City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Board

C.J., J., WATT, joins OPALA, whom WINCHESTER, V.C.J. part

in J., full, in

TAYLOR, join concurring result. in today’s Although persuaded am I resolu- represents a correct

pronouncement aon dismissal for placing

tion conditions conveniens, give my it I cannot

forum non

unqualified I would have assent. that dismissal until the conditions of

reached Shepard’s’ motion to court decided trial jurisdiction. personal for lack of

dismiss litigation, inconven-

multiple-defendant applied to all analysis

ient should be forum prevent duplicative, order

defendants jurisdictions. multiple litigation

redundant is permissible,

Even if defendants’ severance jurisdiction

leaving one defendant against other in authorizing suit

while prudent particularly use of

another is not a

judicial resources.

¶2 today’s pro- fully joining in Without

nouncement, concur I nevertheless should not be holding that lawsuit

court’s grounds on forum non conveniens

dismissed actually avail- an alternative forum

unless necessary agree I

able. waiv-

impose conditions such as defendant’s

er of a statute-of-limitations defense to assure al-

alternative forum order availability. forum’s

ternative

2006 OK 16 Oklahoma, ENID, an Okla-

CITY OF Municipal Corporation,

homa

Plaintiff/Appellee, RELATIONS

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES Federation and American

BOARD

State, County Municipal Employees, Organizing Commit- AFSCME OK a/k/a Defendants/Appellants.

tee, 101,729.

No.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 14, 2006.

