Teigen v. State

• Decision Date: 15 May 2008
• Docket Number: No. 20070134.,20070134.
• Citation: 749 N.W.2d 505,2008 ND 88
• Parties: James TEIGEN, Deb Lundgren, Greg Svenningsen, Farmer's Educational and Co-operative Union of America, North Dakota Division, d/b/a North Dakota Farmers Union, and Dakota Resource Council, Plaintiffs and Appellants and Casey Wells, Plaintiff v. STATE of North Dakota, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

749 N.W.2d 505

2008 ND 88

James TEIGEN, Deb Lundgren, Greg Svenningsen, Farmer's Educational and Co-operative Union of America, North Dakota Division, d/b/a North Dakota Farmers Union, and Dakota Resource Council, Plaintiffs and Appellants and Casey Wells, Plaintiff v. STATE of North Dakota, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 20070134.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Decided May 15, 2008.

Sarah Vogel (argued) and Beth Baumstark (on brief), Sarah Vogel Law Firm, P.C., Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiffs and appellants.

Charles M. Carvell (argued), Assistant Attorney General and Dean J. Haas (on brief), Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellee.

KAPSNER, Justice.

[¶ 1] James Teigen, Deb Lundgren, Greg Svenningsen, the North Dakota Farmers Union, and the Dakota Resource Council (collectively "plaintiffs") appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment action. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of language in N.D.C.C. §§ 4-28-07(4) and 4-28-07.1(4) requiring the North Dakota State Wheat Commission to expend at least two mills of a wheat tax for "contract[s] for activities related to domestic wheat policy issues, wheat production, promotion, and sales" and providing "[t]he contracts may be with no more than two trade associations that are incorporated in [North Dakota] and which have as their primary purpose the representation of wheat producers." The plaintiffs claim the statutes effectively require the Wheat Commission to contract with two specific entities, the North Dakota Grain Growers Association and the Durum Growers Association of the United States, and violate state constitutional provisions prohibiting special laws, gifts, and special privileges and immunities. We hold the statutes do not violate the state constitutional provisions, and we affirm.

I

[¶ 2] The plaintiffs sued the State to declare the underscored "trade association clause" language of N.D.C.C. §§ 4-28-07(4) (effective from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2009) and 4-28-07.1(4) (effective after June 30, 2009) unconstitutional as a special law, as a law granting special privileges and immunities, and as a law making a gift:

The [wheat] commission shall expend an amount at least equal to that raised by two mills of the levy provided for in this section to contract for activities related to domestic wheat policy issues, wheat production, promotion, and sales. The contracts may be with no more than two trade associations that are incorporated in this state and which have as their primary purpose the representation of wheat producers. The contracts must require that any trade association receiving money under this section pay from that money all dues required as a condition of the trade association's membership in any national trade association. The contracts also must prohibit any trade association receiving money under this section from eliminating any dues required as a condition of membership in that trade association or from reducing such dues below the amount required for membership as of January 1, 2005.

The plaintiffs alleged the trade association clause effectively required the Wheat Commission to contract with only two entities, the North Dakota Grain Growers Association and the Durum Growers Association of the United States, and prohibited the Wheat Commission from contracting with any other potential service providers.

[¶ 3] The district court decided the individual plaintiffs, as taxpayers, had standing to challenge the trade association clause, but the Dakota Resource Council and the North Dakota Farmers Union lacked standing to challenge the clause because they did not pay the wheat tax, they had never attempted to contract with the Wheat Commission, there was no indication they would qualify for, or receive, a contract with the Wheat Commission, and they had not suffered a threatened or actual injury. The court subsequently granted the State's motion for summary judgment dismissing the individual plaintiffs' claims, concluding the trade association clause was not unconstitutional as a special law, as a law granting special privileges and immunities, and as a law making a gift.

II

[¶ 4] The plaintiffs argue the North Dakota Farmers Union and the Dakota Resource Council have organizational standing to challenge the constitutionality of the trade association clause, because those entities have an interest in the action in a representative capacity. The plaintiffs also argue the Farmers Union and the Dakota Resource Council have direct standing to challenge the constitutionality of the trade association clause.

