Title: Stokes v. Noonan

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

534 So. 2d 237 (1988)
Willie H. STOKES
v.
Lionel W. "Red" NOONAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Probate Court of Mobile County, et al.
86-1082.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 30, 1988.
W. Gary Hooks, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.
James C. Wood of Simon, Wood and Crane, Mobile, for appellee Lionel W. Noonan.
Michael A. Figures and J. Malcolm Jackson III of Figures, Ludgood & Figures, Mobile, for appellees Leophus Lyde, James Buskey, Frank Seals and Michael A. Figures.
BEATTY, Justice.
The plaintiff, Willie H. Stokes, appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant Lionel W. "Red" Noonan, et al., holding that Act No. 85-237, Acts of Alabama 1985, is valid and constitutional.
Stokes, as a registered voter, taxpayer, and real property owner of Mobile County, filed suit in April 1987 contesting the constitutionality *238 of Act No. 85-237, which provides for the filling of vacancies on the Mobile County Commission by a special election when at least 12 months remain on any commissioner's unexpired term:
Stokes contends that the subject of local Act No. 85-237 is subsumed by a general law, § 11-3-6, Code of 1975, and therefore, under Art. IV, § 105, Constitution 1901, and this Court's decision in Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham, 354 So. 2d 808 (Ala. 1978), is unconstitutional.
Section 105, in pertinent part, states: "No special, private, or local law ... shall be enacted in any case which is provided by a general law." Section 11-3-6, Code of 1975, is contained in the chapter pertaining to county commissions and refers to vacancies:
Stokes also contends that Act No. 85-237 violates Art. IV, § 104(29), Constitution of 1901, which states, in pertinent part:
". . . .
We need not address the plaintiff's attacks under § 104(29) because we are convinced that Act No. 85-237 clearly offends § 105 of the Constitution of 1901.
In Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham, 354 So. 2d 808 (Ala.1978), this Court explained at length the difference between a local law and a general law, and, applying the literal language of the Constitution of 1901, held that the presence of a general law upon a given subject was primary, meaning "that a local law cannot be passed upon that subject." This Court added at 813:
Section 11-3-6 is a statewide statute governing the general subject of filling vacancies on county commissions. Its language is substantially the same as its complementary section that appeared in Ala.Code 1940 as Title 12, § 6. See also Ala.Code 1940, Title 12, § 6 (Recomp.1958).
Act No. 85-237 was approved April 8, 1985. By its terms, it is made applicable only to Mobile County. Hence, when it became law it applied to a political subdivision of the state less than the whole, and thus, it was a local law on the same subject as the previously enacted general law, § 11-3-6; see Constitution of 1901, § 110; Peddycoart, 354 So. 2d  at 814; and, accordingly, it is unconstitutional under § 105. We cannot, therefore, agree with the defendant that the Mobile County Commission, because of statutory history, has always been, and therefore is still, governed by local law. To approve such a proposition here would run directly counter to the language of our constitution. Surely, it cannot be held that the legislature is proscribed from enacting general laws on subjects *239 already covered by local laws, even if by application such local laws are repealed, when the intent of the legislature is clear and it is in this case. See Buskey v. Mobile County Board of Registrars, 501 So. 2d 447 (Ala.1986).
In Baldwin County v. Jenkins, 494 So. 2d 584 (Ala.1986), a similar question dealing with the constitutionality of a local act was resolved. In that case, this Court was confronted with two statutes dealing with the election and terms of the office of county commissioners. This Court held that the general statute, Code of 1975, § 11-3-1, as amended, having contained the language, "unless otherwise provided by local law," manifested a legislative intent that the subject it dealt with not be subsumed within it:
494 So. 2d  at 587. (Emphasis in Jenkins.)
No such intent is demonstrated by the language of § 11-3-6 regarding filling of vacancies, and that language must be given effect according to its terms. Thus, it is our duty to declare Act No. 85-237 unconstitutional as violating § 105. It follows that the judgment appealed from must be, and it is hereby, reversed, and a judgment rendered declaring that Act unconstitutional.
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., concurs specially.
ALMON, J., concurs in the result.
ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., dissent.
MADDOX, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur completely with the opinion holding that Act No. 86-237 is unconstitutional under § 105, under this Court's decision in Peddycoart, cited in the majority opinion.
I do not believe it is necessary to distinguish Baldwin County v. Jenkins, 494 So. 2d 584 (Ala.1986), which I thought was incorrectly decided, for the reasons I expressed in a dissent in that case; therefore, I concur specially.
STEAGALL, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent as to the majority opinion's reversal of the trial court's decision that Act No. 85-237 is valid and constitutional.
The Mobile County Commission was created on August 7, 1957, when the Alabama Legislature passed Act No. 181, Acts of Alabama 1957, a local act. The Act created the Mobile County Commission out of the existing board of revenue and road commissioners and provided for the election of its members, those members' terms of office, qualifications for that office, and various other requirements dealing with that body, including the filling of vacancies when they occurred. That Act states specifically:
Act No. 181, § 2(b), Acts of Alabama 1957, at 234.
The local act being question here, Act No. 85-237, Acts of Alabama 1985, states, in regard to vacancies on the Mobile County Commission:
Act No. 85-237, Acts of Alabama 1985, at 137.
This Court has on several occasions upheld trial courts' rulings that a local act amending a local act is not unconstitutional. In Freeman v. Purvis, 400 So. 2d 389 (Ala.1981), the Court upheld a trial court ruling which found that:
400 So. 2d  at 390. The Court then stated:
400 So. 2d  at 392.
Local Act 85-237 is amendatory in nature, affecting the already-existing local legislation, which created the Mobile County Commission and provided for the filling of vacancies.
In Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham, 354 So. 2d 808 (Ala.1978), we stated, regarding legislation passed before and after that decision:
354 So. 2d  at 814.
The effect of this passage was to say that the new standard established in Peddycoart as to the constitutionality of local legislation would be applied only prospectively. Ex parte Bracewell, 407 So. 2d 845 (Ala.1979), reversed on other grounds, 457 U.S. 1114, 102 S. Ct. 2920, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1325 (1982). Where, as here, we are looking at legislation enacted prior to Peddycoart but amended afterwards, this Court is required to apply the law as it stood before Peddycoart. That law can be found in the case of Johnson v. State ex rel. City of Birmingham, 245 Ala. 499, 17 So. 2d 662 (1944):
245 Ala. at 503, 17 So. 2d  at 664, citing Talley v. Webster, 225 Ala. 384, 143 So. 555 (1932). This Court, in Talley v. Webster, in determining whether a statute violated Section 105 of the Constitution, stated:
225 Ala. at 385, 143 So.  at 555.
In the case of Norris v. Seibels, 353 So. 2d 1165 (Ala.1977), this Court reversed a judgment of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and held that a showing of specific legislative intent was necessary to effect any such repeal:
353 So. 2d  at 1167. This Court held that the language used in the questioned local statute contained no express repeal of the general statute. However, such is not the case here. Section 3 of Act 85-237, Acts of Alabama 1985, demonstrates a specific legislative intent by expressly repealing "[a]ll laws or parts of laws which are in conflict with this act."
Because I believe that Act 85-237, a local act, is amendatory in nature and therefore that the law to be applied is that existing prior to our decision in Peddycoart, supra, I believe the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.
ADAMS, J., concurs.