Opinion ID: 2546274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prohibition on Special Laws

Text: The Overbeys also claim that the existence of these three exemptions violates the prohibition against special laws contained in article III, section 40 of the Missouri Constitution, which states in relevant part: [t]he general assembly shall not pass any local or special law ... where a general law can be made applicable, and whether a general law could have been made applicable is a judicial question to be judicially determined without regard to any legislative assertion on that subject. Mo. Const. art. III § 40. A law [that] includes less than all who are similarly situated is special, but a law is not special if it applies to all of a given class alike and the classification is made on a reasonable basis. Ross v. Kansas City Gen. Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 608 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Mo. banc 1980). The applicable test for whether a statute is a special law because there is no reasonable basis for its classifications in this context is similar to the rational basis test used in equal protection analyses. Jefferson Cnty. Fire Protection Dists. Ass'n v. Blunt, 205 S.W.3d 866, 868 (Mo. banc 2006). The burden is on the party challenging the constitutionality of the statute to show that the statutory classification is arbitrary and without a rational relationship to a legislative purpose. Id. For the reasons stated earlier in rejecting the argument that these exemptions violate equal protection, this Court finds that they do not violate the special law prohibition.