Court Opinion

ID: 9646461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:00:27.075599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:38.409079
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I dissent because I think the majority simply refuses to face up to the fact that this act is local legislation and clearly violates Amendment 14 of the Arkansas Constitution which states: The General Assembly shall not pass any local or special act. The reason there was no further explanation of a local act in the constitution is that none was needed. We have in the past evaded this provision by finding that there was a reasonable relation to the purpose of the act. Act 77 of 1979 does not even suggest a purpose for its enactment, therefore, there can be no reasonable relation to its purpose. The very intent of Amendment 14 was to do away with just such acts as this one. The majority correctly states we have determined local law to be one applicable to any subdivision(s) less than the whole of the state. Webb v. Adams, 180 Ark. 713, 23 S.W.2d 617 (1929). Certainly, the Pulaski County School District comes within this definition. Why is it better for this single district to elect its directors by zones than any other district in the state? No reasonable relation to the objective was contained in the act nor is one given in the majority opinion. Without this, the act is clearly local and special legislation. This court stated in Special School Dist. of Fort Smith #100 v. Sebastian Co., 277 Ark. 326, 641 S.W.2d 702 (1982): “We have held on a number of occasions that legislation that will effectively apply to only one county, is local and special and therefore unconstitutional.” If that were the law on November 8, 1982, it should still be the law! Otherwise, we should announce Amendment 14 is hereby nullified through Supreme Court fiat and the General Assembly is again free to pass all the local and special laws it desires. Hickman and Hays, JJ., join in this dissent.