March Shinn, Jr., Puckett,

Tony G. Ronald T. OK, Taft, City, ap- & Oklahoma McAfee Enid, pellee, Oklahoma. Edmondson, Attorney as municipalities3 populations Drew General ers great- W.A. Oklahoma, Rinehart, 35,000.4 D. parties agree Sandra Senior er that it General, Attorney City, currently applies Assistant Oklahoma municipalities eleven OK, co-appellant, Employees Rela- Public Oklahoma. The classification remains fluid. requisite tions Board. When reach the num- residents, applies. ber the Act Moore, Wycoff, James R. Sue James R. Associates, OK, City, Moore <& ¶ Appellant, American Federation State, appellant, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees County Municipal Employees. Committee, Organizing AFSCME a/k/a (hereinafter Union) requested certification Pedicord, Nicely, Ann Diane Sue Okla- represent City from PERB to the of Enid’s OK, Municipal League, City, homa qualifying employees when the Act became Municipal for Amicus Curiae Oklahoma (November 1, 2004). effective gave PERB League. request City notice Union’s of Enid Muckala, Larry Derryberry, J. Caleb Der- City and directed post the of Enid to the Naifeh, ryberry Quigley Solomon & Okla- 4, on notice November 2004. PERB’s emer- OK, for Amicus City, homa Curiae Associa- gency provide certify rules it must Union as County tion of Commissioners of Oklahoma. representative City of Enid’s munici- pal employees unless PERB receives a re- PER CURIAM. quest from another union days. within fifteen ¶ 1 before us The issue concerns the con- 19, 2004, City On November of Enid filed stitutionality Municipal the Oklahoma Em- against an action PERB and Union for (hereinafter ployee Bargaining Act Collective order, temporary restraining temporary and Act).1 We hold that Act is a permanent injunctions, declaratory judg- law of that state-wide concern contains a ment the Act special legislation was proper legitimate classification of munici- Const, 5, §§ which violated Olda. art. 46 and palities 35,- population greater with a than 59, 3(a). 18, and also art. § violated 000. This classification bears a ¶ 4 The granted district court a temporary relationship objective reasonable to Act’s restraining 22, on order November 2004. 51-201, § O.S.Supp.2005, codified at 11 “to Subsequently, City filed a Enid motion promote orderly employ- and constructive summary judgment the court ulti- ment relations between employers mately granted. The summary basis for employees.” and their grants The Act mu- judgment was the court’s determination the nicipal employees of these Act’s of municipalities classification pop- with right organize representation to and choose greater 35,000 ulations for collective bargaining, requires collective these bargaining purposes arbitrary was and thus municipal employers recognize, negotiate constituted a law in violation of art. bargain employees’ rep- chosen §§46 and 59. The court reasoned that it resentatives. impossible law, was not design permanent injunction and issued a against I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL PERB. We retained appeal. argu- Oral HISTORY May 10, ment was heard on 2005. ¶2 legislature passed The the Oklahoma Municipal Employee Bargaining Collective II. STANDARD OF REVIEW during Act its 2004 session. Administered Employees the Public Relations Board 5 issue of the Act’s constitu (PERB)2, municipal employ- the Act tionality defines legal is a determination. “An ap- 1. Code, 2004 O.S.Supp. O.S.L. ch. purposes codified 3. Municipal For of Oklahoma "municipality” any §§ seq. incorporated et 51-200 is defined as O.S.2001, 1-102(5). or town. 11 O.S.Supp.2005, § 51-104. 51-202(12). O.S.Supp.2005, 4. 11 Otherwise, presump- we plenary, inde will disturb for itself claims pellate court re authority validity. tion of the Act’s pendent and non-deferential rulings.” Man legal a trial court’s examine ¶ 22, Brown, OK n. ley v. III. ON APPEAL ISSUES Summary judgment is P.2d n. Enid contends the Act is a appears there is no sub appropriate where it Const., art. any fact law violation Okla. controversy as to material stantial judgment as a is unconstitutional under art. party entitled and one Coop. 3(a), Daugherty v. Fanners matter of law. which allows charter cities autono- ¶5, Ass’n, 949; P.2d OK self-governance mous under home rule McKenzie, Crockett argues It doctrine. also creates a con inquiry appeal P.2d 464. “[T]he class that lacks a reasonable relation entry of sum cerning propriety const., subject, Act’s in violation of Okla. art. potential contro mary judgment limited to 5, § The district court did not address concerning raised versies issue 3(a) summary judg- issue in its art. Harris, 1980 OK pleadings.” Wabaunsee v. order, ment which the instant matter An order arises, unnecessary district as was legal is summary disposes relief grants court reach that court that issue because Therefore, appeal, on the review we sues. special Act unconstitutional found the as Nicholson, v. conduct is de novo. Broum law. ¶ 1, 321, 1; 32, 5, 319, n. 935 1997 OK n. P.2d ¶ 30, 79, 22, n. 989 P.2d at Manley, 1999 OK Const, 5, § art. 46 A. Oklahoma 456, re Accordingly, standard of n. 30. our ¶ 5, § question 7 The for an art. 46 trial court’s order the regarding view the at inquiry whether the statute issue is a novo. The burden is instant case de general law. special or 46 enumer Section Enid, entity challenging City the the the of legis twenty-eight areas in which the ates Act, beyond a reasonable doubt that to show prohibited passing lature from local or See, Hamilton the Act is unconstitutional. laws, ¶ 109, unless otherwise allowed 15, City City, OK 1974 v. Oklahoma of 14, provision another the Oklahoma Constit 17, citing quoting Isaacs P.2d 267, pertinent analysis our City, 437 P.2d 229. ution.5 As here- 1966 OK offices, Creating prescribing powers or the laws on certain sub- 46. Local and cities, officers, counties, towns, jects elec- prohibited of duties districts; tion school or not, except as otherwise The shall succession; Changing or the law of descent Constitution, pass any local in this or of, jurisdiction practice Regulating or or the authorizing: special pro- judicial changing of the rules evidence creation, extension, liens; impairing of or courts, justices ceedings inquiry or before the of counties, cities, towns, Regulating the of affairs sheriffs, commissioners, arbitrators, peace, districts; wards, or school tribunals, providing changing or or or other persons places; Changing of or the names debts, of or en- methods for the collection out, Authorizing laying opening, altering, judgments prescribing effect of or forcement roads, streets, maintaining highways, or or alleys; of estate; judicial of of real sales fees, extending powers Regulating the or Relating bridges, incorporating or to ferries or aldermen, justices peace, of of the or and duties ferry bridge companies, except the erec- or constables; streams, bridges crossing tion which form of schools, management public Regulating of state; any this and other boundaries between houses, building repairing or of school streets, roads, alleys; Vacating plats, or town money raising purposes; of for such cemeteries, Relating graveyards, or interest; Fixing the rate of State; grounds not owned minors, Affecting persons of or un- the estates legitimation Authorizing adoption or disability; der children; forfeitures, fines, Remitting penalties and seats; Locating changing county or moneys legally paid treasury; refunding into cities, towns, villages, Incorporating or or taxation; Exempting property charters; changing their age; person elections, Declaring any named conducting opening and For the Extending or time for the assessment col- places voting; fixing changing taxes, divorces; relieving asses- Granting or otherwise lection in, statute, prohibition regulation way concerns the precludes lation-based and in no municipalities. affairs similarly of cities into situ- classification ated based on when ¶ Since the Act reg concerns the wisdom, legislature, in its a legiti- has larger ulation of certain labor issues mu mate, reasonable and rational reason to do we nicipalities, determine that the Act indeed so. subjects twenty-eight of the concerns one set ¶ forth in 46. We must determine whether interpret Enid asks us to legislation at issue is a or local regard art. in46 to the collective bar- e.g., Goodyear law. See Grant v. Tire & here, bar, gaining Act involved absolute ¶ Co., Rubber 5 P.3d legislative prohibiting regulation of some but ¶ Porter, 88, 14, citing Reynolds v. municipalities. not all an interpretation Such ¶. 816, 822, Daily 760 P.2d Guthrie Leader is unwarranted and is not consistent with our Cameron, OK 41 P. 639. previous case law as to is or what is not persons A general things law “relates to considered a law. relating particular as a class rather Haskell, 11 In Edmonds v. Town things.” Grant, OK 17-18, 247 P. dismissed for citing Reynolds, at P.3d jurisdiction, want U.S. S.Ct. ¶ 14, 822. General laws need not (1926), 71 L.Ed. 821 stated, the Court every state, operate upon locality in the “but question “The act in cannot be said to be equally apply similarly must to all classes more than a reasonable fair classification situated, apply to like conditions and proportion population, towns to their Childers, subjects.” Grable grant and a privileges the same to all ¶ 6, 360. A special law relates towns of the same class.” The Court held part “a similarly entire class of express authority pursuant existed persons” “separate[s] affected part] [that 18, 1,§ art. for creation of a statute for cities Grant, 41, for different treatment.” 2000 OK 1,000 with populations in pave excess of to ¶ 5, 597, citing Reynolds, 5 P.3d at 1988 OK streets make for assessments that. Ed ¶88, 14, P.2d at 822. ¶ monds, 289, 8, 1926 OK P. at 17. ¶ Reynolds, identify 9 Under we the class ¶ by developed particular tests for analyze each § sub- 12 When along we ject Reynolds, 18, enumerated art. 5 46. language with the of art. 1 under the ¶ 18, 823, Edmonds, 1988 OK n. teaching 760 P.2d at n. we must invoke the 36. recognized Reynolds This Court “except provided” language as otherwise con may civil be specific actions classified into tained and recognize that not all categories tort a actions of similar proportion nature classification for purposes, prohibited. statute of limitation and that In addressing claima with sig doing so would not a constitute a nificant factual similarities the instant fortiori case, or local law that would violate the this Court stated In Hamilton v. Okla See, Reynolds, strictures contained in 46. homa City, 1974 OK 527 P.2d ¶ City OK 760 P.2d at 823. The City challenged Oklahoma the consti Court at stated footnote 36 that tutionality “[t]he test of the Oklahoma Governmental adopt identifying (11 we Liability the class in O.S.1971, measur- Tort Act §§ 1751- ing validity 1766), of a civil action’s limitation which that cities with over 200,000 in 46 necessarily appli- strictures is not population would liable for be their subjects cable to other enumerated in out arising governmental torts of their func Reynolds section.” popu- did not concern a tions. Tulsa were performance sor or collector of taxes incorporating from due For or railroads other works of duties, his liability; official or his securities from improvements; internal Giving effect informal or invalid wills or Providing change of venue in civil and deeds; criminal cases. Summoning grand impaneling petit ju- or or ries; 5, supra. 6. See fn. actions; For limitation of civil or criminal application to class of others. Its legislation. only dties covered 35,000 is uniform. over Court observed: Hamilton ¶ statehood, years 14 Two after in Burks v. hand, impor- may size be “On the other Walker, 109 P. the Court classification any particular tant factor legis- a rejected challenge a constitutional This population. scheme based creating superior a court in lative enactment recognized having a cities long has county a population greater each much may problems have larger population 30,000 -that least with a contained at one counties, populated in- from less different 8,000 holding or population of more. con- many topics legislation sofar as a the Court statute was not law cerned.” wrote: general in a to be “In order for law 109, ¶13, Hamilton, 16. 527 P.2d at operation, to'have a uniform it nature and ¶ regarding inquiry next 13 Our necessary upon operate is not that it shall law, as a distin whether the every person every locality in the law, concerns guished from local or may A and have a state. be legitimate proper there whether designated application apply or to a local classification, ar the classification is whether if operates equally upon class it bitrary it bears capricious, whether subjects within the class for which was * * n object relationship to the to be reasonable oper adopted. But where statute Melvin, accomplished. class, Sanchez upon a classification must ates 116, 14, may P.2d be arbitrary “[A] must capricious not be apply pertain peculiarity have a local general and reasonable and some subject-matter calling legis operates equally if it for the designated class places lation. As between the subjects within the class for upon all the operation included within of the law adopted.” Grimes v. Oklahoma it was which omitted, and those there must be some ¶10, City, 2002 OK a dif distinctive characteristic Walker, citing Anderson v. reasonably may be found ferent treatment Indeed, the class practical and and that real furnish[es] ed limited, may very and there be but basis discrimination.” Daily class. Leader one of the Guthrie Burks, 317, 23,109 P. OK Cameron, P. Daily The to application class, In a key particular person as Leader, legislation opposed to is 1895 OK embrace before specific ¶71, us, all of in its thing. 41, 41 P. at 639. Act Guthrie applies in its given fication was involving ed a determine Court ^[13] two-part, rational-relationship test has ¶ constitutional 15 whether used Thus, in this a population-based test Burks, challenges in numerous cases general law. the Court creat- to popula- classi- to similarly- Const., through application to art. legislation statewide under Okla. tion-based 5, municipalities. apply appropriate §§ It to It test does 46 and 59.7 situated today’s inquiry, as municipality, the exclusion for well. particular one 964; 158, 9-15, ¶¶ Garnett, 70, 18, ¶ Thompson v. 19 P.2d v. 1915 OK 146 P. OK 7. Hatfield 24; 386; ¶ Beaty, County Stanley, v. Board Commissioners OK 83 P.2d Wilkin- 1938 of 7, 34; ¶89, 10, 305; ¶ Hale, 11, P. Commis 1918 OK 171 Board v. 86 P.2d son 1939 OK of Grady County Hammerly, v. OK 134, ¶¶ sioners 1921 County, v. 1940 OK 6- Lowden Oklahoma of Donnell, 356, 445; ¶ 25, Key v. 1924 OK 204 P. Hutchens, 448; 9, 1940 OK 100 P.2d Williams v. 996, 546; ¶ 5, Ry. Chicago & P. v. 231 P. R.I. Co. Crum, 266, 6-8, 841; ¶¶ 1940 P.2d Bell v. 102 8, 1002, 649; Carroll, V OK 245 P. Ed 1925 17-35, 518; 413, ¶¶ City 106 Oklahoma OK P.2d Haskell, 289, 8-9, ¶¶ monds v. Town of 311, County, 1943 OK v. Excise Bd. Oklahoma Of Chelsea, 15; OK 247 v. Town 1927 P. Pointer of 17, 805; Holloman, ¶ 1958 141 Haas v. OK P.2d 785; 7-8, ¶¶ 9, Ledgerwood, P. v. 257 Roberts 655; 174, 14-16, George, v. UK 327 P.2d Hamrick 448; ¶¶ 723, 7-10, Hudgins 272 v. P. 324; 26-32, ¶¶ P.2d Williams OK 378 1962 Foster, 645; Gulager v. OK 267 P. 1928 518; ¶ Johnson, P.2d OK 396 v. 1964 Bickford, P. Caddo 10-12, ¶¶ Tulsa, City OK v. Elias of Co., Ry. County Chicago P. v. R.I. & OK Melvin, 517; Sanchez 900; Smith, Co. Treas. v. P.2d Crawford at herein The Act issue concerns involved collective action. mu- Smaller municipalities nicipalities personnel often lack these in the state of Okla- de- class partments legal Accordingly, greater 35,000. staff. populations with homa bargaining manageable would be less legislation we can deem this unconsti- Before more cumbersome for smaller munici- tutional, must determine that the we classifi- palities employees. and their municipalities population cation of employees’ purposes collective legislature 17 Oklahoma’s first contained clearly capricious, bargaining rights arbi- who knew members the Constitution.8 At wholly object trary, time, unrelated to the classify this it was common to cities above, the As stated burden was and population, many Act. based statutes of City legislature of Enid to that such is the first exemplify is on the show this. Cities of 2,000 population the “First had a City of Enid Class” case. The has failed to See, contrast, more. Oklahoma General Statutes showing. In such a the evi- make Legislation § 699. determined the salaries summary judgment sup- in this record dence upon population, officials based such of the classification. the reasonableness ports city attorney, “police judge,” as the and trea experts’ includes affidavits evidence re- This See, e.g., surer. Oklahoma General Statutes following: garding 1908, § concerning salaries for those municipalities typically 1. Smaller have with population officials cities in excess layers management. Employees fewer 25,000. Statutes also concerned greater opportunity have a thus to deal contracts of cities with excess directly. management Larger with munic- 25,000. See, e.g., Oklahoma General Stat upper ipalities have more intricate man- 1908, §§ recently, utes 844-847. More structure, employees agement seldom upheld constitutionality of urban Employees with contact bosses. have applied renewal laws that municipalities larger municipalities greater have 100,000, populations in excess of intermediary group for an to act on need City, Isaacs behalf. their denied, cert. U.S. have Smaller fewer 63,19 (1967). 88 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 79 Classifica necessary engage effectively resources tion municipalities by population is one of bargaining, larger in collective whereas historically recognized those classifications likely more ones are have “critical necessary appropriate in the state of employees” from which to Oklahoma, mass find purposes legislation. speak in their behalf. individuals bar, say case we cannot municipalities have smaller 3. Smaller legislature’s population classification of creating special pressure budgets, op- 35,000 arbitrary or capricious. We deter- bargaining pose collective and avoid de- a municipality’s population mine that is close- higher wages. mands for ly object sought related to the to be obtained Act. Larger municipalities are more does not violate like- Okla- Const, 5, § departments homa art. ly personnel and-legal to have disposal nego- at to facilitate the staff their Const, B. Oklahoma art. 59 process requires a process, that a tiation Const, ¶ competence, of knowledge, level certain Regarding 19 Oklahoma 5, 59, options learn about issues and and time to art. must we determine whether 639; ¶ Speaker City v. 418 P.2d 8. The the Isaacs of House in Oklahoma's First Oklahoma 267, ¶33, 229; 437 P.2d 1966 OK City, Legislature State ex Murray, was William H. former Mayes County, Nesbitt v. District Court rel. President of the Oklahoma Constitutional Con- 7,¶ (overruled 440 P.2d 700 OK on Marriott, McReynolds, vention. E. A. and E. by grounds Belford, 1974 OK other Palmer v. Faulconer, Story Oklahoma: The its Past and 589); P.2d Exposition Corp. Tulsa & Fair v. Present, (1961); Murray, 2 W. Memoirs of Commissioners, County OK Board Murray History Governor and the True Okla- 9-23, 501; ¶¶ City 468 P.2d Hamilton v. Okla (1945). homa, §§ 173-236 ¶¶ 11-18, 14; City, 527 P.2d homa Independent Maule v. School District No. 9 of ¶ 1985 OK 714 P.2d 198. County, Tulsa power legislature class, popu- a ance of the between (municipalities with part of the body 35,000) fall separated for within the greater lation “public Accordingly, law.” we that known in violation of consti- different treatment rule will decide the home issue. provides: provision. tutional Section have uni- a nature shall a “Laws ¶ 22 Provisions of a charter State, and operation throughout form matters, merely municipal that relate to applicable, general law be made can where adopted and in accor approved which are no enacted.” We find no law shall be provision, super constitutional dance with grants the Act same such evidence. The all laws of conflicting sede the state. Fitts municipalities of the same privileges Allen, 275, ¶49, P. Const, class; Oklahoma it does not violate The of whether or not an act of test 5, § art. legislature impermissibly interferes with the municipality is resolved de charter of Const, 3(a) 18, § art. C. purely termining if act relates mat Const, 3(a) ¶ 18, § art. allows 20 Oklahoma if and local concern or ter self-governance charter cities autonomous large, involves matters of state doctrine. The issue State, home rule under people generally. Lackey v. affects its under unconstitutional art. 270, 20, 116 that the Act is P. 3(a), in the “Issues Raised is not included Cravens, City v. 23 In Midwest by the appel- Appeal” on filed with the City injunc- sought Midwest respective petitions error. in their lants against Employees tive relief Public Re- its decision that the Act trial court based The prevent Board lation Board to from exer- 5, §§ 46 on art. was unconstitutional jurisdiction City. cising City over the those appellants addressed and therefore salary negotiate portion had refused however, did, appellee observe issues. employment contract with the Midwest PERB, petition error of response its Department grounds City on the Police constitutionality of the under per- police it called for reclassification 18, §§ trial 1-3 was raised before the art. sonnel, City which the claimed was sole court, City Enid asserted in its and the City’s responsibility charter. The under the Act was unconstitutional response that Police, bargaining agent Fraternal Order the home art. because it violates under City Department, Police for the Midwest doctrine. If this Court fails address rule Employees charge the Public filed have to issue the trial court would deter- City, asserting against the Relation Board constitutionality of Act based on mine the engaged in unfair labor had when this cause the home rule doctrine Firefighters’ practices contrary to the remanded. Law. This Court Policemen’s Arbitration a vehi- had created held that the generally free This Court is firefighters police offi- cle which any applicable grant corrective relief grievances and terms cers could discuss their sup legal theory dispositive of case and employment with mu- and conditions of their ported by issue one of the record when the authorities, municipal authori- nicipal but the Torres, public law. State ties, doctrine, retained the home rule under questions of 578. “[W]here right the final on all to make decision public policy widespread public interest presented and discussed. See Mid- issues appellate court review are involved an ¶22, 30, at City, 1975 532 P.2d west theory presented in the trial cause on O.S.1971, 548.2, § Young, 24 This Court cited 1977 OK tribunal.” Barks had 228, 229, legislature de- citing Special Indemnity that 564 P.2d 14, 188 policy of this state to public Reynolds, P.2d 841. clared be Fund police officers of firefighters and case now before this accord the the context rights all the Court, any city, municipality public organ law town issue relates § 548.4 labor, cited political or sover and then Court ization of the state in right to bar- concerning specifically referred to capacity. The that eign bal- City, gain collectively. Midwest REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ¶ 6, Court 532 P.2d observed ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE Legislature had it that the determined was of PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS firefighters that state-wide concern THE BOARD AND AMERICAN FEDER- police privilege STATE, officers be accorded the of ATION OF AND COUNTY MU- communicating respective employ- with their NICIPAL EMPLOYEES. agreed

ers with collective voice. The Court Firefighters’ and held the and Policemen’s WINCHESTER, V.C.J., LAVENDER, Law, Court, by Arbitration as construed KAUGER, HARGRAVE, EDMONDSON, 18, § did not Art. 3 of our contravene Consti- JJ., concur. ¶¶ 35, 36, City, tution. Midwest C.J., WATT, OPALA, TAYLOR, at 834. JJ., COLBERT, dissent. City 25 This Court observed in Tulsa Bd., Employees v. Public Relations EDMONDSON, J., Concurring. 872, 875, that Midwest ¶ 1 previous The Constitution and our 18, § City declared Art. 3 was not offended opinions support analysis, the Court’s and I by statutory requirement collective separately provide write a more detailed bargaining because it was a matter state- why explanation opinion the Court’s is cor- wide, purely municipal, rather than concern. rect. Although City Enid would have this distinguish Court pres- these cases ¶ 2 The Oklahoma Constitution states that cause, note, ent we as we did Midwest may “general statute classified as a law” City, the Legislature has determined “special or a law.” When the promoting orderly and constructive collective alleged has created an special law in violation bargaining municipal employers between § of Art. 5 the Court has determined employees their policy. is matter of whether the classification was reasonable. If O.S.Supp.2005, 51-201, § 2004 Okla.Sess. law, law is it reasonable not a Laws, 62, § agree ch. 2. We and hold the constitutionally special allowed law. Article matter is one of state-wide concern and does § 46 prohibits special also laws. The Court 18, § not contravene Art. opinions § has used its defining a defining when a special pur- law for the

