Opinion ID: 1292155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: local or special laws

Text: ¶ 23 Finally we address the impact of article 5, section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution which provides: The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law authorizing: . . . Granting divorces; Regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards, or school districts; . . . Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties, cities, towns, election or school districts. . . . [32] In their briefs, the appellees and the Sheriff agree that the contested statutes do not offend article 5, section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution. However, the Fraternal Order of Police and taxpayers, appellants in appeal number 92,626, argue that the statutes, as applied, create an impermissible dichotomy in the duties of sheriff of the different counties. We disagree. ¶ 24 We first note that the jail privatization statutes apply the same to every county. Every county in the state has the option of privatizing its jail system; no counties are deprived of this option. Each county is given authority to determine whether privatization of its county jail is feasible for the particular county. ¶ 25 Even if the privatization statutes create a dichotomy among the counties within the state, they are not constitutionally offensive. In Sanchez v. Melvin, [33] this Court upheld a statute creating a dichotomy in the jurisdiction in the Justices of the Peace in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties and the other counties in Oklahoma. It was argued, among other things, that the statute violated article 5, section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution. [34] This Court held that for a statute to comply with article 5, sections 46 and 59, it is not necessary that the statute operate universally, but there must be a rational basis for a statutory classification. [35] ¶ 26 More recently, in Nelson v. Nelson, [36] this Court addressed the issue of whether requiring divorcing couples with minor children to attend classes on helping children cope offends article 5, section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution. At footnote 24, this Court emphatically rejected the position that section 46 prohibits all classifications. Specifically, [a] classification is not a prohibited, special law if it establishes a reasonable classification of persons, entities or things, sharing the same circumstances. [37] ¶ 27 The jail privatization statutes operate equally on all counties in the state. They provide each county the freedom to decide for itself whether privatization of its jails is the most feasible approach for the individual county. The same opportunity is provided all counties. The fact that some smaller counties reject privatization does not diminish the fact that they are given that choice the same as larger counties. For these reasons, we find that the jail privatization statutes do not offend article 5, section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.