IN YOUR QUESTION REQUIRES THAT THE PARCEL OF LAND TO BE ANNEXED BE IDENTIFIED BY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION, A GENERAL LAW WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THE STATUTE WHICH YOU PROPOSE WOULD ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO A CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT.
UNDER THE FINAL PRONG IT MUST BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE STATUTE IS PERMISSIBLE SPECIAL LAW, IF A GENERAL LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE. IN REYNOLDS, THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IF THE SPECIAL LEGISLATION WAS REASONABLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO A VALID LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE, THEN ARTICLE V, SECTION 59 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION WOULD PERMIT THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS THE SPECIAL LAW TO PROMOTE ITS OBJECTIVE.
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER SPECIAL LEGISLATION WHICH INVOLVES THE ANNEXATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS REASONABLY RELATED TO A VALID LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. THE CASE OF ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. V. BLEDSOE, 7 F.2D 364 (8TH CIR. 1925), ADDRESSED THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE V, 59 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION TO A STATUTE WHICH INVOLVED THE ANNEXATION OF TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHICH WERE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED. IN ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO, THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT AN OKLAHOMA STATUTE PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION OF A FT. SILL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO THE LAWTON SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS A LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAW WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION. THE COURT STATED THAT IT COULD FIND NO VALID REASON FOR CREATING A SPECIAL STATUTE APPLICABLE TO ONLY TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE PROPOSED IN YOUR REQUEST DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY NAME THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE STATUTE IDENTIFIES IT MERELY BY IDENTIFYING THE LAND TO BE ANNEXED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR SEPARATING ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM THE WHOLE CLASS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDE THAT STATUTE AS PROPOSED IN YOUR REQUEST WOULD BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(JULIE JONES CORLEY)