ways the issues are essentially threshold issues in order we need not reach the further issues until we resolve the original in the first issue in which in this case is whether or not what the state of idaho  speech case you can make a facial challenge but this isn't a free speech case and you make a face some challenges even though you're plaintiffs are not personally affected by it c n n and i believe so you run because one of our planes it is an association annexation that is and here it strikes me as a little bit like when the sierra club challenges that environmental case to the supreme court says well you haven't found any plaintiff who has ever been there plans to go there so even though your national determining whether or not the city involved wish to avoid having to go to a category c and haitian that is one of the ways in which the statute as a whole can be abused in our motion for reconsideration before the court  the opposition of everybody is not quite your honner category a first of all part says there is no objections and a patient that is essentially to say that people have consented either by their silence or  where it can be done over the one hundred percent in fact i believe it was first of all she can't object because she is already connected to sewer and water with the city and they are not allowed under the statute  game to have been quietly consented to being annexed by doing receiving sewer and water services in fact the reason that they went ahead and annex in that case was because they had struck a deal with the city early essentially have said quite logically when you're compelled to do something you cannot be held to have been quietly consented by doing something that by law you must do in the state of idaho you can easily be compelled to have consented impaired to to having the shoe or the waters or the department of health and human services and basically say we're not going to allow you your wealth any more you must be connected to the sewer that cannot think how to be quite content when someone says you have to do it secondly when the hookup occurred prior to the time the statute went into effect the plaintiff is in no position to said i'm consenting to be an expense of the city because i did not know what the time it was not the law at the time but that would be in quite consent would be a far different thing if a law already existed and then i agree to be to be hooked up for the sure in a case where it was purely voluntary but here that was one of the central issues in our case as to whether you can and quietly consent to something that you can be forced by law or have been forced by law or what you did prior to the statute coming into effect but if there was  the heart of the case which is what the judge will also have and recognised below the state of idaho i mean back up a moment your honor i am aware of only three circumstances in a representative democracy down by the consent of a third party the first is when the third party doing the confronting is a publicly elected official who has either himself adopted a statute or delegated  to make regulations to a another governmental official who has come into the government as a government servant on the within the eyes of the law and constitution the second situation is whether you have a consent by third party  parent or a guardian when you have either a minor or you have a person who is going to judge incompetent by by a court or other lawful means and the third party can consent for them and the third circumstances in which third parties can consent for you is whether is in fact incorrect votes of the people the state of idaho's own constitution recognizes that you cannot limit a voting scheme to landowners alone so if you create a scheme in which you have some third party shifting consent for other third party simply the vases of a non governmental official saying i consent to my property being an ex and therefore i can bring in vast numbers of other people or other lines into here under this statute the city is banned around if if the consent vote goes against annexation so there is at least issue in those cases granted electors and the stay in the proceedings the consent of landowners alone with require without the participation of voters there can be no voting now if i understand this case right and i may raises about the implied consent of the lady that owns the trailer park as as a landowner who sucked up to the water and sewer and i got this analysis right is it true that the people in the trailer park and don't get to vote in subsection a as an exception and is it and if so why wouldn't it be the case is that i see found at least one set of circumstances in which a consent scheme can also be a voting scheme he did not say is i read the decision this is the only set of circumstances i mean like a good court it said under the circumstances this it is they just decided the case in front of them that is that is right here and i must say also that the owner of the trailer park happens to be a voter under the law and i know everyone over the age of eighteen the people actually had two objections in this case your honor one of three objections essentially as far as voting is concerned first of all that it is in fact a vote and that the way we know it is a vote is that in fact it involves the because of the let the landowner has voted except for in this case for vote was hijacked by an assumption that because they were in fact in the sewer they had him quietly consented to it otherwise have it backwards the issue on a beach is a vote and if there's a vote obviously there are voters involved because the voting the second one is it's necessary to resolve the political issue and the third one is that it in some way or other binds the discretion of governmental official all three of those elements are met even when it's only the landowners how i mean i know who has a provision in the state constitution it says you cannot limit a vote to landowners so it's a circular reasoning used by the cities and by the state  more than fifty percent have evidence to send at the outset of the prophecy hold on his record to be i believe that's correct but again that is a situation where you can proceed under b because more than fifty i believe the reasoning of the legislature here was if we already have consent of more than fifty percent of the landowners in here then there's no point in going through a category c cross just because the vote has essentially already been taken but again when you have implied consent because you're receiving water from a service provided by the city or they have sewer attached to their they're there imply consent is again not lawful in some words in the fact you point me to the words you're talking about looks i see this the words you're talking about in c and i don't and the city of chalice fall of the annexation statute i'm going to jump over the facts and immediately gets the question that i'm going to be addressing with the court and that is the landowner consent issue that issue was framed by two the analysis of that issue as two parts it has a state law part and a federal law or law part the state law part is this court needs to look at the state statute to determine whether provision very similar to that here landowners in an area to be annexed could consent or object the idaho supreme court held that was not an election process with respect to mr paulette's continued objection or consent process is not an election so we don't have to go there there's a second reason that the idaho statute does not involve elections the plain ordinary language of the statute there's no mention of voters voting elections or electorate one of the interesting parts of it is when they talk about landowners to consent of every