IV. CONCLUSION § pose of For purpose City’s 46.1 claim, required Article 18 ¶ 26 Under the evidence the record be- balance the interests affected the matter us, fore we determine that the popula- Act’s under consideration. I conclude that the bal- arbitrary tion is not capri- classification tips against ance Act rationally cious. It is related the stated does not violate 18 3. Article purpose of legislation. We further deter- mine that the grants privileges the same 1. Sections 46 and 59 of the Constitution to all municipalities of the same It class. manifests uniform to all class ¶ 3 The statute before us states that Accordingly, members. hold we applies municipalities with “a Oklahoma Municipal Employee Collective greater thirty-five (35,000) thousand Bargaining Act is constitutional under Okla. persons....”2 Is this statute an unconstitu- Const, §§46 art. and art. not, tional or local law? It is and our 3(a). provisions has Constitution three 5—Art. SUMMARY §§ JUDGMENT ORDER OF support and 59—which this conclu- DISTRICT COURT REVERSED. CASE sion. anomaly 51-202(12). There no O.S.Supp.2004 the Constitution. A 2. 11 proposed special prohibited by Legislature during made constitutional (Art. 32), process enactment while a prohibited by may law § 46 not enacted. Decisions, Constitution, Legis- the Statutes and states that the 4 Our Constitution ed.1941).4 (2nd law, Art. He notes that general possible, if should enact

lature § 46 was derived from a federal statute that opposed special to a law: Id., Territory. citing, applied to Oklahoma nature shall have general of Laws Cameron, Daily Leader v. Guthrie State, operation throughout the uniform was 41 P. 635. That same statute ex- can made and where plained by Supreme Court: the United States no shall be enacted. applicable, July act c. [Act That of § 59. It states in Article Art. 5 Okla. Const. 170], among things, provides 24 Stat. other Legislature create the that, where a law can be made authorizing special law activities a local or applicable, special law shall be enacted no are listed therein.3 - any of the territories of the United Origins of Article II. The legislatures States the territorial there- §§ 46 and 59. of; provides that and it also the territorial ¶5 legislatures pass or of this Court shall not local A former Chief Justice any enumerat- origin of Art. 5 46. R.L. cases therein

provisions are said to have been violated in different Donnelly, sense.” Walton v. 258, question. of the act passage in P. 370. The of Framers our this Constitution knew rule and knew Guthrie, v. City Nat. Bank Guthrie of “special that a law” in the federal statute did S.Ct. 43 L.Ed. U.S. in not have different definitions the same added). (citation (1899), emphasis and The they of section that statute when it to used July 30, Act of c. 24 Stat. § § 46 and create topics contains seven sections various n § 1 of prohibiting devoted to territo- ¶7 The in federal statute was created legislatures enacting special or rial local 1886,6 against prior and reflected reaction laws.5 1 of the Act contained Section legislative power rights creating abuses of enacted in both n language subsequently § privileges everyone or for less than in the and§ our Constitution. population. of to Relating municipalities, statutory explained of 1893 one author legisla- 6 An old rule construction that state phrase that “Where the same word or tures “have more states and more interfered in statute, parts relating exclusively in different of a it is used will matters to subdivisions of state, presumed to used in against express be the same sense desire —often throughout; meaning Eaton, and where of one these subdivisions.” Amasa M. clear, meaning Constitutions, instance will be at- Recent State 6 Harv. L.Rev. elsewhere, (1892). clearly to ap- Prohibiting tached unless it special local or pears from the whole popular statute that it was the was new and amended state of intention it in during use constitutions this era.7 July opening conducting any 5.The Act of c. 24 Stat. election or 170, (with added) emphasis designating states: place voting. mortgage prohibit pasjsage belonging act The sale CHAP. 818.—An or real estate disability. local or laws in the or Territories to minors others under States, indebtedness, protection United to limit game Territorial or fish. purposes. and for other licensing Chartering bridges. or or ferries toll Be Repre- fines, it enacted the Senate and House Remitting penalties, or forfeitures. sentatives United States America in Con- fees, Creating, increasing, decreasing per- or assembled, gress legislatures That the Terri- centage, or allowances of officers dur- tories of United States now or hereafter to be ing the term for which said officers are elect- organized pass shall not local or laws in appointed. or ed cases, any following of the enumerated that is to Changing of descent. say: association, Granting any corporation, or Granting divorces right, lay individual down railroad Changing places. the names of or tracks, amending existing or charters out, Laying opening, altering, working purpose. such highways. or roads association, Granting any corporation, or roads, streets, Vacating town-plats, alleys, and any special privilege, individual or exclusive public grounds. immunity, or franchise whatever. Locating changing county or seats. In all cases other where can Regulating county township affairs. applicable, made no law shall be enact- Regulating practice justice. in courts of any ed in Territories of the United Regulating jurisdiction jus- and duties of legislatures States the Territorial thereof. peace, police magistrates, tices constables. July 6. Act of c. Stat. Providing changes of venue in civil and 1471, repealed by at 48 U.S.C. ofAct codified Dec. criminal cases. 16(w), Pub.L. 98-213 97 Stat. cities, towns, Incorporating villages or or (West 2003), (Histori- 1463. 48 U.S.C.A. 1471 changing amending the charter of Statutory Notes). cal and town, city, village. punishment For the of crimes or misdemean- Binney, C. Charles Restrictions ors. Local Constitutions, Special Legislation in State For the assessment collection taxes (1894), (until Territorial, county, township, pur- the creation of the act 1886 federal or road poses. adequate imposed upon spe- no were restrictions territories, Summoning legislation impaneling grand petit ju- cial local but thirty-year rors. states admitted the Union in the Providing period prior management provisions pro- for the to 1894 contained of common hibiting, differing degrees, special schools. or local also, Tarr, Regulating money. laws). Understanding the rate interest on See G. Alan State

293 itself, bright- applied and not be as a special all and could prohibited 8 that States the issue of whether a special some and line rule decide discovered that local laws needed, general special. states then act or Id. at particular and some was were local laws en- provisions allow 22-23.10 constitutional created pre- if special and local laws actment of recognized general 10 a that law Courts legisla- given by the were enactment notice i.e., universal, necessarily capable “is not enact such laws. that it intended to

ture operating upon persons things all or all with- Q. Dealy, American State Growth James legislated in the for.” Id. at 22. state the End From 1776 to Constitutions: gen- “Are we to understand that a then 1972). (1915), 19H, (reprint 225-226 Year operates upon only eral law is one which provides this Constitution so, things? If persons all or all it is obvi- But with this procedure Art. 5 32.8 few, if, very general ous that our laws are upon special and local laws power to enact indeed, Obviously there of that class. people withdrew people, notice meaning of such cannot the words be subjects Legislative power from the certain ‘of here general [in a nature’ as used if local laws even notice special to enact and general comes constitution]. word provided.9 were genus genus, and relates to the whole local, special general, and are the What kind, to a or or in other words whole class during prohibited by constitutions laws a or order. Hence law which affects a phrase era? author stated One all things class of or less than “general constitutions was not law” in state general a law:” simple a exact definition. capable of upon Special Binney, Local and Restrictions Binney, upon Local C. Restrictions Charles Constitutions, Legislation in at 22 n. State Special Legislation in State Constitu- Hyde, Cal. quoting, Brooks v. (1894). tions, Typically, courts 21-22 would (1869). general designed law not for state that a was possess ap- designed law not universal persons, a law A need particular because “gener- special plication satisfy of a particular persons prohibited is a definition for Universality only Additionally, they application al law.” was law. at 22. would Id. part general, local general designed law not definition state that a laws, localities, designed importantly, but lack of uni- particular because a law versality not itself a particular prohibited local was localities is reason to a statute unconsti- law. at 22. But courts of this era also sufficient make Id. See, example, rel. Van recognized stating “what a tutional. State ex that a definition Parsons, sufficient, by Riper 40 N.J.L. Vroom general law is not” could not be v. Constitutions, (1998), Mayes County, (growing popular- 118-119 (same), ity limiting power grounds Palmer legislative to enact overruled on other v. discussed); Belford, laws in state constitutions local Dealy, Q. Con- Growth American State James End stitutions: From 1776 Year 10.Binney explained that several courts deter- 1972), (same). (1915), (reprint 224-228 various to be in nature on mined regulated they for a basis Const. 5 32: Okla. Art. municipal public opposed purely to a interest as Binney, C. Restrictions interest. Charles special or be considered No local shall Special Legislation in State Constitu- Local and intro- until notice of intended tions, (1894). resulting 30-31 He noted con- bill or bills shall first have been duction such general, attempted to when define fusion courts published for consecutive weeks in some four private special, public, Id. at 31-39. laws. weekly newspaper published or of circu- explained that the He that courts came realize law, county by thereof, affected such lation subject-matter of a law not nature stating in substance the contents is a con- the determinative factor whether proof publication with the verified of such filed stitutionally prohibited law. Id. 32-39. Secretary of State. (or general) wide a law involves state Whether Tyn- purely interest is used versus a interest by 9. See Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. Lamb er, (Art. addressing doc- the home rule courts when P. 5 32 does 1911 OK 114 ¶¶ 46); apply trine. See 30-35 not to Art. 5 State Dist. infra. (Sup.Ct.1878), great WL 8254 where the court well in the majority of instances. ‘general term law’ cities, “[t]he said does probably boroughs, Most vil- universality subject import opera- towns, counties, etc., can, lages, for the words, tion of such law.” other while it purpose government, grouped of their operates universally true that a law that in a classes, into a few of which members law,” “general is a a state law is not neces- greatly do not differ from in each other sarily special operates or local because it less characteristics, size or other distinctive so universally.11 that law reasonably a one class can for pre-1900 special-law In expected equally and local-law every work well for jurisprudence, legislature class; generally pos- a while, ill, member if it works power sessed to create law that discrimi- case, every is almost certain to do so in in nated some circumstances between the and deeper that some cause which lies particular in a state. general. than the mere that fact the law is prohibition immediate effect of the places necessarily The number of affected any prevent legislation being

is from by prevents, moreover, a law the enact- passed directly regal'd and in expressly ment of laws designed in the interest of particular one corporations, or more place only. one against If such a law be being the intention of Constitution that the interest of the other communities af- powers any corporation whatever should it, by they oppose fected passage, will purpose corporate have of its exis- grant and thus the special privi- unfair granted tence should be on same terms leges prevented. will be corporations, all legisla- similar but every State, however, In there cities is judge ture allowed to as both to what widely so others that differ from corporations exist between and differences themselves, they must be classed and a powers they cannot, possess. what shall It law a though class which theoretically however, corpora- discriminate between capable enlargement actually contains tions the same kind. All railroad com- members, practically but one two a panies powers; must have the same all law, legally or local even it be if cities where the same circumstances exist general. In prohibition such cases the have government; must the same form of great degree inoperative, to a and as re- law passed no can be regard single to a gards strictly municipal matters which city. a stop street ward in put thus city, special legislation concern the whole discrimination as as it beneficial far goes before, on as and with the same re- goes, complete but it a stop, is not nor is legislature sults. The cannot indeed order only danger discrimination to be paving particular of a street or other avoided. ways legislate directly parts for special Binney, upon Charles C. Restrictions Local city, but it can create and abolish Special Legislation in State Constitu- offices, particular direct how the clerks in tions, added). (1894), (emphasis any special city department ap- shall be legislature A power retained the to deter- pointed, many ways and in regulate the justified mine circumstances different or city just of a single prohibi- affairs as if no discriminatory treatment in applied laws that special legislation tion of existed. to some but not all cities a state. Binney,

