Opinion ID: 2253107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Claim Under Article I, Section 23

Text: The appellees contend the trial court wrongly held the instant statute constitutional under Article I, section 23. We proceed now to that claim. A. History. As we noted above, the state's financial woes played a central part in the decision to write a new constitution. In the wake of the Panic of 1837, the people of Indiana were determined to limit the legislature's involvement in private commercial efforts. They had seen their state bank struggle and eventually suspend services. They had watched their grand internal improvement system sap the state treasury and bankrupt the state. Blame for these ills largely fell on the legislature, and the people were determined to limit the power of that body. See generally 1 John D. Barnhart & Donald F. Carmony, Indiana From Frontier to Industrial Commonwealth ch. 19 (1954); 2 id. at ch. 5; James H. Madison, The Indiana Way chs. v, vii (1986). Article I, section 23 was the result of this desire to put the state's finances right. The author of the provision, delegate Daniel Read of Monroe County, championed the forces opposing government involvement in private commerce and argued vehemently against state monopolies. [11] Before introducing the Equal Privileges or Immunities Clause, Read asserted: Money making is not the business of the State... . If she sells out a monopoly for a bonus, the robbery upon the citizens is ordinarily still worse, as being paid for and sanctified by a right purchased from government. If the State becomes a partner with a few of her citizens, to the exclusion of others, offering the same terms, it is still a most odious and anti-republican principle, and more worthy of the days of monopoly. 1 Debates, supra note 6, at 646. Read would later declare that monopolies were contrary to the spirit of a free State, and that we ought to make a declaration of that kind in our Bill of Rights. Id. at 975. Section 23 was that declaration. Read's fellow delegates spoke plainly about the object of the provision. His supporters declared that the provision was intended to prohibit the Legislature from establishing monopolies, or granting special privileges. 2 Debates, supra, note 6 at 1395 (remarks of Delegate Pepper of Ohio County); see also id. at 1394 (remarks of Delegate Biddle of Cass County) ([T]he proposition is a plain one, that there shall be no exclusive monopolies  no privileges granted to one man which shall not, under the same circumstances, belong to all men.) (emphasis in original). His opponents understood this as well, and they feared that section 23 would prohibit a state bank and severely impair internal improvement projects. [12] Read's opponents lost their fight, however, and section 23 was adopted. It provides as follows: The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. B. Early Case Law. Early judicial interpretations of section 23 focused on this state sponsorship or entanglement conception of the provision. For example, we struck down an attempt by the legislature to extend a special corporate charter granted prior to the adoption of section 23. In re Application of the Bank of Commerce for Change of Name (1899), 153 Ind. 460, 53 N.E. 950. In that case the Court condemned the special privileges and immunities contained in the charter and invited the corporation to continue its business under the general laws of the state. Id. at 474, 53 N.E. at 956. [13] A few years before we had applied section 23 in a slightly broader context by invalidating a city ordinance that exacted a permit fee from nonresident peddlers and from peddlers selling goods manufactured outside the city. See Graffty v. City of Rushville (1886), 107 Ind. 502, 8 N.E. 609. Eventually, section 23 came to be applied even more broadly. We held, for example, that the state could regulate a particular area of commerce so long as the classifications were reasonable in light of the object of the legislation. Levy v. State (1903), 161 Ind. 251, 68 N.E. 172. In Levy, we held that the State could require transient merchants to acquire licenses before plying their trade. We reasoned that since the statute applied to all transient merchants, a natural and reasonable class, it did not privilege a particular business over similarly situated enterprises. Id. at 256, 68 N.E. at 174. We also applied section 23 to statutes which did not regulate commerce. See, e.g., City of Evansville v. State (1888), 118 Ind. 426, 21 N.E. 267 (residency and political requirements for city employees). We tested statutes against section 23 by asking whether there was some inherent and substantial difference germane to the subject matter and purpose of the legislation between those included within the class and those excluded. School City of Elwood v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 626, 635-36, 180 N.E. 471, 474. The statute must also afford similar opportunity to all persons who naturally belong to the class. Id. at 635, 180 N.E. at 474. Section 23 and the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court's case law features recurring questions about whether section 23 has a life of its own or if it stands only as a relative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite the distinct histories of the two provisions, this Court has sometimes employed notions from the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in its section 23 analysis. In Pittsburgh, C., C. & St.L.Ry. v. Montgomery (1898), 152 Ind. 1, 9, 49 N.E. 582, 585, for example, we embraced the idea that section 23 is in effect, the same as the equality clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution. See also Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp. (1980), 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585; Sidle v. Majors (1976), 264 Ind. 206, 341 N.E.2d 763. In other cases, we treated section 23 as if it were independent from the Federal Constitution. Graffty, 107 Ind. 502, 8 N.E. 609. We have even declared in several cases that the two provisions are antithetical. See, e.g., Cincinnati, H. & D.Ry. v. McCullom (1915), 183 Ind. 556, 109 N.E. 206; Hammer v. State (1909), 173 Ind. 199, 89 N.E. 850. In these latter cases, we reasoned that the Equal Protection Clause prevents the curtailment of constitutional rights, while section 23 prevents the enlargement of the rights of some in discrimination against the rights of others. Cincinnati, H. & D.Ry., 