Opinion ID: 1668800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: annexation election

Text: Ramer argues this Court should declare the annexation election a nullity. In support of his position, he sets forth three reasons: (1) the electors in Hoover did not participate in the election; (2) the Boards of Registrars of Jefferson and Shelby Counties allegedly failed to provide election officials with a list of qualified voters; and (3) material contractual commitments between HEJV and Hoover to induce a favorable annexation vote are void and unenforceable. At trial, the appellees asserted that Ramer did not have standing to contest the annexation election, but the trial judge in his order held: Ramer, though not a Hoover elector, is a property owner and taxpayer of Hoover. As a taxpayer, he has a right to protect and the totality of his annexation claims assert a misuse of corporate power. The Court thus holds that Ramer has standing to assert these issues.... After consideration of the standing issue, we hold that the trial judge correctly found that Ramer had standing to contest the annexation election; therefore, we will address the contentions Ramer makes regarding the annexation election, viz: (1) the Boards of Registrars of Jefferson and Shelby Counties failed to furnish a proper list of the qualified electors in the area to be annexed, and (2) when two crucial provisions of the annexation agreement between HEJV and Hoover, which were inducements to vote for annexation, were declared invalid by the court, then the favorable vote for annexation should not be effective and binding. The trial court, in a lengthy decree, addressed these issues as follows: Ramer's contention that Act No. 80-590 is void because of a variance between the published notice of the proposed local act and the act as adopted into law is rejected. Section 106 as amended by Amendment No. 341 of the Alabama Constitution 1901 provides that no local law shall be passed unless notice of intention to apply to the Legislature for passage of such law shall have been published, which notice shall state the substance of the proposed law. The substance of the proposed legislative act as advertised cannot be materially changed or contradicted. State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Allen, 219 Ala. 590, 123 So. 36 (1929). In the case of the bill here, it was published in detail and such details cannot be materially changed throughout the legislative process to final passage and approval. Wilkinson, supra. The proposed act was published both in Shelby and Jefferson Counties. In the publications setting forth a legal description of the territory involved, the description ran over eight printed pages in length and described the boundary of lands of approximately 3,000 acres. One metes and bounds call was published as `665 feet' while the same call in the adopted act was `655 feet.' There was no evidence that the variance was material in any respect or that the land described in the adopted act cannot be ascertained. For such reasons, the Court rejects this contention. Ramer contends that the annexation is void because the Hoover voters did not participate in the election. In Opinion of the Justices, 381 So.2d 632 (1980) cited by Ramer, the Supreme Court of Alabama rendered its advisory opinion to the Legislature regarding an earlier version of the Riverchase annexation bill. Except for the identical territory involved and the referendum requirement of that bill, the adopted act (80-590) bears no similarity to the earlier bill. There, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion that the offered bill violated Section 106 of the Alabama Constitution in respect to failures of the published notice. Those defects are not material here. The Court, however, in In Opinion of the Justices suggested that, `Annexing and annexed citizens clearly share general concerns with the governance and welfare of the area. Given the similar interests of the two areas (the existing city and the territory to be annexed), disfranchising either seems improper.' The Court thus noted that, `The residents of both areas have an interest; therefore, both must be notified.' This Court does not deem these pronouncements mandate a ruling or even a suggestion that the voters in Hoover must also vote in the Riverchase annexation election. The Supreme Court was speaking in the context of the lack of published notice of the bill before it in respect to annexation agreements incorporated by reference only in the legislative bill. The notice did not include those agreements and the bill was clearly constitutionally defective for such reasons. The notice preceding the adoption of Act 80-590 did not contain the same defects. The sponsors of Act 80-590 obviously `went to school' on the Supreme Court opinion and corrected the opined problems. The trial judge correctly held that the advisory opinion of this Court, Opinion of the Justices, 381 So.2d 632 (Ala.1980), only addressed the question of the adequacy of notice to the electors of the annexing and the annexed territory. Even though this Court did quote a Harvard Law Review article in that advisory opinion which suggests that electors in both the annexing municipality and the proposed annexed area should vote, the law of this state is that the Legislature, in the exercise of its sovereign power, can alter the territorial limits of a municipality without the approval of the municipality's electors. City of Birmingham v. Norton, 255 Ala. 262, 50 So.2d 754 (1950). Ramer argues that the Boards of Registrars of Shelby and Jefferson Counties failed to provide the Hoover city clerk with a list of qualified electors in the area to be annexed, and thus failed to comply with 1980 Ala.Acts 590. The trial judge, in his final judgment, found and concluded, as follows: In brief, Ramer asks rhetorically, `Did the failure of the Boards of Registrars of Jefferson and Shelby Counties to furnish a list of qualified electors ... vitiate the election?' No evidence is cited or referred to that such facts were proven. Section 2 of Act 80-590 provides, `The Boards of Registrars of Jefferson and Shelby Counties shall furnish to the City Clerk of the City of Hoover the names of those electors qualified to vote in this election ...' The evidence shows that each of the registrars involved furnished to the Hoover City Clerk a voters list. The list provided by the Jefferson County Board of Registrars may have included some voters not within the area to be annexed but no evidence has been presented as to this circumstance. Moreover, there has been no evidence presented that any ineligible voter voted in the annexation election. Assuming such to be the case, there has been no evidence that such votes would have altered the outcome of the election. The contention of Ramer regarding the voter list is denied. We hold that the trial judge was justified in concluding that the lists the registrars provided sufficiently complied with the requirements of the annexation statute.