Court Opinion

ID: 9845943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:31:42.053722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:29.679036
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Chief Justice.
The issue in this appeal may be described generally as the constitutionality of Enrolled Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. No. 24) adopted by the Twenty-Ninth Oklahoma Legislature, with reference to Driver Education. See S.L. 1963, pages 753-756, both inch; 70 O.S.Supp. 1963, §§ 1210.-21-1210.33, both incl. It arose when plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, sought to restrain and enjoin the defendants in error, hereinafter referred to as defendants, from complying with said Resolution’s provisions, particularly those of its Section 9, which reads as follows:
“From each fine collected or bail forfeited as a penalty for violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of this state or as a city ordinance relating to the operation of motor vehicles, except offenses relating to parking or registration, there shall be separated an amount of Two Dollars ($2.00) which shall be transmitted at the end of the month by the official collecting such fine to the county treasurer who shall ,in turn deposit such amounts with the State Treasurer for credit to the Driver Education Fund hereby created, which fund shall be reserved for the exclusive use and expenditure by the State Board of Education to assist in defraying the cost of driver education as provided in this resolution.”
After appropriate pleadings by the parties, including the intervenors named in the above caption, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; and the parties agree, in effect; that the court’s ruling might be determined by resolving the above stated issue after submission to the court of their briefs on it.
Thereafter, in its judgment sustaining defendants’ motion, the court specifically held S.J.Res. No. 24, constitutional, in accord with its “Memorandum” concerning the various aspects in which said Resolution was alleged to be unconstitutional. After overruling of its motion for a new trial, plaintiff perfected this appeal.
Plaintiff urges five propositions for reversal but we will only discuss their second, which is:
“Enrolled Senate Joint Resolution No. 24 is a special law enacted contrary to Article 5, Section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.”
We think that Article V, Section 46, of the Oklahoma Constitution controls our situation here. The applicable parts of this section are as follows:
“The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law authorizing :
•⅜* ⅜» ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ “Regulating, the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards, or school districts ;
* * * * * *
“Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers, in counties, cities, towns election or school districts ;
* * * * * *
“Remitting fines, penalties and forfeitures, and refunding moneys legally paid into the treasury;
* * * * * *
“For limitation of civil or criminal actions; * *
The collection and funding clause of Resolution No. 24, now 70 O.S.Supp. 1963 § 1210.29, heretofore set out, exempts towns and villages from the separation feature, but the citizens of towns share in the benefits of this legislation by virtue of their public schools participation therein.
*465We think the vice of 70 O.S.Supp. 1963 § 1210.29, is that a percentage of fines and forfeitures collected in cities and counties is to he used to finance driver education in non-contributing villages and towns of Oklahoma.
In Fenimore v. State ex rel. Commissioners of the Land Office, 200 Okl. 400, 194 P.2d 852, we said:
“Special laws, prohibited by Sections 32, 46 and 59, Article 5, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, are those which apply to less than the whole of a class of persons, entities or things standing upon the same footing or in substantially the same situation or circumstances and hence do not have a uniform operation.”
See also Barrett et al. v. Board of Commissioners of Tulsa County et al., 185 Okl. 111, 90 P.2d 442.
We hold that Section 9 of Enrolled Joint Senate Resolution 24 of the 1963 Legislature is unconstitutional.
In view of our holding on this point we do not deem it necessary to discuss the other propositions raised by the plaintiff.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed in so far as it holds Section 9 constitutional.
WILLIAMS, IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur.
JACKSON, V. C. J., concurs specially.
DAVISON, BLACKBIRD and HODGES, JJ., dissent.