Court Opinion

ID: 9600189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:24:55.842654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:50.784072
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, Justice,
concurring in result:
Although the majority’s discussion of equal protection rights has been centered upon the protection afforded by the United States Constitution and cases discussing its provisions, it has long been recognized that the due process clause found in art. 2, § 7 of the Okla. Const.1 has a definitional range which is coextensive with its federal counterpart. The United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution each contain built-in anti-discrimination components which afford pro*1235tection against unreasonable or unreasoned classifications which serve no important governmental interests.2 The same equal protection component found in the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution is present in the due process clause of art. 2, § 7.3
The Williams Companies are entitled to the privileges and guarantees found both in the United States and the Oklahoma Constitutions. Nevertheless, there is nothing arbitrary or irrational in the Legislature’s classification providing a different taxing method for public service corporations, the railroads and airlines. The. ad valorem tax scheme furthers a legitimate state interest aligning Oklahoma’s tax laws with federal legislation. It does not violate the protections afforded by the Okla. Const, art. 2, § 7. My conclusion that the Williams Companies have failed to demonstrate a violation of equal protection or ad valorem uniformity requirements is based on the Oklahoma Constitution which provides bona fide, separate, adequate and independent grounds upon which to rest the holding.4

. The Okla. Const, art. 2, § 7 provides:
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

.Fair School Finance Council v. State, 746 P.2d 1135, 1148 (Okla. 1987).

.Callaway v. City of Edmond, 791 P.2d 104, 106 (Okla. 1990); Fair School Finance Council v. State, see note 2, supra; McKeever Drilling Co. v. Egbert, 170 Okla. 259, 40 P.2d 32, 35 (1935).

.Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1042, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3476, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201, 1214 (1983).