Opinion ID: 2561998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the uniform operation of laws provision protects persons from discrimination at least as much as the equal protection clause

Text: ¶ 13 ABCO argues that the privilege tax imposed by Utah Code section 59-4-101 is unconstitutional under the uniform operation of laws provision of the Utah Constitution and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the statute impermissibly treats differently situated parties in the same manner by applying the same tax to lessees of exempt property as to owners. ¶ 14 Despite differing language, the uniform operation of laws provision affords protection similar to that of the Equal Protection Clause. Article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution states: All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation. Utah Const. art. I, § 24. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states from enacting laws that deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Both the uniform operation of laws provision and the Equal Protection Clause `embody the same general principle: persons similarly situated should be treated similarly, and persons in different circumstances should not be treated as if their circumstances were the same.' Gallivan v. Walker, 2002 UT 89, ¶ 31, 54 P.3d 1069 (quoting Malan v. Lewis, 693 P.2d 661, 669 (Utah 1984)); see also State v. Merrill, 2005 UT 34, ¶ 31, 114 P.3d 585 (stating that the state and federal constitutional provisions are substantially parallel); Wood v. Univ. of Utah Med. Ctr., 2002 UT 134, ¶ 32, 67 P.3d 436 (stating that the uniform operation of laws provision is, in fact, the Utah equal protection guarantee); Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572, 577 (Utah 1993) (stating that though the language and history of the two provisions are different, there are important areas of overlap in the concepts embodied in the two provisions). Since our analysis under the uniform operation of laws provision is at least as rigorous as it would be under the federal equal protection provision, we accordingly limit our review to ABCO's state constitutional claim. Merrill, 2005 UT 34, ¶ 31, 114 P.3d 585.