RE: SUNDAY CLOSING LAWS
AS MY LETTER OF JANUARY 16, 1991 INDICATED, ATTORNEY GENERAL HENRY HAS ASKED THAT I RESPOND TO YOUR REQUEST FOR AN OPINION ADDRESSING WHETHER THE SUNDAY CLOSING LAW, SPECIFICALLY, 21 O.S. 918 (1990), IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST A CERTAIN CLASS OF MERCHANTS.
IN THE STAKE OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT'S RULINGS IN YORK V. TURPEN, 681 P.2D 763 (OKLA.1984) AND BRANCH TRUCKING V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, 61 O.B.J. 3128 (NOV.27, 1990) (DECISIONS WHICH HELD THAT OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHICH FIND AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARE NOT BINDING), THE UTILITY OF A FORMAL OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THIS QUESTION WOULD BE DOUBTFUL AT BEST. THE RATIONALE UNDERLYING YORK WAS THAT THE DECLARATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT A STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS AN UNWARRANTED ENCROACHMENT UPON THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE UNIQUE DUTY OF THE COURTS. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE LIKE 21 O.S. 918, REALLY IS A TASK BETTER SUITED TO THE JUDICIAL THAN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, 21 O.S. 918 IS A CRIMINAL STATUTE, AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS VESTED LOCAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS WITH THE POWER AND THE DISCRETION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES. FOR THESE REASONS, I WILL ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION THROUGH AN INFORMAL LETTER RATHER THAN A FORMAL OPINION.
SECTION 21 O.S. 918 OF TITLE 21 IS A PARTICULARIZED ENUMERATION OF THE GENERAL "SABBATH-BREAKING" PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN 21 O.S. 908 OF TITLE 21. 21 O.S. 908(2) GENERALLY PROHIBITS THE PERFORMANCE OF "TRADES, MANUFACTURES, AND MECHANICAL EMPLOYMENT" ON THE SABBATH. 21 O.S. 918, THEN, SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THE SALE, BARTER, OR EXCHANGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES. YOUR QUESTION ASKS, I BELIEVE, WHETHER THE SINGLING OUT OF CAR DEALERSHIPS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A CLASSIFICATION WHICH VIOLATES THEFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE V, SECTION 59 (AMEND 14) OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.
TRADITIONAL, LEGAL ANALYSIS OF STATUTES CHALLENGED UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR UNDER THE SPECIAL LAWS PROHIBITIONS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS, BEGINS BY RECOGNIZING THAT FEW IF ANY STATUTES APPLY UNIVERSALLY AND TREAT ALL PERSONS AND CLASSES OF PERSONS EQUALLY. THE INEVITABLE DISCRIMINATION WHICH OCCURS AS A RESULT OF THE LEGISLATIVE CONFERRAL OF SPECIAL BURDENS AND BENEFITS UPON SPECIFIC PERSONS AND CLASSES OF PERSONS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE COURTS WHEN THE STATE CAN JUSTIFY THE LEGISLATIVE DISTINCTION. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS DEVELOPED DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF REVIEW DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE CLASSIFICATION DRAWN IN THE UNDERLYING STATUTE. WHAT THIS MEANS PRACTICALLY, IS THAT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF STATE JUSTIFICATION ARE REQUIRED FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF STATUTORY CLASSIFICATIONS.
GENERALLY, ECONOMIC REGULATIONS, SUCH AS THE SUNDAY CLOSING LAW CONTAINED IN 21 O.S. 918, ARE EVALUATED UNDER A RATIONAL BASIS STANDARD. THE STATUTE IS CLOAKED INITIALLY WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY; THE BURDEN THEN FALLS TO THE CHALLENGER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PROVISION WAS ENACTED WITH NO RATIONAL BASIS AND SO IS ESSENTIALLY ARBITRARY. THIS BURDEN HAS PROVEN AN ALMOST