P.2d 1148], italics added.)

2d Third, the court's premise, that the operation of an active business that generates gross operating revenues is not used to produce gross premiums (129 Cal.App.3d at pp. 882, 886), is contrary to both the testimony in the present case and the undisputed fact that income from investments, of whatever kind, is necessary to maintain sufficient reserves to meet policyholders' claims. As the United States Supreme Court has observed: "An insurance company obtains most of its funds from premiums paid to it by policyholders in exchange for the company's promise to pay future death claims and other benefits. The company is also obligated to maintain reserves, which, if they are to be adequate to pay future claims, must grow at a sufficient rate each year. The receipt of premiums necessarily entails the creation of reserves and additions to reserves from investment income. Thus the insurance company is not only permitted to invest, but it must invest; and it must return to the reserve a large portion of its investment income. As no insurance company would deny, there is sufficient economic and legal substance to the company's obligation to return a large portion of investment income to policyholder reserves to warrant or require the exclusion of investment income so employed from the taxable income of the company." ( United States v. Atlas Ins. Co. (1965) 381 U.S. 233, 247 [14 L.Ed.2d 358, 367, 85 S.Ct. 1379], first italics added, remaining italics in original.)

In its quid pro quo analysis, the court failed also to acknowledge the authority of the Legislature, by majority vote, to increase the rate of the gross premiums tax. (§ 28, subd. (i).) So long as the Legislature has authority to adjust the tax rate on gross premiums, the quid pro quo for exempting insurers from all other taxes obtains. If the Legislature determines insurers are not bearing their fair share of the tax burden, it need only increase the rate of taxation on gross premiums.

Finally, the court's conclusion, that revenues from a so-called "active" business are taxable, leads to inconsistent results. The exemption from taxation of income from "passive" investments, such as stocks and bonds, has been established for more than half a century. (See Consolidated Title Sec. Co. v. Hopkins, supra, 1 Cal.2d at p. 419.) If income and profits from investment in intangibles, such as stocks, bonds, mortgages and other securities, is exempt from taxation, what justification is there to except income and profits from investment in real estate? An investment of premiums, whatever its manner or means, is an investment; its purpose, irrespective of the form it takes, is in each instance the same: to accrue income to cover operating expenses and return to the company's reserve sufficient funds to pay future claims.

Observing that until 1945 insurers were prohibited by law from investing in real property not used for a home office, the city seeks justification in the argument that the electorate could not have intended to except such income and profits from taxation. But the electorate expressly did just that in the provisions relating to title insurers; the city does not attempt to explain why the electorate should have had a different intent with respect to insurers not transacting title insurance and which, unlike title insurers, are not even taxed on income. The dissent likewise fails to address this issue, preferring instead to conjure up visions of the "gross injustices" our decision assertedly will create. Rhetoric aside, however, the fact is that in the constitutional provision applicable to title insurers the electorate has expressly adopted the very exemptions the dissent finds so unjust. (§ 28, subd. (c).) The dissent fails entirely to explain why the electorate should have thus favored title insurers, but not others.

The issue, moreover, is not what the insurers' investment practices may have been when section 28 was originally adopted, but whether, under the constitutional provision, income and profits from investments, then or now, is subject to local taxation. As indicated, the answer plainly is in the negative. As this court stated in the analogous context of construing the public-land tax exemption (Cal. Const., art. XIII, former § 1; see now art. XIII, § 3, subds. (a) and (b)), "`The fact that social, economic, and political conditions in this state have undergone great changes since the adoption of our present Constitution . . . would not justify a construction of this provision which would in effect result in its amendment by the courts and not by the people.'" ( Anderson-Cottonwood I. Dist. v. Klukkert (1939) 13 Cal.2d 191, 197 [ 88 P.2d 685].) Section 28, moreover, has been amended numerous times since 1945, most recently in 1976 (see Historical Note, 3 West's Ann. Cal. Const., supra, art. XIII, § 28 (1990 pocket supp.) p. 60); the "in lieu" tax provision was reenacted on each occasion (see Smith v. Board of Trustees (1926) 198 Cal. 301, 306 [ 245 P. 173]), presumably with the voters' full knowledge of the investment practices of insurance companies.

