Title: Comer v. City of Mobile
Citation: 337 So. 2d 742
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 1976

337 So. 2d 742 (1976)
Donald COMER, III, et al.
v.
The CITY OF MOBILE et al.
SC 1830.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 24, 1976.
*743 William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and William T. Stephens and Winston T. Lett, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.
J. Michael Druhan, Jr., Mobile, for appellees.
BEATTY, Justice.
Appellants, Donald Comer, III, George E. Bagley, Alto V. Lee, III, Leslie S. Wright and Melvin G. Cooper, appeal a final order and decree by Circuit Judge Perry O. Hooper which held Act No. 130 of the 1975 session of the Alabama Legislature unconstitutional in its entirety as well as holding that the incumbent Ethics Commissioners (appellants) are holding office illegally, having not been appointed under Act No. 130. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Act No. 1056 of the 1973 session of the Alabama Legislature, the Alabama Ethics Law, was enacted by the Legislature on September 13, 1973 and was signed into law by the Governor on the following day. As originally enacted, Act No. 1056 applied only to state officials and employees. It delegated to the State Ethics Commission the authority to adopt rules of ethical conduct for county and municipal officials and employees similar to the requirements the state law imposed upon state officials and employees.
In order to facilitate the understanding of this case, we include the pertinent sections of Act No. 1056, which follow:
Appellants were appointed to their positions on the Commission as provided by Act No. 1056. Subsequently, the Commission prescribed financial disclosure forms to be filed periodically by persons covered by Act No. 1056 and adopted rules of ethical conduct for county and municipal officials and employees.
The Legislature considered revision of the Ethics Law in the spring of 1975. House Bill 240, introduced on May 6, 1975, was altered by the Senate to become Act No. 130 of the 1975 session of the Legislaturean amendatory Act relating to and re-enacting Act No. 1056. Pertinent parts of Act No. 130 follow:
As adopted, Act No. 130 amended Act No. 1056 to replace all references to "state officials and employees" with definitions of and references to "public officials and employees." It defined public officials and employees to include state, county and municipal officials and employees. It included guidelines for lobbyists and provided criminal sanctions for violation. Act No. 130 also amended Act No. 1056 to correct a title deficiency. Additionally, Act No. 130 amended Act No. 1056 to provide in § 16(h) that incumbent members of the State Ethics Commission were removed from office and could never again serve on the Commission. In § 16(a) it provided for a subsequent method of appointment for Commission members.
Following an opinion of the Attorney General that the Legislature could not constitutionally remove incumbents from office, nor prohibit them from serving again, Steve Suitts initiated a quo warranto proceeding in February, 1976, challenging the authority of the incumbent members of the State Ethics Commission to continue to serve as members of the Commission. The Commissioners and the State of Alabama countered by asking for dismissal of the petition on the grounds that:
A different trial court, noting that the motion should be granted for each reason urged, decreed that the petition for a writ of quo warranto was dismissed with prejudice and the relief denied. That judge's decision has been appealed; it is now before this Court. State ex rel. Suitts v. Comer, Ala., 337 So. 2d 753.
The complaint in this action was filed February 27, 1976 by the City of Mobile, the Industrial Development Board of the City of Mobile and Mr. Oliver H. Delchamps, Jr., in their own behalf and "as representatives of all other county and municipal officers and employees, and all other members of the governing bodies, officers and employees of all municipal and county boards, agencies, authorities, commissions, committees, councils and authorities . . . in all cities whose population is more than 15,000 . . ." They asked that Act No. 130 of the 1975 session of the Legislature and certain sections thereof be held unconstitutional and the incumbent members of the State Ethics Commission be removed from office. A temporary restraining order, granted ex parte by the trial judge, was served on the defendant-appellants, restraining them from applying Act No. 130 to any county or municipal official or employee. Later, after ruling that the case could be maintained as a class action, the trial judge granted a preliminary injunction and the case was set down for trial on the merits on March 29, 1976.
A final order was entered in the case on April 30, 1976 holding Act No. 130 unconstitutional in its entirety, holding certain sections of the Act unconstitutional and holding that the incumbent Ethics Commissioners were holding office illegally because they had not been appointed under Act No. 130. This appeal followed.
We sustain the lower court's decree insofar as it renders § 16(h) and a portion of § 2(k) of Act No. 130 unconstitutional. However, we also hold that the incumbent Ethics Commissioners are legally authorized to retain their positions until the new Commissioners are appointed and confirmed as provided under § 16(a) of Act No. 130.
Although it is not entirely clear either from the trial judge's order or from the briefs of the parties precisely what issues are raised on this appeal, we believe the following state the legal questions raised;
1. Whether Act No. 130 is so vague and overbroad as to violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
2. Whether the removal of a certain class of persons holding office prior to the effective date of the Act violates Section 175 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution, or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
3. Whether § 2(k) of Act No. 130 is a local Act which violates Sections 104, 110 and 111 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
4. Whether Act No. 130 was so altered or amended on its passage through the 1975 legislative session as to change its original purpose in violation of Section 61 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
5. What does Rule 65(b) ARCP require with respect to the decision of the trial judge to grant a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party?
