Settle v. Board of County Com'rs of Muskogee County
| Decision Date | 23 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 43812,43812 |
| Parties | Tom SETTLE, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF MUSKOGEE, of the State of Oklahoma, Norman Brazil, Chairman, and Kenneth Ward, Member, and Fred Shelton, Member, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of said County, Defendants. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Jan Eric Cartwright, Muskogee, for plaintiff.
George J. Fagin and Andrew J. Haswell, Jr., Oklahoma City, Chal Wheller, Muskogee, for defendants.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Tim Leonard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for amicus curiae.
J. B. Marshall, Edmond, for amicus curiae Oklahoma Municipal League.
Plaintiff files an original action in this court attacking the constitutionality of Art. 10, § 35, of the Oklahoma Constitution, which was adopted at a special election held May 1, 1962. Plaintiff contends Art. 10, § 35, is unconstitutional on the ground that the requirement therein, limiting voting at the election therein provided to 'qualified taxpaying voters,' violates the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
We accept original jurisdiction of the action because of the public importance of the matter and the need for an early determination of the question.
This case presents an issue similar to the one considered in Settle v. City of Muskogee, Oklahoma, 462 P.2d 642.
The parties agree on the following facts. Plaintiff is not a real or personal property taxpayer of Muskogee County, but is otherwise qualified to vote in Muskogee County. On September 9, 1969, the County, under authority granted in Art. 10, § 35, held a special election submitting to the registered qualified taxpaying voters of the County the proposition of whether the County should incur an indebtedness by issuing its bonds in the sum of $2,000,000, to provide funds for the purpose of securing and developing industry in the County, and to levy and collect an annual tax upon all real and personal property in the County but not in excess of 5 mills, sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the bonds as they became due, within 30 years. The proposition received the required favorable vote. Plaintiff was denied the right to vote because he was not a taxpaying voter.
The County officers are now thereatening to issue a portion of the bonds and use the proceeds for the purposes set forth in the Proposition.
Plaintiff filed this action against the County and its Commissioners, alleging the facts above set out, alleging he and the members of the community have an interest in the development of new industry and the resulting change in the economic structure, and that all qualified electors should be allowed to vote on the Proposition. He alleges that the level of property taxation affects the price of goods and services. He prays that the election be declared invalid and the defendants enjoined from issuing bonds on the ground that Art. 10, § 35, and the election violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Art. 10, § 35, Oklahoma Constitution, provides that a county may, by consent of the majority of the 'qualified taxpaying voters' of the county voting at an election thereon, issue bonds for the purpose of securing and developing industry within the county, and levy a special annual tax, not to exceed 5 mills on the dollar, on the real and personal taxable property therein to pay the bonds within 30 years. It provides that the county commissioners shall have jurisdiction over the sale of the bonds and that they shall economically expend the funds, and give them authority to coordinate their industrial development plans and projects insofar as practical with those of local industrial development agencies.
The sole question presented is whether the exclusion of plaintiff from voting on the bonds, because he was not a property taxpayer, violates the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Settle v. City of Muskogee, supra, we stated the general rules of law governing classifications of persons and voters, citing Haas v. Holloman, Okl., 327 P.2d 655; Walters v. City of St. Louis, 347 U.S. 231, 74 S.Ct. 505, 98 L.Ed. 660 (1954) and Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965). We adopt these rules as being equally applicable in the present case.
In addition thereto, we find in Avery v. Midland County, Texas, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968), the following statements: 'The Equal Protection Clause does not, of course, require that the State never distinguish between citizens, but only that the distinctions that are made not be arbitrary or invidious,' and 'The Constitution does not require that a uniform straitjacket bind citizens in devising mechanisms of local government suitable for local needs and efficient in solving local problems.'
Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pike v. School Dist. No. 11 in El Paso County, 11
...Muench v. Paine, 93 Idaho 473, 463 P.2d 939 (1970); Settle v. City of Muskogee, 462 P.2d 642 (Okla.1969); and Settle v. Board of County Commissioners, 462 P.2d 646 (Okla.1969). Each of these four cases involved a state statute which limited the vote to taxpayers in elections concerning bond......
-
Stewart v. Parish School Bd. of Parish of St. Charles
...a compelling State interest". Contra: Settle v. City of Muskogee, Okl., Dec. 23, 1969, 462 P.2d 642; Settle v. Board of Commissioners, Co. of Muskogee, Okl., Dec. 23, 1969, 462 P.2d 646; Muench v. Paine, Idaho, 463 P.2d The State's compelling interest in fixing the qualifications of voters ......
-
Elk City v. Johnson
...that his proclamation would result in needless expense and legal problems as to the validity of the bonds. In Settle v. Board of Co. Com'rs of Muskogee, (1969) Okl., 462 P.2d 646, we upheld the constitutionality of the 'qualified taxpaying voters' provision in Art. 10, Sec. 35, as against t......