Case Title: Villines v. Tucker

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Floyd G. VILLINES, III, as
County Judge of Pulaski
County, et al. v. Jim Guy
TUCKER, Governor of the State
of Arkansas

95-642          ___ S.W.2d ___

   Supreme Court of Arkansas
  Opinion delivered March 25,
1996


1.   Counties --
     administration of justice
     -- duty to provide for
     necessary services. --
     Arkansas Code Annotated 
     14-14-802(a)(1) (1987),
     an enabling statutory
     provision of Ark. Const.
     amend. 55, imposes a duty
     upon the respective
     counties to provide for
     the necessary services of
     the administration of
     justice.

2.   Counties -- role defined
     -- administration of
     justice -- one of primary
     reasons for existence of
     county. -- Counties are
     civil divisions of the
     state for political and
     judicial purposes and are
     its auxiliaries and
     instrumentalities in the
     administration of its
     government; they are a
     political subdivision of
     the state for the
     administration of justice
     and local government; the
     very word "county"
     signifies a circuit or
     portion of the state
     resulting from a division
     of the state into such
     areas for the better
     government thereof and
     the easier administration
     of justice; nothing in
     Ark. Const. amend. 55
     changes the status of the
     county insofar as its
     primary purposes and
     functions are concerned;
     the administration of
     justice within the county
     is one of the primary
     reasons for its
     existence.

3.   Statutes -- local or
     special acts --
     legislation relating to
     administration of justice
     must meet dictates of
     Ark. Const. amend 14
     prohibiting local or
     special acts. -- Where
     the General Assembly
     enacts legislation
     relating to the
     administration of
     justice, that law must
     meet the dictates of
     Amendment 14 to the
     Arkansas Constitution
     prohibiting local or
     special acts.

4.   Statutes -- local or
     special acts -- statutes
     designed to meet area's
     judicial needs on non-
     discriminatory basis are
     not local or special
     within meaning of Ark.
     Const. amend 14 --
     requirements. -- Statutes
     designed to meet the
     judicial needs of an area
     on a non-discriminatory
     basis are a part of a
     judicial system for the
     entire state and are not
     local or special within
     the meaning of Ark.
     Const. amend. 14, even
     though such statutes may
     apply only to individual
     counties, judicial
     districts, or divisions
     within districts; the
     limited application of
     the statute must be non-
     discriminatory and bear a
     reasonable relation to
     the subject matter of the
     legislation.

5.   Statutes -- local or
     special acts -- General
     Assembly should strive
     for uniform judicial
     system -- factors to be
     considered. -- In its
     enactments, the General
     Assembly should strive
     for a uniform judicial
     system; in meeting this
     objective, however, the
     General Assembly is not
     relegated solely to a
     cost-per-capita test such
     as Pulaski County set
     forth in its argument
     that the General
     Assembly's enactments
     relating to the
     administration of justice
     are discriminatory and
     place an unequal burden
     on the counties; instead,
     in providing for a
     judicial system for the
     entire state, the General
     Assembly should consider
     such matters as
     population, case load,
     transportation, and other
     non-discriminatory
     classifications; a
     densely populated
     metropolitan area
     requires more judges,
     court personnel, and
     different procedures than
     does a thinly populated
     area.

6.   Counties --
     administration of justice
     -- appellant failed to
     prove administration of
     justice in each county
     not uniform across state.
     -- Where appellant
     county's proof tended to
     ignore the factors to be
     considered by the General
     Assembly in providing for
     a judicial system for the
     entire state and
     contained inapposite
     information pertaining to
     municipal revenues
     included in state audit
     reports, appellant
     county's proof that the
     General Assembly's
     enactments relating to
     the administration of
     justice are
     discriminatory was
     lacking; the supreme
     court held that the
     chancellor was correct in
     deciding that appellant
     county failed to prove
     that the administration
     of justice in each county
     is not uniform across the
     state.

7.   Statutes -- any
     legislative enactment
     concerning administration
     of justice must ensure
     fairness -- factors or
     classifications must be
     nondiscriminatory and
     nonarbitrary. -- While it
     is generally true that
     the state can
     constitutionally require
     counties to pay the
     expenses associated with
     the administration of
     justice and that the
     counties must appropriate
     money to meet the state's
     requirements, any
     legislative enactment
     concerning the
     administration of justice
     must ensure fairness, and
     the factors or
     classification used by
     the General Assembly must
     be nondiscriminatory and
     free from arbitrariness.