1. In his "Corrected Judgment and Decree," the trial judge held Act No. 130 overbroad because:
If "overbroad" were taken to mean, therefore, that the Legislature did not include this Association in its definition of "public official," the trial judge was correct, for § 2(k) includes "any elected official. . . and any person appointed under state, county, or municipal law to an office where . . . such person has . . . authority for the receipt or expenditure of public funds . . . and any boards, commissions, committees, authorities or councils having jurisdiction with respect thereto. . ." The Alabama State Nurses Association, having been found by the trial court not to be such public officials, does not fall within the ambit, and the Ethics Commission had no statutory authority to impose the Act's provisions upon its membership. Such a lack of authority, however, does not establish that the definition of those to whom the Act was to apply was vague. Those persons and organizations to whom the definition applies are readily identifiable. That a statute might be susceptible of misapplication does not necessarily result in its unconstitutionality. Stein v. Howlett, 52 Ill. 2d 570, 289 N.E.2d 409 (1972).
After careful consideration of the foundation of the trial court's decree and our own consideration of the merits of this challenge, we find that the Act itself is not vague or overbroad. Although its application by the Ethics Commission with regard to nurses, discussed heretofore, may be farreaching, this is not a fault of the statute. If there is overbreadth, it is the result of the Ethics Commission's overreaching.
2. In paragraph (p) of his decree, the trial judge held that certain provisions of Act No. 130 operated as a bill of attainder and thus violated Art. I, Section 10 of the Federal Constitution. He referred to an earlier opinion of the Attorney General of Alabama which viewed §§ 16(a) and 16(h) as bills of attainder. The appellants urge that view upon us here, and argue as well that these sections violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Prohibiting any member of the Ethics Commission appointed under Act No. 1056 from again becoming such a member under Act No. 130, § 16(h) clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause, for while that clause does not prohibit a state from treating different classes of people in different ways, the classification must be a reasonable one, having a substantial relation to the object of the legislation, and not constituting an arbitrary distinction. See Montgomery County v. Walsh, 274 Md. 502, 336 A.2d 97 (1975). We can discern no reasonable relationship between this membership prohibition and the purpose of this legislation as expressed in § 1. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 92 S. Ct. 251, 30 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1971). Setting out this particular class of persons for the special treatment of utter disqualification tends to effect their disapprobation, but without any relationship to the broad principles of proper democratic government espoused in this Ethics bill. Clearly, by this prohibition public officials are not rendered independent, government decisions are not more properly channeled, public office is not less used for private gain, public confidence in governmental integrity is not increased, conflicts of interest are not thereby reduced, nor are the best qualified encouraged to serve the government, as the Act provides.
Having found § 16(h) offensive to the constitutional mandate of equal protection, we find it is unnecessary to consider the question of its attaintive character.
The invalidity of § 16(h) does not necessarily render the appointive section, § 16(a), invalid. Indeed, the Legislature has included within the terms of Act No. 130 a severability clause, § 30. Such a clause is persuasive authority that the Legislature *751 intended the valid portion to survive. Mitchell v. Mobile County, 294 Ala. 130, 313 So. 2d 172 (1975). As stated in 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 93, pages 155, 156:
This view finds support in our law. Hamilton v. Autauga County, 289 Ala. 419, 268 So. 2d 30 (1972). It seems obvious that by enacting Act No. 130 as an amendatory act, the Legislature wished to terminate the offices of Ethics Commissioners created by Act No. 1056 and create new offices with a different method of selection. Such action was within the Legislature's power, for it may abolish any office it creates without infringing upon the rights of the officer affected. Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 (1939); Hard v. State, 228 Ala. 517, 154 So. 77 (1934). This is precisely what was accomplished by the enactment of § 16(a) of Act No. 130 which superseded § 17 of Act No. 1056. Under § 16(a), initially-appointed members cannot succeed themselves as under § 17. Other changes concern the method of appointment and the date on which their terms of office begin. There is nothing within the provisions of Act No. 130 which suggests that the Legislature would not have enacted § 16(a) without § 16(h); we may presume that having created the five-member Commission, the Legislature acted reasonably by providing for its selection. Certainly, § 16(a) may be given effect without dependence upon § 16(h), since, as we have shown, they are independent of one another. Hamilton v. Autauga County, supra.
Having had their offices legally abolished by the enactment of Act No. 130 the incumbent Ethics Commissioners became de facto officers because they had possession of public offices and were exercising the function of those offices. Alabama Code, Tit. 41, § 2 (Recomp.1958) declares that:
Because of the invalidity of § 16(h), the de facto Commissioners may be considered with other "fair, equitable citizen[s] . . of high moral character" for appointment to the new Commission under § 16(a) whose appointments were authorized to be made from September 1, 1975. Until these appointments are made, they continue as de facto officers under their original appointments.
