Court Opinion

ID: 9575644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:15:35.627291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:36.493205
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the analysis used by the majority in reaching the conclusion that the Weston County Hospital Joint Powers Board is not a “political subdivision” as contemplated by Art. 16 § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution. I object for several reasons. First, the majority misinterprets Witzenburger. Second, reliance on Wit-zenburger alone is improper due to important factual differences in this case. Third, the test adopted by the majority will defeat the clear purpose of this section of the Wyoming Constitution.
In its cursory treatment of the applicable law concerning the constitutional definition for “political subdivision,” the majority states:
The criteria for identifying a “political subdivision” are found in Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority, 575 P.2d 1100, reh’rg denied, 577 P.2d 1386 (Wyo.1978). There, we concluded that a “ ‘political subdivision’ must be an entity of the same kind or class as a county, city, township, town or school district,” Witzenburger, 575 P.2d at 1112, and that it would be characterized by certain distinctive badges including a prescribed geographic area, a requirement for having officers duly elected by the inhabitants of that area at a public election, and a legal power to levy and collect taxes. Witzenburger. This is still the applicable test. While the list we have recited is not all-inclusive, any “body politic” not possessing at least these three basic attributes cannot be a “political subdivision. ” See Witzenburger.
Maj. op. at 846 (emphasis added). Witzenburger did not establish a black letter rule as the majority concludes. Instead, what we said in Witzenburger was:
We do not hold that the legislature cannot create a political subdivision but if it does, it must have those attributes of a political subdivision, within the contemplation of the Wyoming Constitution, such as we have outlined.
Witzenburger, 575 P.2d at 1114. The “attributes” outlined in Witzenburger are not as clear and constrained as the majority suggests. We said:
Each [political subdivision] has a geographic area smaller than the state, each is organized with officers elected by its inhabitants to carry on a governmental function, having a local purpose and provision is made for the levy and assessment of taxes to finance those purposes.
*852Witzenburger, 575 P.2d at 1113. We gathered this list of attributes after scrutinizing our constitutional history and surveying precedent from other jurisdictions. Witzenburger, 575 P.2d at 1111-12. The test announced by the majority does not accurately portray and follow the general approach utilized by the Witzenburger court.
In addition, Witzenburger differs factually from this case. The sections at issue in Witzenburger were §§ 1 and 2 of Article 16, not § 7. Witzenburger involved the Wyoming Community Development Authority (WCDA) which was not formed under the Joint Powers Act. Unlike the WDCA, the Weston County Hospital Joint Powers Board does possess some of the characteristics outlined by Justice Raper in Witzenburger. The board encompasses a geographic area smaller than the state (Weston County), and it is organized to carry on a governmental function and a local purpose (providing accessible modern health care facilities). Although I agree that Witzenburger does offer guidance on the issue, by itself, it is not determinative.
In this particular case, the majority’s analysis may not eviscerate the purpose of Art. 16 § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution; but, in the future, I fear it will. The purpose, providing opportunity to inspect all claims against the State, so as to prevent wasting public funds in useless litigation, is settled. The test adopted today will allow claims to be brought without sufficient warning against certain quasi-public entities who are not termed a “political subdivision” but who are essentially publicly funded.
Because the majority relies solely upon a test which it incorrectly elicits from Wit-zenburger and hastily resolves an issue of constitutional interpretation, I must dissent from the majority’s analysis of “political subdivision” and the conclusion based upon that analysis.