In the of municipal corporations Special case Restrictions Local and also, rural government prohi- Legislation Constitutions, 14-15, local State special legislation added). bition fairly (emphasis works Sedgwick, universally); Cooley, See also T. A Treatise on the Rules 1 T. Constitutional Limita- Interpretation tions, Which Govern the (8th ed.1927), (citations and Construction 258-264 to various Law, Statutory (J. and Constitutional states, 534-536 including quote City Sapulpa of Pomeroy from v. 1980), photo, reprint 2d ed. & Land, 223 P. 35 A.L.R. 872 to, (citations of, explanations opinions stating operate need law not states, including various principle a discussion of the state). locality every operate that a need subjects any special in reference to the state placed other The construction Id., constitutions, agree 41 P. I enumerated.” at 638. as well state on similar courts current But applies what is Court’s construction the Territorial law? statute, by the framers were known federal Oil Chickasha Cotton of our Constitution. County In Lowden Oklahoma Ex ¶ 11, 114 Tyner, OK 68 Lamb Co. Board, cise Early of the issue consideration P. resting upon claims Article Court addressed Territory v. School appears §§ In context and 59. of an P. No. District protest, party unsuccessful tax asserted distinguished the Court between Chickasha purpose funding that levies for the certain performed sepa laws and local (county public public offices defender analysis for both. The Court defined rate officers) probation illegal were because provi law”12 and concluded that the “local violated 5 creating statutes the offices Article then a local law. The Court at issue was sion §§ and 59. statutes at issue spe provision was also a that the concluded applied having to counties a of law.13 cial 200,000 containing a or and of more ¶ 175,000 population and 14 The between “local” or more. Oklahoma difference County, containing City, after enact- “special” became minimized the Oklahoma was the locality only when the Court fit the statutes. ment of the Constitution that spe- local distinguished general laws from or ¶ party argued prohibited § 46 18 One a reason for this laws.14 One is cial passing special regulat- or law the of a local type “special of law.” “local law” is a School ing county. a Id. at On affairs of 450. 71, No. OK No. 85 v. School Dist. 1928 Dist. claim, addressing said: Court (“Special P. 186 laws are not all 276 is v. Our attention directed Roberts local, special.”). This all local laws are but 450, 448, Ledgenvood, 272 P. 134 Okl. §§ and concept is in Art. 5 32 also observed early quotations in which is from found §in is a A law” referred to 32 59. “local Walker, 25 Okl. 109 case Burks prohibited by § type “special law” but P. as “In for a follows: order law may pass constitutional muster that local law general and to a be in its nature have compliance with upon Legislature’s operation, necessary is uniform mind, background in I now this With operate upon every person and it shall opinions subject for to additional on turn every locality may A law be in state. showing that there no in- purpose is general have a or local consistency propositions. these designated a if it apply operates class equally upon subjects within the * * * III. OPINIONS 46 OKLAHOMA adopted. for it was But class Cameron, class, Daily operates upon a a Leader v. where statute 16 Guthrie ¶ 30, capricious must not be or P. Court said classification arbitrary per- be pre-§ lan- and must reasonable and statute’s about federal subject- peculiarity tain to some limitation amounts an abso- guage: “This legislation. legislature enacting calling matter As be- prohibition on lute Territory No. Oklahoma v. School District a local law as one "which in 12.We defined people (act special subject portion to a of the relates but was a 1901 OK 64 P. not, may property; and either apart the state or their a from the when it created school district subject, operation and neces- in its or immediate Territory creating general of the school law state, results, sary people of the or their effect districts). school Territory property general.” Oklahoma 22, 5,¶ P. No. School District See, Mayes County, e.g., v. Dist. Court State Janesville, quoting, Clark v. (local special OK 440 P.2d 700 (1859). We also said that Wis. at 136-179 laws), general distinguished from overruled operation law” "confined in its "local is Belford, grounds other in Palmer v. locality.” property persons specified Id. and 243, 527 P.2d 589, O'Brien, 7,¶ quoting, People v. 64 P. (1868). N.Y. 193 places requires included 19 A 46 claim an analysis tween the operation Legislature arbitrary of the and those whether the within the acted omitted, capricious part defining there must be some distinctive or manner as a which a different treat- whether an act law. characteristic is local Board, reasonably may County ment be founded that Lowden v. Excise supra. real practical example furnishes basis Lowden serves as an treating “special pur- discrimination.” ... law” for the Lowden, fication of founded formly throughout ing fore, tion. This basic have much wholly legislative populated cation selected. We know in common with congestion ban populations composed substantially Tax Review. others that the courts within violated —that the acts. ed the that we lation is before acts that these constitutional tention will not cause the statute to included, falls within the classification fixed as statute is enacted H: * but emphasis It is Under This follows: “The within the classification population agencies mil, ^[*] illusory; is affirm the less V object without Legislature in adopting we 100 P.2d at general type upon must suggested clearly capricious wholly the if counties. That congestion acts, or are would counties added). more reason local of to be here authorities this consideration it be able to the test such are faced with merit, rule is stated services judgment classification unrelated to need fact that at the time a be justified if principle operates that permanently attained the state. classification by population one time to time and must have being for the services of say counties of provided by the more (citations coming municipality only population. suggestion provisions classification of the closely that the classi- by than counties whether other counties present greater the classifi- regarded We, 59 C.J. to our at- objects arbitrary arbitrary excluded. by popu- sparsely omitted appears holding legisla- related thereby there- larger terms; of is not these guid- these com- need were here uni- ur- of federal courts to said: nation of whether the hibits permissibly of tion is reasonable. statute at issue er tion special, Court pose prohibited by adoption it tutional limitation so law general valid the state where a form the collection supra) ble, State (as contemplated by ¶ 15 law? laws of a and section 59 of article 5 debts or the of changing the method for the collection of ¶ 20 In Barrett v. Board Commissioners part Tulsa judgments 16 It is not 14 Section purpose operate universally judgments is self-evident. particular drawn §of 46 as identical to a S.L.1925) local or be contrary, no only special addressed an Art. operation throughout That the local, Constitution, prohibits County, special defining inhibitions, of classification upon general of 59. Whether the classifica- distinguished law is of state courts. is one special adopted gave judgments enforcement section 46 of article law shall be enacted.” 4-6 of effect that was not general. necessary, whether a debts and the and local law call without nature shall impermissibly necessitates a determi- uniform in now or an Legislature’s providing if article section and alike laws is neither before Section be made offense classification laws, particular “special in order invalid or things. On limit of judgments,” provides, the state and “providing is reasonable its may by enforcement Is it then a P.2d 442 the methods for rendered us claim. The have a throughout but wheth- arbitrary to consti- operation classifica- article provided (chapter passage 5), applica- law” for scope Court law is “that uni- pro- (as in Incidentally may noted eral courts. it and bears reasonable capricious, nor point attempts act legislation. at this that the neither object relation nor to authorize court purports the federal is not universal a law which 17 When adopt procedure in the col- a different must, adopted it operation is in its judgments lection of than that which would special legis- stigma order to avoid go Its otherwise obtain. directions by lation, adopted satisfy the test county prescribes officials. It a method 85, Kay No. In School District court. they judg- act to which shall enforce the 71, Kay No. County, v. School District provisions ments within embraced P. County, 135 Okla. where act, if the right duty the act. Their syllabus: 4 of the paragraph we said valid, legislative law be arises from the are all those that “Local or independent mandate direction classification. on a false or deficient rest law, By the federal court. terms they vice is that do embrace Their judgment merely a court federal they naturally class should all the power prerequisite to an exercise of the They preference and create embrace. attempted county to be conferred They inequality. apply per- establish the law officials. Thus here involved sons, things, places possessed of distinguished acts legislative from those qualities situations and ex- certain provide proce- which variations persons, from their effect other clude applicable dure different classes not dissimilar things, places which are (as distinguished courts from courts of respect.” in this class) throughout same the state Similarly paragraph said in was valid. See discussion Ledg al. v. syllabus in Roberts et Sapulpa P. v. Land. 101 Okla. al, 272 P. erwood et Okla. 35 A.L.R. 872. that: Tulsa Barrett Board Commissioners general for a law to be in its “In order ¶¶ 68, 14-19, County, at P.2d at 1939 OK 90 operation, and to uniform nature have added). 446-447, (emphasis necessary operate it shall is not ¶ A challenge § 21 raised. Id. at 46 was every person every locality in upon and ¶ matter in- 14. The Court noted that the may A the state. enforcing a volved a for methods statute apply or to a have a local ¶ prohibits judgment. Id. at 15. Section 46 designated operates equally class if it subject “Reg- special laws on the local subjects upon all the within the class for of, jurisdiction or ulating practice or adopted. it was But where a stat- which judicial changing the rules evidence' class, upon a operates ute classifica- providing changing ... proceedings or arbitrary capricious must not be tion debts, the collection of methods for pertain must be reasonable ” judgments.... enforcement of subject peculiarity in the matter some ¶ question 22 then said that the The Court calling legislation. for the As between challenged law presented whether the was persons places included within special Id. at general or an invalid law. was those operation of the law and omit- ¶ proceed? It said did this Court How ted, there must be some distinctive char- could make classifica- upon a different treat- acteristic capricious. arbitrary or tions that were not reasonably ment founded ¶ challenged at then said that the Id. 16. It practical furnishes a and real basis by satisfy explained test law had to discrimination.” County, Kay District No. Court School ¶ spe- act 19 Does the us constitute before County, 1928 Kay No. v. School District prescribed legislation the tests cial within ¶ 689,276 Barrett P. 186. at Superficially by foregoing decisions? ¶ No. opinion in School District special 23 Our prescribes a method for the statute a claim Kay supra, did not County, involve particular class of the enforcement of Id., § § 59. but Art. 5 namely by pursuant to Art. 5 those rendered fed- judgments, 298 ¶ 19, 689 at 135 Okla. 276 P. was evaluated the Court in the context of words, following. In §

186 and other in Bar- challenge.15 46 rett, the said that to Court determine if an IV. v. special

act was an invalid REYNOLDS PORTER purpose law for the §of 46 the Court must language follow its ¶26 Porter, Reynolds v. previous opinion explaining “special the Court stated that if a purpose § law” for the of Art. 5 59. special statute is a law the Court need not consider the law’s reasonableness. Id. at ¶ 24 In quoted Barrett the Court then ¶ 17, 760 P.2d at 822-823. The Court need Ledgerwood, al. v. Roberts et only § analysis determine for a whether § P. 448. Roberts is not a 46 controver- the statute subject § listed Roberts, § sy, involving one Art. 5 but at “targets for different treatment less than an ¶ following. Again in 4 and Barrett similarly entire class of situated § from a quoted controversy ¶ 17, things.” Id. at at empha- P.2d pursuant invalid determining an Thus, every § sis deleted. 46 claim involves § to Art. 5 46. Barrett then concluded that identifying a class. the law was invalid pur- law for ¶ ¶27 pose § § of both Art. 5 46 and 59. Id. at 0. In a involving circumstance “limita- tions,” This conclusion makes subject sense because the § Reynolds listed using Court was the same definition “spe- stated: § cial” for both 46 and 59. Barrett serves subject dealt with in the three- example as an using of the Court year restriction inquiry under here is the opinions pur- define law for the limitation of a civil action. In determining