3. Plaintiffs below challenged the constitutionality of § 2(k) of Act No. 130 because the section is based on a population classification which they contend has no reasonable relationship to the purpose of Act No. 130. Because of that deficiency, they contend, the entire Act is unconstitutional as a local Act violating Sections 106, 110 and 111 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
Often this Court has declared acts passed as general acts to be local in nature, and thus unconstitutional when the act rested upon a single minimum population dividing *752 line classification such as the 15,000 population mark at bar. City of Birmingham v. Moore, 248 Ala. 422, 27 So. 2d 869 (1964); Nelson v. State, 255 Ala. 141, 50 So. 2d 401 (1951); McDowell v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 281 Ala. 438, 203 So. 2d 454 (1967). The decisions stemmed from conclusions by this Court that the purposes of the acts involved were not reasonably related to the differences in population created by the dividing lines of minimum population. Couch v. Rodgers, 253 Ala. 533, 45 So. 2d 699 (1950) citing Reynolds v. Collier, 204 Ala. 38, 85 So. 465 (1919). In City of Birmingham v. Moore, supra, an act was passed to provide clearance and renewal housing projects for cities with a population of over 300,000. The trial court had held the act invalid as repugnant to § 106 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. In considering the constitutionality of the Act, we consulted §§ 106, 110 and 111 of the Constitution of Alabama 1901. Section 106 provides basically that "no local, special, or private law shall be passed on any subject without giving the notice as there prescribed, and makes it the mandatory duty of the courts to declare the same void if the journals do not affirmatively show that it was passed in accordance with the provisions of the section." City of Birmingham v. Moore, supra, 248 Ala. at page 423, 27 So.2d at page 870. Section 110 was consulted because it contains the legislative definition of general and local laws; Section 111 deals with prohibition of amendments which would change the nature of a general law such that it would become a special, private or local law.
In rendering the Act unconstitutional this Court noted the following in Moore, supra, at pages 423, 424, 27 So.2d at page 870:
It is our determination that a portion of § 2(k) provides no rational relationship to the purpose of Act No. 130, and therefore, cannot be upheld as a general law. (It cannot be maintained as a local law because of noncompliance with the notice sections, Art. 6, Section 106, Alabama Constitution of 1901.) As Justice Lawson said in Moore, supra:
The purpose of Act No. 130 is summarized in its § 1(d): "... to implement these objectives of protecting the integrity of all governmental units of this state...." (Emphasis supplied.) Yet, rather than applying the Commission's formula of financial disclosure to all employees in the state, county and municipal governmental units, the Legislature, in part of § 2(k) defined some of the "Public officials and employees" to which disclosure applied as the following:
Since we can find no reasonable relationship between boards in cities with a population of over 15,000, as opposed to cities *753 which do not reach the minimum population mark, with regard to the integrity of board members, we must conclude that the classification in the quoted portion of § 2(k) is an arbitrary and capricious one, and thus unconstitutional. Accordingly, we hold that this portion of § 2(k) is unenforceable.
Without this invalid portion, the remainder of the public official definition in § 2(k) not only is without unreasonable classification but well within the purposes of the Act. What we have stated in reference to the severability of § 16(a) applies with equal force to the viability of the remainder of § 2(k). Separate amendatory provisions and exceptions have been upheld even when unconstitutional provisions which they contain were stricken from them. Jardine v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. 301, 2 P.2d 756 (1931); 16 Am.Jur.2d, § 184. Accordingly, the remaining definition of "public official" in § 2(k) of Act No. 130 remains in effect.
4. The fourth issue raised is whether Act No. 130 was so altered or amended during its passage as to change its original purpose in violation of Section 61, Alabama Constitution of 1901. It was not so changed in our judgment. The purpose of House Bill 240 was simply to pass a bill which could be titled "Ethics Legislation." By amendment or substitution, the Senate enlarged that legislation. The result was Act No. 130. Such change or substitution did not affect the purpose of the bill. State v. Buckley, 54 Ala. 599 (1875); Harrison v. Gordy, 57 Ala. 49 (1876); Hall v. Steele, 82 Ala. 562, 2 So. 650 (1886).
As a general rule of statutory interpretation, Section 61 is deemed complied with unless the contrary is shown with certainty. State v. Buckley, supra; Rogers v. Garlington, 234 Ala. 13, 173 So. 372 (1937); Ex parte Rice, 265 Ala. 454, 92 So. 2d 16 (1957). After careful examination of the bills themselves, the briefs, and after oral argument we feel that Section 61 was complied with. The purpose of Act No. 130 was not so altered as to bring the taint of unconstitutionality to all of its sections not heretofore stricken.
5. The final issue concerns the decision of the trial judge granting a temporary restraining order without notice to the opposing parties. Rule 65(b), ARCP, authorizes such action in some instances. We can ascertain no damage accruing to the adverse parties as a result of the trial court's action in this case, nor was damage claimed in argument or brief.
In our review of this case we have addressed ourselves only to the constitutional issues raised.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
All the Justices concur.