State Election Bd. v. Behnke, 1273S252
| Decision Date | 19 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1273S252,1273S252 |
| Citation | 261 Ind. 540,307 N.E.2d 56 |
| Parties | STATE ELECTION BOARD et al., Appellants (Defendants Below), v. Martin BEHNKE et al., Appellees (Plaintiffs Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., David H. Kreider, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellants.
Joseph L. Skozen, Hammond, Arch N. Bobbitt, Indianapolis, for appellees.
This is an appeal from the trial court's action in permanently enjoining the enforcement of House Enrolled Act No. 1673, which is Acts 1973, P.L. 160, * on the grounds that said Act violates Art. 4, §§ 22 and 23 of the Constitution of Indiana. This Court entertains jurisdiction pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, A.P. 4(A)(8). We affirm.
The Act in issue provides for a method of selecting county commissioners in counties having a population of between 500,000 and 650,000 as determined by the last federal decennial census. The Act expires, by its own terms, on January 1, 1978--two years prior to the next federal decennial census. Thus, the operation of the Act is restricted to such counties as had the requisite population according to the 1970 census. Lake County is the only Indiana county having the required population to qualify under the Act, and there is no possibility of any other county qualifying under the Act as the Act expires prior to the 1980 decennial census. Therefore, the Act can only apply to the election of Lake County Commissioners in 1974 and 1976 and could never be made applicable to counties other than Lake County.
The trial court found that House Enrolled Act No. 1673 is not a general law which 'could operate uniformly throughout the State as required by Article 4, Section 23 of the Constitution of Indiana . . .' It, therefore, declared the Act null and void.
House Enrolled Act No. 1673 reads in pertinent part as follows:
'Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
A determination that the Act in question does not operate uniformly throughout the state renders it a special law and thus violative of our Constitution. Dortch v. Lugar (1971), 255 Ind. 545, 266 N.E.2d 25. Article 4, Section 22 of the Indiana Constitution provides that the 'General Assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say:
'* * *
Further, Section 23 provides that 'where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general, and of uniform operation throughout the State.'
The object of Section 23 was 'not to confer any power on the legislature, but to restrain the body in the exercise of an inherent power of sovereignty, which, in the absence of such a restriction, it would possess.' Gentile v. State (1868), 29 Ind. 409, 413; Heckler v. Conter et al. (1933), 206 Ind. 376, 187 N.E. 878. The legislature may constitutionally classify on the basis of population for the purpose of governmental organization, but the classification so based must result in uniform operation of the law in all parts of the State in order to qualify as a general law. Evansville-Vanderburgh Levee Authority District et al. v. Kamp etc. (1960), 240 Ind. 659, 168 N.E.2d 208; Dortch v. Lugar, supra; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Train Collision at Gary, Ind. on Jan. 18, 1993, In re
...not operate uniformly throughout the state renders it a special law and thus, violative of our Constitution. State Election Bd. v. Behnke (1974), 261 Ind. 540, 307 N.E.2d 56, 58. A law which appears to be general in form, but upon investigation of the subject matter is found to be local or ......
-
Heminger v. Police Commission of City of Fort Wayne
...due to the insertion in the statutes of certain mandatory dates on which particular events were to take place. See: State Election Board v. Behnke (1974), Ind., 307 N.E.2d 56. In the instant case, there has not been such an insertion of mandatory dates. An effective date for IC 1971, 19--1-......
-
City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Props., Inc.
...4, Section 23 because the population did not "bear[ ] a rational relationship to the subject dealt with"); State Election Bd. v. Behnke , 261 Ind. 540, 543, 307 N.E.2d 56, 58 (1974) (striking down law under Article 4, Section 23 because it was written in a way that no other county could eve......
-
City of South Bend v. Kimsey
...Trunk Western R. Co., 179 Ind. 255, 100 N.E. 852 (1913). The statute is then considered to be general. State Election Board v. Behnke, 261 Ind. 540, 543, 307 N.E.2d 56, 58 (1974). Reviewing courts defer to the discretion of the legislature in establishing It is, of course, competent for the......