pose §of 46. operates whether the statute on an entire class of similarly actionable claims that are ¶ Hale, 25 In Wilkinson OK 86 situated, identify we the class reference the Court determined that legislative scheme of limita- challenged legislation violated Art. 5 patterned tions English after the legal tra- “by arbitrary reason of the capricious dition that includes the gloss. common-law nature of the adopted.” classification therein Porter, Reynolds Id. at expressly 0. The Court did not con- deleted). (emphasis P.2d at violated, clude that although § was a 59 challenge Wilkinson, was made. Id. at 7. Reynolds 28 Does Legisla- mean that the Barrett, like the Court in discussed may classifica- ture not discriminate between different Legislature, tions made noting types that a of actions? Must all actions have the adopted “classification so must be ar- period? neither same limitations Of course not. bitrary capricious nor and must a rea- subject bear The class was not the “limitations” object sonable relation to the to be accom- but the classifications in found the law relat- ¶ plished.” 11, 10,184 Okla. ing § limitations. The Framers of P.2d 305. But the classification was unrea- knew the difference between tort and a sonable, and thus 46 was any violated. In contract and how different limitations were event, the reasonableness of the classification enacted Reynolds for them. In the Court Contrary dissent, to the statement in a this such Smith, Stephan classification.” State ex rel. v. principle long recognized Rambo, has been in quoting, Kansas. 747 P.2d at 73 P. at Supreme That recently explained State's Court Supreme pointed The Kansas out Larrabee, reasoning in Rambo v. 67 Kan. expressly in Rambo that court stated that a (1903), 73 P. 915 and stated that for an act to population classification on the basis of would be operation throughout have uniform the state reasonable and constitutional in different cir- every community need not affect or individual cumstances: "We do not mean to hold that a legislature alike possesses power since the purpose classification popu- for based individuals, make reasonable classifications of great lation many pur- would be invalid. aFor surroundings, or poses, conditions. State ex rel. Ste- such a classification would be most rea- Smith, phan natural, v. 242 Kan. 747 P.2d sonable and but for the classification (1987). The Rambo attempted Court concluded that the here it is not.” Id. Rambo is consis- legislation applied only county by popula- one jurisprudence tent with both Oklahoma on this tion and that "there analysis was no rational basis for issue and the herein. public con “negligent claims” as a ture was also concerned with the tort merely identified Legislature could population of cities with a in excess of class from tracts of limita- purpose for 25,000. subclasses Many examples §§ create Id. at 844-847. sum, In 760 P.2d at 823. Id. at tions. using popu Legislature be found of our the com- in the Court discussed Reynolds particular lation of cities for limitations, and mon-law classifications example, For statutes. Isaacs knew because the Framers proper this was City, 1966 P.2d Oklahoma for limitations. Sec- classifications these denied, 63, 19 cert. 389 U.S. 88 S.Ct. tion classification. 46 is about (1967), upheld L.Ed.2d this Court con- Legislature first 29 Oklahoma’s constitutionality of laws that urban renewal who knew the Constitution.16 tained members applied population to cities with a excess upon popula- for cities based Classifications 100,000. summary, population is a at time and were tion were common historically recognized classification Legisla- in the statutes of the first codified legislation, for the purpose law for cities upon population based ture. Classification opinion is thus consistent Court’s ex- incorporation organization was used in the common-law classifications Article by the pressly allowed Constitution Reynolds.18 cities “First Class” 18.17 There were of the 2,000 having population of or more. Gener- Beyond organiza- al Statutes RULE V. HOME DOCTRINE Legislature according population, tion by supple- 30 In the District Court and city offi- with the salaries of

was concerned appeal,19 City argues briefs on mental judge, attorney, police such as cials of the the Act violates Article 18 in that population in cities with a and treasurer However, 25,000. the Dis- Legisla- Constitution.20 Id. 839. The Oklahoma excess of attorney general Speaker an assistant that a example, the of the House in the cession of 16. For Murray, fol- was H. bill was need not be First William senate unconstitutional legislation. Constitutional President when the Court examines the former lowed Marriott, McReynoIds, Cordell, E. E. A. Convention. Jones v. Faulconer, official, official, Story Oklahoma: The its Past counsel a state No state Present, (1961); Murray, 2 W. Memoirs party possesses au- for a non-state counsel History Murray concession, Okla- and the True Governor thority estoppel, to create an homa, (1945). §§ 173-236 stipulation from an of law so as to subtract sovereign power. ex the State’s State attribute of Haskell, v. Town 17. Edmonds 82, 7,¶ JOA, Inc., State Ins. Fund rel. Edmonds, § was also 17. To. Art. 5 46 247 P. 534, 536-537, Counsel's 540-541. express au- Court stated that raised when this argument may at oral not be used statement pursuant thority 18 1 to cre- existed Article sovereign scope authority on the of the state's excess for cities with a ate a statute power. 1,000 pave streets and make assessments therefor, ques- stated "The act in and then that: granting appeal sum- is from an order 19. This be said to be than a reasonable tion cannot more ordinarily mary judgment and the briefs consid- proportion to of towns in and fair classification appellate appeal ered court on an grant privi- population, and of the same their summary judgment court are that the trial those Id., 247 P. leges towns of the same class.” to all summary judg- adjudicate the had to motion for at 17-18. Minerals, Inc., 1998 v. Santa ment. Purcell Fe parties dissenting opinion 45, 2, 188, 190, 18. states that the citing, Okla.Sup. A n. 961 P.2d argument challenged during agreed oral that the may supple- appellate An order Ct.R. 1.36. court regulates of counsel the affairs cities. What adjudication appeal from briefs for mental herring” by and this statement is a "red meant Posey, summary judgment. Harkrider a analysis either Article to this Court's 821, irrelevant 24 P.3d 833. OK n. legal a conclu- 5 Article 18. statement is or legal scope reach of the chal- that the sion lenged 3(a): Art. 18 20. Okla. Const. "affairs” The Court act includes of cities. by Approval Framing adoption by and a conclusion made coun- has said that of law charter — involving constitutionality Governor'—Effect—Record—Amendment of a statute and sel involving containing Any city population more than government a the structure function of may a frame charter binding two thousand inhabitants on this State ex rel. State is not Court. Inc., JOA, government, with and sub- own consistent 78 P.3d for its Fund v. 2003 OK Ins. State, by ject of this a con- to the Constitution and laws This Court has noted that 540-541. did not rule on this issue. This contexts the legal trict Court Court has said that a usually appeal address on Court does challenge statutorily to a authorized collec- unadjudicated by of law that were left issues bargaining agreement tive involving public judgment. a District Court Evers v. FSF employees presents publici juris issue.23 Associates, 2003 OK Overlake appropriate The Article 18 3 issue is However, P.3d if the Art. 18 3 judicial resolution this Court. presents publici juris claim issue and no 31 Article 18 3 of the Oklahoma Con- necessary adjudi- additional facts are for its provides by city stitution the method which a cation,21 possesses judicial the Court dis- may government, frame a charter for its appeal own cretion to determine on the issue of presented by parties’ and states that once the charter briefs is voted on by people Governor, District and this Court.22 In approved by various freeholders, causing composed may a board of of two the Court not do the same for deficiencies in ward, Torres, 12, ¶ qualified each who shall be electors the record. State v. 2004 OK city, by qualified to be elected of said electors proceeding granting equita P.3d aIn election, city, any general relief, is, of said at ordinary ble as this one role of the be, duty ninety days within whose it shall after appellate court is to define the law and the role election, prepare propose such charter of the trial court is to hear evidence and find city, signed duplicate for such which shall be 13, 4,¶ of Crowl, facts. Matter Estate by them, majority of such the members board or a copy infra., 737 P.2d 914. See note 28 returned, one of said charter to accompanying discussing material the nature of city, the chief executive officer of such and the proceeding. Summary judgment is not used Register county other to the of Deeds of the try disputed Bryan fact issues. Me Frazier city proposed which said shall be situated. Such Hosp. Authoiity, morial 281, 775 P.2d published charter shall then be in one or more today, response 289. In our case to the newspapers published and of circulation summary judgment of Enid's motion for city, twenty-one days, within said for at least if in stated that the facts material to the District issues, daily paper, or in three consecutive if in summary adjudication Court's were not in dis weekly paper, publication and the first shall be pute. Response p. Stipu of Dec. twenty days completion made within after the by parties binding lations of facts made are on charter; thirty days, and within and not courts, JOA, Inc., State ex rel. State Ins. Fund v. twenty days publication, earlier than after such 82, 6,¶ 536. No issue of qualified shall be submitted to the electors of adjudicated fact remains to be in this controver election, city said at a and if a sy, appellate and thus the state record majority qualified voting of such electors thereon relating to factual matter is no bar to the Court same, ratify shall it shall thereafter be sub- addressing the Article 18 3 issue. approval, mitted to the Governor for his and the approve Governor shall the same if it shall not be said, 22. The Court has in the exercise of its in conflict with tire Constitution and laws of this appellate jurisdiction, public-law "When issues Upon approval State. such it shall become the review, present may, this court resolve organic supersede any law of such exist- by application legal them theories that were ing charter and all amendments thereof and all McNeely, not tendered below.” Matter copy ordinances inconsistent with it. A charter, of such OK 734 P.2d 1296. Here the issue was officer, by certified the chief executive by parties tendered to the trial court but left by city, setting and authenticated tire seal of such unadjudicated. judi- A trial court’s exercise of forth the submission of such charter economy may cial not be used to thwart this shall, by electors and its ratification them after juris publici review a Court's issue that was Governor, approval of such charter tire parties tendered both District Court duplicate deposited, made in one in the appeal. McNeely, and this Court on Matter of State, other, Secretary office of the tire supra. being Register after recorded in the office of said Deeds, deposited shall be in tire archives of the See, Johnson, e.g., Stone v. city; judicial and thereafter all courts shall take (right bargaining of collective notice of said charter. The charter so ratified Firefighters' and Policemen's Arbitration therefor, by proposals be amended submit- concern); Law a is matter of statewide Associa by legislative authority city ted the of tire to the City tion Classroom Teachers Oklahoma v. of of (or qualified by petition electors thereof as here- 89, 118, Independent School Dist. No. 1975 OK election, provided) inafter at a 1171, 1175, (importance properly 540 P.2d of by majority qualified and ratified a of the electors system administrated school was vital to the wel thereon, voting approved by and the Governor as State); Independent fare of the v. DeLafleur approval herein for the of the charter. 11, 37, 1352, School Dist. No. 1986 OK 727 P.2d 1353, public-law (statewide disputes 21.In procedure the Court is free to concern for used to disregard pressed, bargaining representative). deficiencies in the theories but select