As further justification, the city raises the specter of insurers exploiting the exemption by conducting extensive commercial enterprises under the umbrella of the constitutional tax exemption, to the disadvantage of citizens not favored by such an exemption. The dissent likewise invokes a "parade of horrors" that assertedly will follow from our decision. Neither, however, recognizes that the constitutional exemption applies only to insurers — that is, organizations whose primary purpose and function is to assume the risk of loss under contracts of insurance or reinsurance. (See Ins. Code, § 826; cf. 26 C.F.R. § 1.801-3 (1989).) Insurance companies, moreover, are highly regulated and strictly limited by law as to their permissible investments. (Ins. Code, §§ 1100-1107, 1150-1250.) Except in the context of investments in stock or other securities, the provisions of the Insurance Code that authorize and regulate insurance company investments simply do not mention nonreal-estate commercial enterprises. Moreover, the state Legislature, in the exercise of its authority to regulate insurers' investments, could, if it wished, eliminate any perceived abuse of insurers' tax status simply by amending the laws governing their permissible investments.

Nor, in any event, would the claimed consequence alter our conclusion. (7a) "[C]ourts, in construing the constitution, are bound to suppose that any inconveniences involved in the application of its provisions, according to their plain terms and import, were considered in its formation, and voluntarily accepted as less intolerable than those which are thereby avoided, or as fully compensated by countervailing advantages." ( People v. Pendegast (1892) 96 Cal. 289, 294 [31 P. 103]; Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819) 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 202-203 [4 L.Ed. 529, 550].)

(2e) In sum, the court's holding in Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d 876, is unsupported and unpersuasive, and we disapprove it.

Finally, the city cites in support a Delaware case, Continental Amer. Life Ins. Co. v. City of Wilmington (Del. Super. Ct. 1970) 273 A.2d 277. There, the state statute provided that the state's fee, charges and premium taxes should be "in lieu of all county and municipal license fees and taxes upon the business of insurance in this State, excepting property taxes." (273 A.2d at p. 278, italics added.) California's gross premiums tax, by contrast, is in lieu not merely of taxes on the business of insurance, but of taxes "upon such insurers and their property." (§ 28, subd. (f).) The Delaware case, therefore, has no bearing on the application of our constitutional provision.

In the face of the foregoing, for this court to read an "active" investment exception into section 28 would be nothing more than judicial legislation. The Constitution not having provided such an exception, it is not within our province to do so. (7b) "The constitution is to be interpreted by the language in which it is written, and courts are no more at liberty to add provisions to what is therein declared in definite language than they are to disregard any of its express provisions." ( People v. Campbell (1902) 138 Cal. 11, 15 [ 70 P. 918]; see Ross v. City of Long Beach (1944) 24 Cal.2d 258, 260 [ 148 P.2d 649].) The wisdom of the constitutional provision is not for us to judge, and any inequity resulting is for the people or the Legislature to correct.

(2f) Considerations of policy, in any event, arguably support the exemption of investment income from taxation. Because insurance companies do not generate sufficient income from premiums to pay their operating expenses and claims, they must invest their premiums in order to stay in business and make a profit. The drafters of section 28 undoubtedly were mindful that insurance companies are unique in their exposure to payouts far in excess of premiums received and, unlike other businesses, need substantial reserves to meet potential claims in addition to operating expenses. Public policy is served when insurance companies remain solvent, and only by investment of premiums can an insurer maintain the necessary reserves. To tax investment income would be to minimize the value of the investment and reduce the sums available for the reserves, to the potential detriment of policyholders. The Legislature, moreover, has, as previously noted, imposed extensive statutory restrictions on insurers' permissible investments (e.g., Ins. Code, §§ 1100-1107, 1150-1250) and has specifically limited to 10 percent the amount of capital insurers may invest in real estate enterprises (Ins. Code, § 1194.8), the investment here at issue; if these limitations are insufficient, it is for the Legislature to address the problem, not this court.

In adopting section 28, the electorate clearly intended to exempt from taxation the income generated by insurers' so-called "passive" investments. (See Consolidated Title Sec. Co. v. Hopkins, supra, 1 Cal.2d at p. 419.) To exclude investments in real estate on grounds that they are "active" rather than "passive" investments, would arbitrarily and unjustifiably limit insurers' business judgment as how best to maximize their return on the investment of premiums. Absent an express directive requiring such a distinction, we decline to make it.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.

Lucas, C.J., Eagleson, J., and Kaufman, J., concurred.