8.   Statutes -- legislation
     presumed constitutional
     and rationally related to
     achieving legitimate
     governmental objective. -
     - Where appellant county
     raised a due-process
     argument for the first
     time on appeal, the
     supreme court disposed of
     the issue summarily by
     stating that it must
     presume legislation is
     constitutional and
     rationally related to
     achieving a legitimate
     governmental objective;
     appellant county's proof
     fell short in showing
     arbitrariness or an
     irrational basis in the
     provision for the
     administration of justice
     throughout the state.


     Appeal from Pulaski
Chancery Court, Sixth Division;
Annabelle C. Imber, Chancellor;
affirmed.
     Nelwyn Davis and Duncan &
Rainwater, by: Mike Rainwater,
for appellants.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y
Gen., by:  Angela S. Jegley,
Senior Asst. Att'y Gen., for
appellee.

     Tom Glaze,
Justice.*ADVREP4*






FLOYD G. VILLINES, III, AS
COUNTY JUDGE OF PULASKI COUNTY,
ET AL.,
                    APPELLANTS,

V.

JIM GUY TUCKER, GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                    APPELLEE.



95-642

Opinion Delivered:  3-25-96

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT
OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
SIXTH DIVISION, NO. 93-4216;
HONORABLE ANNABELLE C. IMBER,
CHANCERY JUDGE 




AFFIRMED




                  TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice

     The Pulaski County Judge and Quorum Court and fifty-one other
county officials initiated this suit against the Governor, asking
the Pulaski County Chancery Court, Sixth Division, to declare
unconstitutional certain statutes dealing with the funding of the
administration of justice in Arkansas.  As background information,
the state appropriates money for salaries of trial court judges,
prosecuting attorneys, and also partially pays court reporters and
some court bailiffs.  However, the General Assembly requires the
respective counties to fund the other expenses of the trial court
system under Ark. Code Ann.  14-14-802(a)(1) (1987).  These other
expenses include the costs of courthouse space, operating expenses
for the office of the judge and prosecutor, court and prosecuting
attorney personnel, public defender staffs, and court clerk staffs
and operating expenses.  In order to pay these expenses, counties
have been statutorily authorized to assess and collect certain
costs, fees and fines, but in some instances, these revenues have
been insufficient to underwrite all administration-of-justice
expenses.  As a consequence, some counties have had to resort to
the use of general county revenues from property and sales taxes
and state turnback funds to pay the balance of such expenses. 
Because they have been required to utilize county revenues to
subsidize the costs of the trial court system in the state, the
counties claim the court funding mechanism is unconstitutional.  In
their complaint, the counties alleged the funding system was
unconstitutional in the following three ways:
     (1)  It allows the state legislature to usurp county
legislative authority that violates Ark. Const. amend. 55,   1(a)
and 4, and Ark. Const. art. 16,  40; 
     (2) the payment of county locally generated funds for the
state court system constitutes an illegal exaction that violates
Article 16,   11 and 13; and 
     (3) it creates a system of local and special legislation that
violates Amendment 14 to the state constitution.  
After an extensive trial, the trial judge rejected the counties'
constitutional claims.  Only the Pulaski County officials appeal
the chancellor's order.  
     In framing its first point for reversal, Pulaski County
combines the above three legal claims made at trial, and states the
chancellor erred in holding that the General Assembly can require
counties to expend county funds on the state judicial system and in
so holding, she also erred in deciding such expenditures are not
illegal exactions.  Pulaski County's arguments run counter to
Arkansas's settled law.
     First, we point to an enabling statutory provision of
Amendment 55,  14-14-802(a)(1), which imposes the duty upon the
respective counties to provide for the necessary services of the
administration of justice.  While Pulaski County contends this
statute is unconstitutional and contravenes Amendment 55,  1(a)
because it requires the expenditure of county funds for state and
not county purposes, the county is mistaken in characterizing the
administration of justice as being only a state purpose or
responsibility.  In Mears, Co. Judge v. Hall, 263 Ark. 827,