301 particular the exer- organic law of which center around the “becomefe] the charter any existing power a supercede[s] char- cise and strike balance to deter- city such and of ordi- say public amendments thereof can a ter and all mine whether we there is explaining In with it.” municipal inconsistent purely nances than a interest “wider” provision, has of this the Court the breadth by a rule interest. This we cannot do of analogous a city’s is held a charter thumb, balancing by interests but af- and, such, supercedes as constitution by the matter under consideration. fected regarding “merely munici- state laws of the It is this over-all consideration of factors Employ- Public pal City Tulsa v. affairs.” of way to a involved which the best offers 872, Bd., P.2d 1990 OK 845 ees Relations satisfactory explanation the otherwise of said that: 875. The Court perplexing course decision. oft ‘general line between matters “[T]he Merrill, Rule Cities Constitutional Home government’ ‘merely and its the state Version, 161 Oklahoma Okla.L.R. judicially accepted municipal affairs’ is the added). (1952) (emphasis in boundary the domain which the between in legislature supreme and that is possession statutory Is collective bar- independence.” may upon cities insist grievance gaining rights procedures Rule, at 159. The Home Constitutional municipal employees municipalities with a question whether is- is determinative 35,000 purely mu- population in excess a purely is munici- involves a matter that sue No, not, begin it is I nicipal matter?24 public pal, a wider whether there is Dr. by identifying some of the interests that interest. that the balance. Merrill states Court should City Employees v. Public Relations Tulsa Bd., City of Enid claims that the quoting, 1990 OK P.2d Merrill, City argues 3. The Rule Cities violates Article 18 Constitutional Home Version, selection, relating hiring, 159 matters 5 Okla.L.R. (1952). firing employees, as municipal officers and assigned well as the tasks them and Dr. merely municipal affair? Mer- What is a compensation purely local paid them are of defining a problem pure- rill explained one Generally, compensation paid to concern. ly municipal affair: municipal municipal officers is matter of applied speaking of test to be concern, municipal may ordinance Gray problem, spoke of solution of this Mr. contrary ex rel. trump a state statute. State power depending “whether Moore, 98, 818 City Trimble v. municipal, there purely or whether legisla- agree I local P.2d that the Gray, public interest.” ... Mr. wider public purse is an power tive the local over acuteness, focused atten- his characteristic sovereignty.25 important exercise local problem. true of the tion nature However, City not use interest,” Enid spoke public of “a wider He legal proposition Trimble to establish merely possible affectation terms no has universal the State city things beyond limits. people any aspect legally interest cognizable any single thing upon It which we is not Rather, employment relationship between concentrate our attention. are to employees. and its we to take in to account all the factors Williams, (same); City’s Spearman primary v. thrust Article 18 employer-em- (same). argument addresses the P.2d relationship, bargaining, ployee collective provided by employee grievance procedure See, Freeman, e.g., v. OK Jones Act. Because has burden 564, 569, grounds, Alex- on other overruled unconstitutionality, the Act's I have demonstrate Taylor, 51 P.3d ander v. City’s question. argument summarized Schardien, Ky. (quoting, Stiglitz See, e.g., Transport Local 514 Workers Union of (1931), (control over the 40 S.W.2d 315 Keating, 83 P.3d America government purse is one characteristic of (the unconstitutionality burden to show consent)). statute); Hughes upon party challenging Crawford, Drilling Co. v. explained Dr. pal purse Merrill the divi- 33 When has been burdened these state authority between matters of munici- sion of obligations.26 summary, created the mu- pal state concern he discussed labor nicipal employer-employee relationship has employment. relations and conditions of subject legislative been relating burdens employment.27 to conditions of Labor relations and the conditions of employment may industrial more Cravens, 34 In City Midwest There, significance. than local ele- 532 P.2d the Court said that it ments, competition such as between locali- was a matter of state wide concern that ties, locality effect conditions one permanent department members of a fire upon general economy, impact police department privilege be accorded the industrial disturbance and strife communicating respective with their em order, public bring which seem to ployers with a ability collective voice. This “wider interest” of the state into domi- to communicate with a collective voice is not nance this area. What few cases there public less a municipal interest for other support are in Oklahoma the claim of the employees. City grievance claims that a superiority. state to Thus a home rule procedure resulting from a collective bar incompetent has held peace- been to forbid gaining agreement will fetter its discretion in picketing, ful as an incident to a labor dismissing However, employees. City dispute, in the permit- face of state law explain type does not what employee ting such picketing. respect Even would desire to public dismiss from service upon municipal pub- conditions of labor that it could not pursuant also dismiss to an works, lic regulation state upheld has been agreement employees. with its Labor rela ground “regulation on the of the hours tionships organizations and labor have been function, of labor is a designed state subject of a recent constitutional amend promote peo- welfare of all the ment which demonstrates a state interest in ple state, which has not been and how organizations such function in this state. possibly delegated cannot be to a munici- See, e.g., Transport Local Workers Un pality.” ion Keating, America v. Merrill, Constitutional Home Rule Cities: ¶ 15, (discussing 83 P.3d 835 Okla. Const. Version, 5 Okla.L.Rev. 171- 1A). Art. 23 (1952). course, just Certain labor City relations are a matter of Of state of Enid significance. Tibbetts, may up See State v. not set employer-employee Okla. rela- (1922), Crim. 205 P. 776 tionship where a statute as an legislative absolute bar to state fixing intrusion, performed hours of labor Legislature merely work, providing compensation claim the existence of a wider state interest paid shall wage paid conform to the sap for like municipal power in a circumstance locality labor was held not to purely violate that is exclusively municipal Additionally, Constitution. municipal sphere However, of control. I conclude that employees subject have been history Workers’ legislative control over certain Compensation Act, in degrees, during aspects various municipal employer-employee much of history, this State’s and the munici- relationship, the historically recognized im- See, Anadarko, e.g., Payton City Taylor, sa v. 1976 OK CIV APP (discussion prior opinions P.2d 878 (released publication by order of the Court of involving municipal employees and whether em- Appeals). Civil That court concluded that wheth- ployee engaged governmental was in a function person er a encouraged is to be influenced corporate injured); City function when Ed- military serve in the cannot be classified as a Monday, mond v. 910 P.2d 980 issue, purely local or and the leave (workers’ compensation against city award sus- policy as set out state statutes ais statewide review). tained on granted by benefit to all recognize duty who to serve their State and Similarly, Appeals our Court of Civil has de- Country in the Armed Services and could not be required termined that the of Tulsa was Id., away by city. taken 555 P.2d at 888. compensate police salary officers for their while training. City absent for National Guard Tul- (Act), Supp.2004 seq., § pos- 11 O.S. 51-200 et employees portance of certain bargaining communicating which confines collective bene- for sessing a mechanism voice, employees whose history of the fits and the a collective thirty-five population exceeds thousand. certain as- of control over People’s exercise the Act I can accede a The court holds valid. organizations pects show of labor judgment today’s pro- neither to its nor to to coun- interest exists sufficient wider state dissent, Writing in I an nouncement. offer city’s over its desire for control terbalance analytical framework for over em- addendum purse and unfettered control fiscal analysis at hand and a critical pur- the issue relationships ployer-employee the, crept opinion. into are a errors the court pose relations this Act. Certain labor significance, the Act is of state matter category. not violate It does within Analysis § 46 I. The § 18 3 of the Constitution. Article only provision state constitutional The testing § A here is Art. 5 46. tendered VI. CONCLUSION § uniformity re- statute collides with the ¶36 appeal from a District This is quirements targets disparate when Injunction proceedings injunction.28 less than a class embraced treatment whole ex rel. equitable nature. Brown are prohibited of that sub- within one section’s Secondary Activ School Brown Oklahoma (1) jects. § man- It is not denied that Ass’n, 88, 11, 125 P.3d ities terms unifor- dates in absolute statewide Inc., 1225; Landfill, Sharp v. 251st Street mity “[rjegulating affairs of for acts injunc An 925 P.2d towns, counties, cities, wards, or dis- school unless it is appeal affirmed tion will be (2) ...” and under con- tricts Act here evidence, weight con clearly against the under of enact- sideration falls that rubric equi trary principles to law or established prohibition disparate §The ments.2 Inc., Landfill, ty. Sharp v. 251st Street absolute, unequivocal treatment injunction contrary to The P.2d at 549. unqualified. Employees of cities with equitable proceeding this Court law. In an thirty-five thousand population of less have judgment that should render preferential must not be accorded treatment by the court. Tulsa been rendered trial disparate to em- from that extended Co-op. Creamery Co. v. Tulsa Milk Products ployees cities with of over Ass’n, 950, 951. I OK 51 P.2d thirty-five thousand. reversing opinion concur in the Court’s thus entry summary judgment directing Opinion The II. Court’s judgment on remand. state- court and author of the 3 The J., ALA, with whom TAYLOR and OP argue population- in concurrence ment JJ.,

