THAT BEARS NO PERCEPTIBLE RELATION TO PUBLIC WELFARE. SEMKE AT 445. AND WHILE THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT DELEGATE ITS POLICY MAKING AUTHORITY, IT CAN GRANT TO AN AGENCY THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW. DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OKLAHOMA V. ESTEP, 652 P.2D 271 (OKLA.1982).
IT IS ALSO HELPFUL TO DISCUSS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE REGULATION OF BUSINESS GENERALLY. ALTHOUGH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT STRUGGLED IN THE EARLY PART OF THIS CENTURY TO DEFINE THE NATURE AND LIMITATIONS OF CONSTRAINTS PLACED UPON STATE REGULATION OF BUSINESSES BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, A CLEAR STANDARD IS NOW FIRMLY IN PLACE. IN NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S. CT. 505, 78 L.ED. 940 (1934), THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A CHALLENGE TO A STATE ECONOMIC REGULATION WOULD SUCCEED ONLY IF IT COULD BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE REGULATION IN QUESTION WAS UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY, OR CAPRICIOUS, AND THE MEANS SELECTED HAD NO REAL NOR SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE OBJECT SOUGHT.
THE NEBBIA STANDARD HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN HUNDREDS OF CASES SINCE 1934. IN FACT, NOT SINCE 1937 HAS THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN ECONOMIC LEGISLATION AS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS. THIS SAME STANDARD HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT IN FIFTY OR MORE CASES SINCE THE 1930'S.1 WITH THIS STANDARD IN MIND, THEN, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE FACTORS A COURT IN REVIEW WOULD CONSIDER IN THIS REGARD.
EACH OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE APPLICATION WERE INCLUDED PURSUANT TO RULES PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, 75 O.S. 1991, 250 ET SEQ. (THE "APA"). UNDER THE APA, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES WHICH ARE PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ARE GIVEN THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW. 75 O.S. 308.2(C) (1991). SEE ALSO TEXAS OKLAHOMA EXPRESS V. SORENSON, 652 P.2D 285 (OKLA.1985).
I SHOULD NOTE HERE THAT I HAVE ASSUMED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT EMPLOYERS PROVIDE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. (SEE 85 O.S. 1 ET SEQ.) ONCE IT IS ACCEPTED THAT EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO OBTAIN SUCH INSURANCE COVERAGE, THE REQUIREMENT IN THE APPLICATION CAN BE VIEWED MERELY AS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANT STATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT LAW APPLIES TO THE APPLICANT, AND IF SO, WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH OKLAHOMA LAW IN THIS REGARD.
3A O.S. 204 OF THE OKLAHOMA HORSE RACING ACT GRANTS THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE ALL OCCUPATION AND ORGANIZATION LICENSEES IN THIS STATE AS WELL AS ALL PERSONS ON THE PROPERTY OF AN ORGANIZATION LICENSEE. FURTHER, THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REFUSE TO GRANT A LICENSE TO ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, STATE LAW. 3A O.S. 204.2 (1992). IT WOULD SEEM QUITE UNLIKELY THAT THIS REQUIREMENT COULD BE VIEWED AS UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY, OR CAPRICIOUS IN THE REGULATION OF A SPORT SUCH AS RACING IN WHICH THERE IS