Opinion No.
Background
- Representative Lovell asked whether the St. Francis Levee District may require its elected directors to own 40 acres at least one year before an election.
- The ownership requirement is imposed by Act 117 of 1917, which applies specifically to the St. Francis Levee District and is not codified in the Arkansas Code.
- Act 78 of 1879 governs levee-district elections and generally provides that landowners within the district are eligible for offices.
- The opinion analyzes reconciling Act 117 with Act 78, considering statutory construction rules and the later, more specific statute.
- Constitutional considerations addressed include potential local or special legislation concerns and equal protection implications.
- The conclusion is that the 40-acre requirement is legal and presumptively valid, including under rational-basis equal protection review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 40-acre requirement legal? | Lovell questions validity as local/special or unconstitutional. | McDaniel says Act 117 is valid, remains controlling, withstands such challenges. | Yes; the 40-acre requirement is legal. |
| Can Act 117 be reconciled with Act 78? | The two acts conflict by imposing stricter rules for St. Francis only. | Later, specific Act 117 can coexist with Act 78 as harmonious amendments. | They can be reconciled; Act 117 operates as a specific variation applying within the district. |
| Does the 40-acre rule violate equal protection? | The requirement arbitrarily discriminates against smaller landowners. | There is a conceivable rational basis related to stewardship of the levee district. | Classification has a rational basis; equal protection challenge would fail. |
| Is the law impermissibly local or special legislation under Amendment 14? | Argues it targets a single district and is local in character. | Pre-Amendment 14 validity remains; if challenged post-amendment, repeal could occur; pre-14 acts can remain valid. | Pre-Amendment 14, Act 117 is not constitutionally invalid as local/special; repeal power lies with the legislature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760 (Ark. 2002) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent)
- Donoho v. Donoho, 318 Ark. 637 (Ark. 1994) (repeal by implication not favored)
- Kyle v. State, 312 Ark. 274 (Ark. 1993) (repeals by implication recognized but disfavored)
- Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (U.S. 1997) (equal protection rational-basis framework)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (rational-basis scrutiny under equal protection)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1982) (equal protection considerations in classifications)