COLBERT, join, dissenting. repugnant are not based classifications they arbitrary capricious. not conformity Art. 5 if tested for 1 To be words, Const.,1 law that is local provision is that of 11 O.S. In other Okl. 51-202(12) They application Mu- offensive Supp.2004 in the Oklahoma pronouncement Employees Bargaining interpret the aberrational nicipal Collective not, except sought declaratory shall as otherwise relief. The 28. The also Constitution, injunctive declaratory pass relief and local or combination in this challenges party when is not unusual authorizing: relief special law constitutionality a statute. Telephone Bell Co. v. Oklahoma Southwestern liens; creation, extension, impairing of Com'n, Corp. 1118- towns, counties, cities, Regulating the affairs of declaratory judgment assumes A suit for a wards, or school districts. Macy controversy at issue. the nature of City School Oklahoma ¶ Dist. No. argu- appellants conceded at oral 2. Counsel for regulate does the affairs that the Act ment cities. Const., Art. 5 are: 1. The terms of Okl. declaring non-arbitrary pop- permissible all § Edmonds3 as under the court and the ulation-based classifications harmonious with author of the statement in concurrence still § 46. Because the statute construc- erroneously under general conclude the Act is a permissive4 tion Edmonds was rather by finding the intent of Act to be obligatory, “except as otherwise congruent with the ap- classification.7 Their § provided” language properly of 46 was in- proach is violative of the basic canon of con- voked.5 The statute here before us is not requires legislation struction that to be con- requires permissive. municipali- It certain light strued in purpose.8 of its identified by application ties to deal with their workers expressly legisla- The stated intent apply bargaining process. of collective To scrutiny protect by tion here under was to permissive language obligatory § 46’s bargaining process employ- collective exception expands acts to swallow the municipalities ees of all State rule. expressly Oklahoma. It is incongruent thus with the Act’s dichotomous division of munic- ¶ Obligatory prohibited 4 acts on sub- ipalities. This is so because the jects apply to some counties on a similarly classification does not allow all clearly population-based classification are employees municipalities situated of all § repugnant suggest 46. To otherwise single be embraced within a class. The perpetuates general the fiction that law with “fraught Act is with the vice of underinclu- application, restricted local such as that sweep siveness because its Act, embraces less passes found in this law that than an ... all-inclusive class.”9 constitutional muster are to receive identical legal permissible treatment.6 Both are un- ¶ Furthermore, 6 the court and the author § say § der so but not under 46. To both of the statement in recog- concurrence fail to analysis are to be treated alike confuses the § analyses nize 46 and Art. 18 are fitting required under 59 with that which is incompatible. If municipal bargain- workers’ under 46. The court and the author of ing rights interest, are a matter of state actually the statement in concurrence are regulation ought of this arena to be extended analysis applying legal to a municipalities. to all Conversely, any law problem they for which fashioned a false- disparate similarly affords treatment of ly-crafted dichotomy. situated individuals cannot be said to cover ¶ Assuming arguendo obligatory large” “matters at within the state.10 The population-based acts with classifications are Act at general issue is either a law with local general] 1926 OK 247 P. 15. identify [is ... we the class reference general legislative scheme of limitations McCallister, 4. See Kirk v. patterned English 97 Okla. Cr. legal after the tradition that (1953) (a permissive P.2d 325 law is one in gloss.") includes the common-law obligations apply which the benefits and of law only bring to those who elect to themselves with- Llewellyn, Theory Appel- 8. See Remarleson the law). in the terms of the late Decision and the Rules or Canons about Construed, Statutes are to Be 3 Vand. L.Rev. 395 at ¶¶9, 5. Id. 17-18. (1950) (explaining "parry" the "thrust” and construction). the canons of Cameron, Daily 6. See Guthrie Leader v. 1895 OK (statute relating 41 P. 635 823; Reynolds, supra, note See Wilkinson things as a class is a law whereas that Hale, v. 86 P.2d particular persons things which relates to of a ("local laws are all those that rest on a special); Territory class is v. School Dist. No. 83 false or deficient classification. Their vice is that (a County, 64 P. 241 they they do not embrace all the class that should distinguishes law relates to and one sec- naturally They preference embrace. create others); tion of a class from but see inequality.”) establish 85, Kay County School Dist. No. v. School Dist. (special No. 276 P. 186 State, Lackey though spe- are not all cial). See local all local 116 P. laws are (matters municipal aof or local concern that such matters do not "in- Porter, Reynolds fringe[ upon See large, ] matters of the state at ("In determining people generally.”) [a] whether the statute affects its or, identify Leg- the cities which the matters11 must affecting imposed Act is bar- general application, the islature the burden collective is of if it Act, terms, It does gaining. its own not unconstitutionally underinclusive. does municipali- similarly situated all regulate embrace the labor affairs of cities in the with a be said deal State, cannot operates upon only ties. rather a few and, concern general matter of statewide By operation Act’s limiting cities. breath, local have restricted in the same 35,- only those with more than application. inhabitants, Legislature the enacted a by 5, § prohibited law that is art. ¶ Act’s summary, In the dichotomous of the Oklahoma Constitution. by application population of cities division city employees bargaining collective to ¶ below, 5, I As also detailed art. read on a special law constitution- general not but Legislature § give as a to the to mandate subject. It the ally impermissible offends operation throughout to uniform the State uniformity, sym- § 46’s mandated norms general of a nature. As a statewide The metry and evenhanded treatment. concern, municipal employees non-uniform opinion the author of the state- court’s right across the state have an interest in the prohibition in concurrence confuse the ment bargaining. of collective As statewide con- analytical § § 59 framework 46 with the cern, bargaining for collective non-uniform warrant, per- the expand, without textual subject municipal employees general ais of a in the former section. missive clause found compliance test Act’s nature. To the with analyses § § which the 46 and Art. 18 3 The 59, identify municipal § we art. must and the author of statement court Legislature employees granted to whom today incompatible. concurrence offer Act, bargaining. right of The collective ¶ judg- terms, from the I hence dissent court’s by grant right own not its does ment, its from the pronouncement, from bargaining to all non- collective interested in concurrence. municipal employees throughout statement uniform State, employees operates rather TAYLOR, J., WATT, C.J., and whom with By only a handful of cities State. COLBERT, JJ., join, dissenting. OPALA operation only to limiting the Act’s those 35,000 inhabitants, ¶ with more than cities majority opinion the Okla- 1 The holds prevented operation uniform Legislature Municipal Bar- Employees Collective homa contrary nature (Act),1 this law of Act law of state- gaining 5, § uniformity mandate of art. upon legitimate statewide operates that wide concern 35,000 municipalities of the Oklahoma Constitution. with more class my opinion, Act is con- inhabitants. Constitution, 4 The art. Oklahoma Constitution, art. trary to the Oklahoma part: provides pertinent § §§46 59. I in dissent to address write not, Legislature except other- shall two in our requirements of these sections Constitution, pass in this wise the Act. and them to constitution authorizing: any local or below, 5, § I read 46 as 2 As art. detailed Legislature regulat- injunction against the counties, Regulating cit- the affairs some, all, cities. In ing the affairs of but towns, ies, wards, school districts.... specifies § as a my opinion, art. cities added.) (Emphasis requires legislation regulating group part original uniformly Included in the operate affair must “Limitations,” art. entitled throughout cities the state. To test constitution upon all Legislature specifically prohibits § art. we compliance with the Act’s not concern "matters argument that the Act does the court and show 11. Indeed large.” the state to dem- of the statement in concurrence author with a onstrate Laws, 35,000 collectively at 11 ch. codified not be forced to 2004 Okla. Sess. under should seq. O.S.Supp.2005, §§ et bargain employees 51-200 with is sufficient their relating passing local or laws from fairs of cities embrace all cities subject only is the twenty-eight meaningful reading areas. One the twen- state. This Any subject reading art. art. other allow ty-eight areas listed in 46 is would “regulating regulate the affairs ... cities.” This the affairs cities, but not all designed pre- rendering some cities provision constitutional provision meaningless. legislators interfering with local vent single management by passing compliance 7 To test the Act’s art. some localities but leave others unaf- out must we determine if operates the Act Cole, Bradford, fected the law. 1923 upon all cities in the state. more There are argument 217 P. 470. At oral before according than 150 cities Court, parties agreed challenged this recent Census appel- U.S. information in the regulates Act the affairs of cities and the late expressly record. limits majority opinion Act falls concludes the with- operation to municipalities with more than provision in art. 35,000 inhabitants, which, at present time, is cities.3 Clearly, eleven does the Act my relating In opinion, not embrace cities in singles the state. It subject twenty-eight in areas listed art. out a few cities which it imposes the operate throughout § must the state so as collective bargaining burden of with non-uni- is, special.2 to be local or That municipal employees, form leaving all other any statute the requires “regulating affairs of cities unaffected. operate upon throughout to cities” all “cities” state so as not to the be a law. It have 8 We said art. 46 is an abso- legislation requires regulating unequivocal state the af- lute and prohibition against 16) fees, subject regulating areas listed in Article 46 are: extending pow- the or the 1) creation, extension, aldermen, impairing justices the duties or ers and of of the liens; constables; peace, or 2) counties, cities, regulating the affairs 17) regulating management public the towns, wards, districts; or school schools, building repairing the or school 3) changing places; persons the or names of houses, raising money the such for 4) out, authorizing opening, laying the alter- purposes; ing, roads, streets, maintaining highways, or 18) interest; fixing the rate of alleys; or 19) affecting minors, the estates of or 5) relating bridges, incorporat- to ferries or or disability; under ing ferry bridge companies, except or for the fines, 20) forfeitures, remitting penalties and bridges crossing erection of streams which refunding moneys legally paid the into form state; boundaries between this other treasury; 21) taxation; exempting property from 6) roads, streets, vacating plats, alleys; or town 22) declaring any 7) person cemeteries, age; named relating graveyards, to or 23) State; grounds extending the time for the not owned the assessment or 8) taxes, authorizing legitimation adoption relieving any or collection or otherwise children; or per- assessor collector of taxes from due 9) seats; locating changing county or duties, of his formance official or his securities 10) cities, towns, incorporating villages, or or liability; charters; changing their 24) giving effect to informal or invalid wills or 11) opening conducting for the of elec- deeds; tions, fixing places changing or or of vot- 25) summoning impaneling grand petit or or ing; juries; 12) divorces; granting 26) actions; for limitation of civil or criminal 13) offices, creating prescribing powers or 27) incorporating for railroads or other works officers, counties, cities, towns, and duties of improvements; of internal districts; election or school 28) providing change for of venue in civil 14) succession; changing the law or of descent cases. criminal 15) of, regulating practice jurisdiction or changing judicial or the rules of evidence statutory "municipality” 3. The definition of in- courts, proceedings inquiry jus- or before the O.S.2001, § cludes cities towns. 1- sheriffs, commissioners, peace, tices of the ar- 102(5). bitrators, tribunals, include total providing or other debts, according changing of more than 600 cities and towns to methods for collection judgments prescrib- appellate or the the U.S. Census enforcement of information in the rec- ing estate; judicial the effect of of real sales ord. subjected subject zens across the state must be to legislation in the listed areas. Porter, 88, ¶21, interest, proce- same rates same Reynolds cognizant dure file a mechanics’ and materialmen’s I am periods legislative lien and same of time tax for that the exercise of principles except by specific Although assessments. the differences has limitations power no highly-populated sparsely-popu- constitu- and the in the state and federal declarations might present Legislature presumed to lated areas of state and that the tions classifying for carefully requirements reasonable basis localities have observed the enacting Way purposes, pre- some is not reasonable statutes. the constitution Ass’n, Inc., 70, ¶39, paid rates scribe different of interest Lake Grand Legislature population the citizens based differ- 1017. When the on procedures ma- obviously ignored unequivocal filing ent mechanics’ and very has case, against property liens of citi- in this terialmen’s prohibition, constitutional periods obedience zens on or different of constitutional based legal presumption against empty legislation. property for assessment of taxes rings and cannot save only population. today, citizens Until my opinion, legislation requiring based prohibited engage legislation. such in collective bar- handful cities today’s opinion, employees special legis- With could gaining with their 5, pass requiring adoptions filed contrary provisions of art. lation only in populated the more counties where § 46. are more services available determin- Legisla- prohibits 9 Article ing adoption approved. whether an should be city reaching council ture from down into laws, laws, judgment The criminal divorce regulating in cities their chambers a few and evidence, laws and the rules of enforcement through collective-bargaining a affairs labor laws, municipal well are all mat- as as labor 5, § is a restraint mandate. Article 46 that have ters statewide concern no rela- legislative very disparate kind of against tionship density county population of a in the regulation of cities meted out Act. municipality. or Court, writing I for the I would find Were ¶ Constitution, 5, 11 art. The Oklahoma 5, § art. 46 classifies into that § 59 reads: any groups and towns —and two —cities general a a nature shall have legislation attempting regulate to Laws of throughout State, towns, operation uniform must all affairs affect cities and/or general and a law can made Legislature where and until enacts unless special applicable, no law shall be enacted. classifying towns general law cities and/or organizational population based added.) (Emphasis 18, § l.4 under operational purposes art. § § 12 46 59 of art. 5 were Both separate majority opinion original The and the 10 Constitution of included concurring prohibits § § opinion view art. autho- 46 State of Oklahoma. While rizing legislation subject Legislature passing special listed relat- class laws view, areas, my subject requires § subject ing specific I do to areas. not. subjects § Legislature give to statewide uniform specified in art. 46 are areas state, operation general nature. At in- to all interest inhabitants across statehood, “special every city county meanings terms habitants town law,” general law” “law of a They subjects “general that are district. school gen- § nature” A “law of a citi- were established.5 general nature. Under art. Const., by general at Leg- ed or town with Okla. art. allows the 4. The may adopt a least charter 2000 inhabitants classify municipal corporations ac- islature O.S.2001, government. § 13-101. its own by general Leg- cording population law. My general legislative reveals no other research general law that a islature has corporations classifying municipal ac- scheme cording 1,000 community at least population. incorporate city, inhabitants as a O.S. 2-101, pursuant to the Okla. Williams, Enabling 5. R.L. Constitution Const., 3a, provid- Legislature art. has Annotated, the State subject state, related to a eral nature” matter of applied by and is not state; “gen- to the whole any particular thereof, common interest locality and has subject to a eral law” related matter of com- no prohibiting operation words mon to the whole particular locality thereof, interest state and em- it is a law hav- subject the whole or a ing braced whole class operation throughout uniform subject; state, “special related to the and a meaning law” within the of said constitu- particular persons things related to provision, of a tional although may prac- it Sutherland, tically class. J.G. Statutes and operation Statuto- have in every part of the Construction, (1891). ry 148-150 We should state. provisions give read these constitutional ¶ 15 In construing the prototype, Kansas effect to the intent of the framers and the Rambo, 73 P. explained State, people adopting them. Boswell v. adopted constitutional section was as an in- 74 P.2d 940. junction against the legisla- custom of state prototype 13 The art. inwas carving tures body out from citizenship Kansas, the Constitution art. individuals and classes of indi- general “All laws of a

which read: nature grant viduals to privileges them or immuni- a uniform operation throughout shall have ties which should have been accorded to all state; and in all cases where a those of the class to which the favored ones made, can no law shall be belonged. It prevent was to applica- limited enacted.”6 Before it was included in Okla- tion of laws of a nature. Id. at 918. Constitution, homa’s provision' was ¶ 16 Rambo held that whether a law is unique Larrabee, to Kansas. Rambo v. 67 general in judicial its nature is a question (1903). Kan. 73 P. legislative question. and not a The courts early jurisprudence Our relied were to determine the nature of the law deciding Kansas law in Legisla whether the identifying rights, benefits or immunities 5, § ture violated art. 59. Anderson v. Rit granted imposed the burdens it ¶¶ terbusch, 25-27, 1002; P. determining whether the state had a common Brown, State ex rel Smith v. subject in interest Discussing matter. a ¶¶ 7-8, 103 explaining P. 762. In the unifor provision similar in Constitution, the Ohio mity requirement for a general law of a Rambo observed that operation the uniform nature, court, the Anderson at quoted requirement general of a laws nature was McAllister, (1873): Noffzigger v. 12 Kan. 315 adopted remedy the evil of Legislature