person qualified to vote and i think we could under federal law created as a voting procedure even though idaho law would not and i agree with your honor and that was going to be my second when i dealt with what i consider to be the federal law is you're election to be annexed by the city of reps for her challenge i think that's the very same issue i think if it said that there was going to be a vote and that in and and they defined voter for instance as those people who are hundred private ownership and not all landowners so that they need any content from any group of people if they need consent from some group of people that i'm thinking  if i may come back to the state law issue there is another reason that the idaho legislature has demonstrated that he did not intend to create the right to vote here if you look at the qualifications of the people who are consenting and objecti challenge we this court has to apply federal law and the question is whether the landowner consent requirement burdens the right to vote for purposes of federal equal protection and the answer here is twofold in my view this despite now our second argument in this case the appellants have yet to show this court any legal authority from opposition that a landowner consent provision is the same as voting for purposes of concerns some of the factual back down the sewer system and the water system rolls as a result of transactions between city of challenge and cypress mines those were put in place plaintiffs purchased the park they purchased it subject to those already and involved systems number two i am involved in that and annexation category a however the record is clear dealt with the process as your honor spoke of under that sub part with a word or annexations of any residential enclave lands of less than one hundred parcels which is surrounded on all sides by land within the city which are bounded by the all lands all sides by land within the city and lands to which the owner approval must be given pursuant to our lands which are bounded on all sides by land within the city and bounded by lands of the areas of impact the last section judge this annexation happened because it was founded on three sides by the city and by the of the other side was founded by the area area that's identified as an area of city impact and founded on three sides but just don't know what it what it means i mean new york city has an impact in new haven connecticut i don't know what the word me your honor at this that's what happened here and your honor i could point out in all of your question plaintiffs early on in this case acknowledged and agreed procedurally under the statutory system in place we complied with all of those issues that wasn't ever an issue in this case that was by stipulation presented to the court and and in the briefing that furious and and so the focus has always been on the issues surrounding whether or not this was a right a vote because of the consent procedures and we also said that the or the green decision which we believe suggests that even if you were to infer in this case that there was some type of right to vote implicated in this instance there would be rational basis scrutiny because dreams that is there any landowner besides the lady that owns the trailer park know is there any not to my knowledge i don't think there's anything in the record she was an owner and so as we've mentioned in our brief in the case law there throughout this case it's been our position that but plaintiffs are addressing is a wholly hypothetical situation is there any reason we should talk about c and i think i don't believe so your honor because in i didn't ask you whether he did i asked whether we did we have to get to rational basis if we decide to nobody you know your honor i don't believe you do i don't believe you do i think that the  in assessing this and certainly there must be a rational basis i guess in terms of analyzing it in the in the in the big picture of looking at the the legislative intent process section one of the legislature's clearly identified the rational basis for this type of i don't have any further comments other than we would ask the court to affirm judge windmills decision and  action which by its nature is intended to allow people to challenge something which may be an imminent impact on them before it actually occurs in the context of a written document of that which there isn't a there is in fact actual dispute again the cities keep coming back and saying it's not a vote because we didn't call it a vote we're only allowing landowners to do it maybe we're allowing corporations to do it all of which would violate idaho constitutional standards and say we can avoid the constitutional and legal requirements of a vote by simply involving people who are not allowed to vote violating a constitution in order to say we're not violating the constitution is a circular reasoning thirdly part of our challenge here is the discrimination v just eric treatment of people some people who are allowed to vote while other people are not allowed to vote and one of the points i was coming through in the beginning is that this is a circumstance in which the question really is not one of what are the bambery of what your street address is this is a situation which people are literally lifted from representation by one represent for whom they have voted in which they have chosen to live to be subject to their rules of these fees regulators and legislators and taken into another jurisdiction with a different set of regulators and legislators for whom they have not voted and we believe that this brings things into play play like reynolds worse assumes in which they did not get into whether they are a suspect classifications once you discriminate against categories of voters that affect your representation in the laws under what you must live the courts have said repeatedly that this must be examined carefully and scrupulously because of the impact that this may have on people and their right to choose the people who represent them and finally the issue is extraordinarily irrational because what it presumes is that your your limits of your your city are always going to be even a straight line by this definition if you have a dog in the line here and then it comes back up to this baseline this person is somehow or other not enclave by the city even though that parcel is contiguous with allison's of acres or even millions of acres of land which are not a part of the city and may never be a city so it seems to us to be a transparent ploy to avoid this part of our objection as an entity as we have members as in this the in car who are going to be subject to these regulations are already been threatened by these regulations are only the next ones on the list to do it and when you say well in category b you have more than a hundred lots category less than one hundred lots category c you have more than a hundred a lot by the way the statute  silent what happens when you have exactly one hundred wants out there in makes no sense because it is not necessarily any more complicated and x one hundred watts or thousand much than it is to an x fifty or a hundred watts and what you have is a scheme that allows one person in a situation which you may have a thousand acres of land in which this person owns one and half acre more than five hundred other people combined put together because they own more land under the one person one vote rule which is being violated here they can alway the votes of all of these other people that violates great it violates runnels versus sins that is honesty but also when you are discriminating between category a and b because their ownership of land or the fact that the city has chosen only to annex a certain number of lands deprive