Opinion ID: 1415725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Is the classification arbitrary?

Text: In Thomas v. Macklen, supra , we considered a law concerning the selection of town council members that was applicable only to resort communities. First, we noted that the definition of resort communities in the Act was in practical effect limited to Myrtle Beach. This fact alone, however, was not determinative. We went on to consider whether there was any reasonable hypothesis to support a class of resort communities: We are unable to perceive any rational difference of situation or condition to be found in what is called a resort community from that of any municipal corporation organized under the general law in relation to the selection of its town council.... [T]he practical effect of the operation of the law will introduce radical diversity into the governmental structure of our municipal corporations. 195 S.E. at 545. [2] Here, in finding an arbitrary classification, the trial court focused on the fact that only tidal marshes and waterways, and not freshwater marshes, parks, or highways, could be used to create contiguity under subsection (A)(4). The broader question, however, is whether there is any rational basis to allow particularly defined geographic areas to incorporate using territory that lies within another's borders. We find the classification arbitrary because there is no rational reason to allow only certain geographic areas to use territory belonging to a neighboring municipality to enable incorporation. Subsection (A)(4) creates an unconstitutional diversity in municipal incorporation laws, which are constitutionally required to be uniform, by allowing only certain areas to incorporate using territory belonging to another municipality. We hold this provision is unconstitutional special legislation. AFFIRMED.