... general Whenever a law of a nature is declaring certain acts to be crimes in certain passed for the whole localities but not in legislature others as the (1912)(former Justice Supreme Oklahoma concurring opinion, reports at V that Court). Many provisions original in the Okla § § both § 59 were contained in 1 of a prototypes homa Constitution had in other state applicable federal Territory, statute to Oklahoma Id., preface. contemporary po constitutions. A July Act of c. 24 Stat. 170. That litical historian observed that the framers of the statute, federal set out in footnote 5 of the con- Oklahoma great Constitution searched with assi curring opinion, did not contain several of the duity among the fundamental laws and statutes subject specified § areas 46 nor did it contain of all the other states for the latest inventions any language requiring opera- statewide uniform Beard, politics. known to American Charles A. general tion of laws of a nature similar to that in Oklahoma, Q., The 24, Pol. Sci. vol. Constitution of My research indicates that much of 46 (Mar.1909) 95-114, no. 1 at 95. He further copied was from Missouri and California and all among observed that these new devises was a copied of 59 Henry was from Kansas. See G. prohibition against special legislation; and local Snyder, Oklahoma, (1908). The Constitution of that Oklahoma Constitution publicity (art. check of borrowed from Arkansas people 6. The of Kansas have amended 32), this sec- Id. at long and set out a list of language tion several times. The "and in all particular subject areas that could not be dealt made, general cases where a (art. 5, 46). can be no legislation with in Id. at special law closing, shall be enacted” 101. In was deleted every he commented that im Assoc’n, portant Stephens Snyder clause of the Clinic Constitution had (1981). experience been tried out in the Kan. of one or more of the older commonwealths. Id. at 114. See, voters, minors, persons, hus- and insane might Cass v. sane decide. electors wife, (1853); He Dillon, parents v. The and children. McGill band 2 Ohio St. (1877). subject explained State, also that the of a statute St. 34 Ohio may general, if the limited be but statute is challenged legislation in Rambo 17 The scope, may a Id. in its it statute. transcript to county provide a required the instance, fees for at 151. For local officers murder or man- convicted of indigent an general subject every politi- a and extends to containing more any county slaughter in state, cal in the but statute subdivision 65,000 into the nature Inquiring inhabitants. particular prescribing fees for counties is procedure, relating criminal act subject. at 152. general law on a Id. subject matter of the that the Rambo found subject that a explained He further law on a designated persons all in the act interested may operate only upon general nature class, they matter where resided no peculiar class if class has characteristics person state; every poor, condemned require legislation. exclusive Id. anywhere state had inter- residing reviewed in a having est in the conviction court; higher no reason could be concepts relating to the Many of these why should not afford this shown uniformity out in the requirement were set county 10,000 residing right one in a early deciding case of Burks Walker 65,000. county well as inhabitants contrary Superior that the was not 5, § to art. 59: experience, to the Kansas 18 In addition experience with the other states had general several In a law to be in its order for general of a uniformity requirement for laws operation, nature to have uniform upon which framers Okla- nature necessary operate it is not it shall likely In his relied. homa’s Constitution every locality in the upon every person and Statutory Construc- Statutes and treatise general have a state. A law tion, chap- an entire devoted J.G. Sutherland apply designated local general requirements ter laws. operates equally upon class if Century, half of the second the Nineteenth subjects class it was for which within required constitutions statewide several state not a adopted. To determine whether or of a na- operation uniform special, will statute courts provision at 144. was intend- ture. Id. look to statute ascertain whether just equal laws and to require ed to uniformly operate upon all the it will possible, prevent, as far as enactments which parts of the state that pre- Id. intended to not such. It was were brought and circum- within relation privileges to granting of citizens vent the by it. rel. People ex stances granted which was not to of citizens class 587, 5 N.E. Hoffman, 116 Ill. [Grinnell] upon all same terms. Id. at the citizens the 793; Rep. 56 Am. Nichols 8 N.E. frequency and inconvenience of 151. The al., Minn. 800. 33 N.W. Walter et legislation public acts led local and operation is if it af- And uniform the uniformity require- adoption to the the persons fects in like situation. alike at 147. ment. Id. class, operates upon a But a statute where ¶ capricious must not legislation the classification be explained that 19 Sutherland per- and arbitrary and must be reasonable general is a of a nature because not subject mat- to law;7 general subject peculiarity the tain some public it is because legislation. As between calling ter for the common to the whole matter is of interest the persons places included within provisions the and embrace whole state and omitted, recog- operation of the and those whole state or a class. Sutherland distinctive characteris- subjects legislation may there must be some generic nized that instance, dealing upon tic a different treatment with which For divided. furnish reasonably founded and that classes people may be divided into such Sutherland, notice, private judicial except laws. is a classification 7. common-law A at 147. all laws the courts take applied to of which orderly employment and real basis for discrimination. mote and practical constructive Walter, supra. municipal between employers Nichols v. relations and employees, efficiency their to increase the added.) (Emphasis government throughout and local of state ¶ P. state, and to ensure the health bringing 21 Faced with the task of Okla- safety of the citizens of this state. The Territory Territory togeth- homa Indian poli- has determined that these single governmental entity, fram- er as purposes may cies and accom- best be constitution, undoubtedly, of our ers wanted by: plished legislation grant privi- prevent to would Granting to municipal employees the persons but others in leges some right organizing to associate with others in circumstances conditions. Article same choosing representatives pur- designed require opera- § was uniform pose bargaining; of collective of a of a law nature all the tion Requiring municipal employers to rec- persons throughout the state. interested ognize, negotiate bargain employ- with supra. Reynolds, organizations representing municipal ee majority opinion applies 22 The the two- employees agree- and to enter into written reasonable relation test prong basis/rational evidencing bargaining; ments the result of operation uniform of a law of conformity to test the Act for nature Encouraging through peace labor 5, § prong, 46. As to the art. first procedures establishment standards and majority opinion finds that evidence protect rights municipal of the showing larger the differences between cities employer, employee and the and smaller cities establishes reasonable citizens the state. legislative for the As basis classification. prong, opinion majority the second offers O.S.Supp.2004, 51-201. 35,000-population a bare conclusion that the express purposes Act re closely classification related the Act’s need encourage peace late to the labor objective any supporting analysis without prevent labor strikes in all reasoning. majority As to art. the state. under the benefit opinion opera- concludes the Act uniform has employees. non-uniform municipal throughout tion applies the state because it explanation, But without the Act embraces 35,000 to all eleven cities that have more only some members within the entire class of inhabitants. municipal employees. non-uniform The ma majority opinion correctly 23 The recog- jority opinion does not collec articulate how key legitimate legislative nizes to a bargaining tive some but not all classification is whether it all of embraces municipal employees reasonably state’s re However, given opinion class. fails to object purposes lated to the of the Act. identify object the class that is the actual analyze It legitimacy fails to of the classi legislation. An appropriate analysis of a municipal employees solely fication of based legislative per- classification examines the See, Tulsa, population. Elias v. of sons, things places that from benefit the ¶¶ 15-18, 520-521 Foster, legislation. Hudgins (explaining that when the act itself discloses ¶ 30, though 267 P. 649. Even the Act by population that the classification includes classifies cities population, based on the stat- some but excludes others in the same object purpose legislation ed and of the is to situation, similar it does not embrace of municipal employees granting benefit embraced; naturally the class that should be right collectively: the bargain them to it is a law rested on a or defi false Legislature The of the of preference State Okla- cient classification that creates policy homa declares public that it is of inequality; the and and the classification purpose Legisla- this state and the subterfuge designed give of the legislation to the law). pro- ture the enactment act to appearance of this of

3H layers ¶25 regard population or without to of inquiry should not be whether The personnel management. from small the stated large municipalities different With majority municipalities as set out purpose object legislation, and of the the Act question is whether the opinion. proper The municipal embrace all non-uniform should priv- granting prohibited Population of them. employees none has employees of a public works ileges to the subject absolutely no to the matter relation 36,000 granting the city population but object and the purpose or the stated Act. employ- the works privileges public to same ¶29 us The Act before is a 34,000 This population. ees of only to a number applies because it small question requires Court determine employees municipal non-uniform the state’s are distinctive characteristics whether there The and a small number cities. Act employees cities public works between be declared unconstitutional because should 35,000 populations more and with than attempts regulate it labor affairs employees cities less public works The only a few cities. Act should de- 35,000 populations. than popula- unconstitutional because the clared ¶26 are no distinct differences be There of cities is not tion-based classification rea- public cities employees tween works some express sonably purposes related to cities, employees in public and works other orderly promote Act “to and constructive legislation providing and different treatment municipal employment relations between em- solely employees based on works employees, increase ployers and their constitutionally This population is offensive. efficiency government of state and local Indep. in Maule said much same state, throughout and ensure County, Dist. No. 9 Tulsa Sch. safety of the citizens of this health when conclud “ simply promote The Act cannot state.” cou- [discrimination that between teachers ed relations, employment structive efficient local solely employed by school districts based safety government citizen health and (Em offends art. 5 46.” throughout only affects state because it added.) opinion tacitly phasis majority population- cities in eleven Oklahoma. regard. in this overrules Maulé based classification majority opinion 27 The declares that destroys accomplishes rather important con- Act addresses an “statewide peace and statewide labor citizen intended promote orderly cern” will construc- safety. health employment tive relations between employees. then employers and their And upholding Municipal 30 In majority opinion inexplicably turns Bargaining Act Employees and its Collective promotion of concern” and the “statewide operation upon cities eleven selective employment into matter constructive state, majority opinion eviscerates the only cities in our state. How can eleven relation two-prong reasonable basis/rational legitimately granted concern” be “statewide developed under art. classification test of employees only eleven cities? single-prong adopts a reasonableness liberally applies the reason- and then test bargaining for non-uniform Collective 5, § compliance with art. ableness test for municipal employees truly a “statewide 5, § Today’s opinion art. 59 ineffec- renders concern,” majority opinion recognizes, as the § 46 an ineffective envelopes into tive apply the Act should to all cities. Over very Today’s approves opinion granted years legislature has collec- the constitutional legislative mischief rights policemen, firemen bargaining tive prevent disparate instance, attempted framers In each those labor teachers.8 — state in re- people groups these treatment rights were conferred on general subjects in art. gard listed public employees a statewide basis O.S.2001, officers, state, police throughout firefighters in- subdivisions Political 51-101, districts, cities, employees, seq., et cluding §§ school towns school O.S.2001, 509.1, etseq. §§ bargaining included in the collective statutes operation disparate of a law of respectfully general nature. I dissent.

2006 OK CR 12 MYERS, Appellant

Karl Lee Oklahoma, Appellee.

STATE of D 2000-271.

No. Appeals

Court of Criminal Oklahoma.

April notes of ed, among regulate law to Williams, Oklahoma and The Constitution of practice justice. of Both of these courts Enabling Act: Annotated With References schools, Regulating management public of 5 46: 3. Okla. Const. Art. houses, building repairing or of school subjects pro- laws on certain Local money raising purposes; of for such hibited. not, interest; except Fixing as otherwise shall of rate Constitution, pass any minors, local in this or Affecting persons the estates of or un- authorizing: special law disability; der creation, extension, liens; impairing or of fines, forfeitures, Remitting penalties and counties, cities, towns, Regulating the affairs refunding moneys legally paid treasury; into the districts; wards, or school taxation; Exempting property from Changing places; or the names of Declaring any person age; named out, Authorizing laying opening, altering, Extending col- the time for the assessment or roads, streets, maintaining highways, or or alleys; taxes, relieving any or otherwise asses- lection performance taxes due sor or collector of Relating bridges, incorporating to ferries or or duties, liability; his official or his securities from ferry bridge companies, except for the erec- or Giving effect to or invalid wills or informal bridges crossing tion of streams which form deeds; state; boundaries between other petit impaneling grand ju- Summoning or or streets, roads, alleys; Vacating plats, town or ries; cemeteries, Relating graveyards, or actions; State; civil criminal For limitation of or grounds not owned incorporating or works of Authorizing adoption legitimation railroads other For or children; improvements; internal seats; Locating changing county Providing change or of venue in civil cities, towns, villages, Incorporating or or criminal cases. charters; changing their elections, conducting opening For Court has relied Justice Williams' This places voting; fixing changing the or or identifying the sources vari- annotations for divorces; Granting See, . ous sections of the Oklahoma Constitution. offices, Creating prescribing powers or Sommer, e.g., Sommer cities, towns, officers, counties, elec- duties of Root, Inc., 512, 514; Riley v. Brown and P.2d districts; tion or school An P.2d annota succession; Changing the law of descent or identifying purpose also has been cited for tion of, Regulating practice jurisdiction or or Trustees', provision. Execu for a constitutional judicial pro- changing the rules of evidence Hooton, Corp. v. & Securities Ins. tors’ courts, ceedings inquiry justices or before the However, the limited 157 P. commissioners, arbitrators, sheriffs, peace, usually insufficient as nature of Williams’ work is tribunals, providing changing or or other determining the full intent an exclusivesource debts, or the en- methods for collection people and the of the Constitutional Convention judgments prescribing the effect forcement of Imman thereafter ratified the Constitution. who estate; judicial sales of real Glass, Baptist uel Church fees, Regulating extending powers aldermen, justices peace, and duties constables;

Case Details

Case Name: City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Board

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Mar 14, 2006

Citation: 133 P.3d 281

Docket Number: 101,729

Court Abbreviation: Okla.