[¶ 5] We need not decide if the Farmers Union and the Dakota Resource Council have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the trade association clause, however, because it is sufficient to confer standing if at least one of the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the clause, and here, the State does not dispute that the individual plaintiffs have standing. See International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union v. Meier, 115 N.W.2d 18, 20 (N.D.1962). See also Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). Any opinion by this Court regarding standing is not necessary for the disposition of the individual plaintiffs' constitutional challenges, and we therefore do not address the standing issue. E.g. State v. Hansen, 2006 ND 139, ¶ 7, 717 N.W.2d 541 (stating Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions).

III

[¶ 6] The plaintiffs argue the trade association clause violates state constitutional provisions prohibiting special laws, special privileges and immunities, and gifts.

[¶ 7] Whether a statute is unconstitutional is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. Best Products Co., Inc. v. Spaeth, 461 N.W.2d 91, 96 (N.D. 1990). "`All regularly enacted statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, which is conclusive unless the party challenging the statute clearly demonstrates that it contravenes the state or federal constitution.'" In re P.F., 2008 ND 37, ¶ 7, 744 N.W.2d 724 (quoting Olson v. Bismarck Parks and Recreation Dist., 2002 ND 61, ¶ 11, 642 N.W.2d 864). "`The justice, wisdom, necessity, utility and expediency of legislation are questions for legislative, and not for judicial determination.'" Manikowske v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 338 N.W.2d 823, 825 (N.D.1983) (quoting Asbury Hosp. v. Cass County, 72 N.D. 359, 7 N.W.2d 438, 442 Syllabus ¶ 11 (1943)). This Court exercises the power to declare legislation unconstitutional with great restraint. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Heitkamp, 523 N.W.2d 548, 552 (N.D.1994). Under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 4, this Court "shall not declare a legislative enactment unconstitutional unless at least four of the members of the court so decide."

A

[¶ 8] The special law provision of N.D. Const. art. IV, § 13, prohibits the legislature from enacting local or special laws and provides, in relevant part:

The legislative assembly shall enact all laws necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this constitution. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, no local or special laws may be enacted, nor may the legislative assembly indirectly enact special or local laws by the partial repeal of a general law but laws repealing local or special laws may be enacted.

[¶ 9] The plaintiffs claim the effect of the trade association clause is to create a special law. They argue the district court failed to apply a searching analysis of the effect of the trade association clause under this Court's special law jurisprudence and incorrectly decided the trade association clause was not a special law because it applied to all trade associations incorporated in North Dakota. They contend that although the trade association clause is written in neutral language, the language constitutes artful drafting masking what is, in fact, a special law. They assert the Wheat Commission's administrative construction of the trade association clause establishes it is a special law, because that construction authorizes contracts with only the Grain Growers Association and the Durum Growers Association. They also argue the legislative history for the trade association clause establishes the wheat checkoff was intended to go to only those two entities. They further claim the trade association clause does not require competitive bidding for the contracts and is an implied repeal of North Dakota's state purchasing practices' law in N.D.C.C. ch. 54-44.4, which also establishes the clause is a special law.

[¶ 10] The State responds the trade association clause is not ambiguous and does not create a special class; rather, the statute directs the Wheat Commission to contract with two trade organizations that have as their primary purpose the representation of wheat producers. The State argues the comments of individual legislators and others during legislative deliberations do not establish legislative intent and the best evidence of the legislature's intent is the statutory language itself, which does not explicitly apply to the Grain Growers Association and the Durum Growers Association. The State also argues the statute does not repeal the state purchasing practices' law and does not violate the special laws provision because the legislature may make reasonable classifications.

[¶ 11] One court has cogently explained "the proscription against special laws was `adopted for a very simple and understandable purpose—to put an end to the flood of privileged legislation for particular localities and for private purposes which was common in'" the latter part of the nineteenth century. Harrisburg Sch. Dist. v. Hickok, 563 Pa. 391, 761 A.2d 1132, 1135-36 (2000) (quoting Haverford Twp. v. Siegle, 346 Pa. 1, 28 A.2d 786,...