183 Ind. at 560-61, 109 N.E. at 208. Whether section 23 stands as a self-contained and independent provision or whether equal protection concepts may be read into section 23 is a question presently before us in the case of Collins v. Day, Court of Appeals No. 93A02-9110-EX-449 (Petition for transfer filed Feb. 11, 1993). To resolve the present case, we need not prejudge the outcome of that appeal. The act passes muster under either approach. C. Section 23 as a Prohibition Against Special Privileges. We begin by recognizing that an original purpose of section 23 was to prohibit the legislature from granting special privileges to private commercial enterprises. Thus, before we apply the substantive standard of section 23, we must determine if city-wide, rather than county-wide, voting on casino gambling is a grant of a privilege prohibited by this section. The referenda provided for in the riverboat gambling act are intended as a means for the people, rather than the legislature, to determine for themselves whether to invite gambling operations into their communities. Such provision for referenda does not bestow a special privilege upon certain persons seeking gaming licenses, nor does it grant a special privilege to particular landowners across the counties. Simply put, the ability to vote directly does not inherently convey a privilege or impose a burden on persons such as Moseley. Thus, the statute does not contravene section 23. D. Section 23 as a Guarantee of Equal Protection. Appellees' alternative claim assumes that section 23 embodies the equal protection jurisprudence of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argue that the riverboat gambling act impermissibly diluted the voting power of the people of Portage as compared with the franchise of those in the cities of Lake County. Under equal protection analysis, the party challenging a statutory classification must demonstrate that the classification bears no rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. Where the classification is based on suspect criteria or impinges upon a fundamental right, however, the State must show that the classification is required to promote a compelling interest. Sturrup v. Mahan (1974), 261 Ind. 463, 305 N.E.2d 877. And while voting is a fundamental right, not all restrictions trigger such strict scrutiny. Gallagher v. State Election Bd. (1992), Ind., 598 N.E.2d 510. Appellees ask that we consider their participation in a referendum structured identically to those held in Lake County a fundamental right and apply strict scrutiny. Our republic holds that all citizens enjoy the right to participate on an equal basis in the political process. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees fairly apportioned electoral districts. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968) (local districting); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (state legislative districting). The Supreme Court has also extended the principle of one person, one vote from these apportionment cases to cases in which certain otherwise qualified voters are denied the right to vote in special-interest elections and even some referenda. See Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969) (school board elections); City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204, 90 S.Ct. 1990, 26 L.Ed.2d 523 (1970) (general bond issue referendum). In this last case, Justice White wrote that when all citizens are affected in important ways by a governmental decision subject to a referendum, the Constitution does not permit weighted voting or the exclusion of otherwise qualified citizens from the franchise. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. at 209, 90 S.Ct. at 1994. Appellees do not complain, however, that they were denied the right to vote or that the votes were weighted in the Porter referendum. All voters in Porter County were eligible to voice their opinions. Rather, appellees complain that their voting power was diluted in comparison to that of the city residents of Lake County. This does not constitute a voting rights claim under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has expressly refused to extend[] the `one man, one vote' principle to individuals residing beyond the geographic confines of the governmental entity concerned. Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 68, 99 S.Ct. 383, 389, 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978) (upholding extension of police jurisdiction outside city limits without also extending voting rights); see also Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action at the Local Level, Inc., 430 U.S. 259, 97 S.Ct. 1047, 51 L.Ed.2d 313 (1977) (upholding statute requiring concurrent majority votes in cities and in county before restructuring county government). [14] For purposes of equal protection analysis, then, vote dilution occurs when the voting power of one group is purposely and invidiously reduced as compared to the voting power of others in the political subdivision affected by the vote. The statute in question provides equal participation for persons living within each political subdivision affected by the vote. While the referenda in Porter County, Hammond, and East Chicago all addressed the general subject of riverboat gambling, the impact of each referendum fell only on those eligible to vote in that referendum. Porter County residents voted on whether to allow riverboat gambling in Porter County; residents of Hammond and East Chicago voted on whether to allow riverboat gambling in their respective cities. We hold that appellees do not enjoy a fundamental right to the same voting scheme employed in a different political subdivision on a different proposition. Even absent a fundamental right to a specific voting scheme, differences in voting rules from county to county must still be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In this case, the state has an interest in ensuring votes to those most affected by the introduction of gambling into their communities. With this concern in mind, the legislature could reasonably conclude that the effect of gaming would be greater in smaller counties and structure the referenda accordingly. We appreciate the disappointment of the residents of Portage who favor gaming, but equal protection does not guarantee that the legislature will structure referenda so that they can prevail. See City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980).