OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD, Grace Huddlin, in her official capacity as Chairman of the Oklahoma State Election Board; Drew Neville, in his official capacity as Member of the Oklahoma State Election Board, and Lee Slater, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board, Appellants, v. Andy COATS, Appellee.
No. 54756.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
April 21, 1980.
The rule against perpetuities springs from public policy considerations. These same considerations lead us to adopt this section as applied to preemptive rights included in these operating agreements. This section applies when a preemptive right is limited to the duration of the lease.6
In the agreement herein involved, it is evident the preemptive right remains viable only as long as the lease itself remains in effect. No perpetuity is created as there is no way the right could continue after termination of the lease. If the lease expires, neither party would have anything to convey under the right of preemption. Accordingly we hold the rule against perpetuities does not apply to preemptive rights created by the oil and gas operating agreements involved in this dispute.
IRWIN, V. C. J., and BARNES, SIMMS, HARGRAVE and OPALA, JJ., concur.
LAVENDER, C. J., and WILLIAMS and HODGES, JJ., dissent.
Turner, Turner & Green by Robert J. Turner, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
HODGES, Justice.
The correct interpretation of
The appellee, Andy Coats, is the District Attorney for the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Oklahoma. On December 28, 1979, the district attorney filed a petition for declaratory judgment, seeking a ruling on the applicability and validity of the statute, and asserting that it could not be applied to prevent his candidacy for the United States Senate. He contended that the statute was inapplicable because it added qualifications not imposed by
The following pertinent facts were stipulated by the litigants: 1) The district attorney was elected in 1978; his term of office commenced January 1, 1979, and will end January 1, 1983; 2) The district attorney intends to be a candidate for the United States Senate from the State of Oklahoma; 3) The district attorney meets all of the necessary constitutional qualifications; and 4) The term of the office presently held by the district attorney overlaps with the term of the senate office he seeks.
The trial court held that: 1) The qualifications to become a candidate for the United States Senate are delineated in
The issues on appeal are whether
I
Many states, as well as the Federal Government have enacted statutes which restrict the political activities of public employees. The purpose of these restrictions is not to arbitrarily restrain public servants from engaging in political activities. Rather, these prohibitions were designed to protect those in public service from unjust campaign solicitations, to free them from political pressure, and to promote efficiency and integrity in the discharge of official duties.3 The jurisdictions which have considered the problem, have held that the right of public employees to engage in political campaigns, and to become candidates for public election are subject to some degree of restriction.
The general rule is that when the constitution establishes specific eligibility requirements for a particular constitutional office, the constitutional criteria are exclusive. The legislature, except where expressly authorized to do so, has no authority
In Riley v. Cordell, 200 Okl. 390, 194 P.2d 857 (1948), a Supreme Court Justice attempted to run for two offices which had concurrent terms. He was a candidate for the United States Senate and re-election to the Supreme Court. An analogous statutory provision, 20 O.S. 1941 § 5, provided that no Justice of the Supreme Court could become a candidate for any office other than a judicial position during the term for which he was elected. The Court held that the provisions of
The appellants contend that the rule of law enunciated in the Riley case should apply with equal force and logic to the facts of the present case. It is argued that because of the realities of a modern political campaign the rationale should be applied not only to a public officer, but also to one who actively engages in a campaign for a second office. It is also argued by appellants that § 215.8 does not alter the qualifications of a candidate for the office of United States Senator, but that it is a proper exercise of control over a local state office. It is the contention of appellants that: the disability attaches not to the individual district attorney, but to the office; the Legislature did not alter the qualifications but, rather, properly exercised control over a local Oklahoma office; and that the impediment does not prevent a candidacy for another office if the post as district attorney is resigned before doing so.
The district attorney counters by citing Baskin v. State, 107 Okl. 272, 232 P. 388, 389, 390 (1925) in which this Court held that the language of the
Baskin is distinguishable because it applied to an appointment by the governor, rather than to a candidate filing for an elective office. The obvious purpose of the constitutional provision was to prevent an officeholder from obtaining governmental favors during a term in which he/she might be called upon to determine favored legisla-
“. . . The . . . provision of the Constitution was enacted to prevent the members of the legislative branch of the government from occupying a dual position, and to prohibit members of the Legislature from deriving directly or indirectly any pecuniary benefit of legislative enactments or appropriations made by them. The members of the Legislature are the sole judges subject to a veto of the Governor of the amount to be appropriated each year to carry into effect the executive and judicial departments. This act was to prevent and prohibit members of the Legislature, after making appropriations for other departments, and after the adjournment of the Legislature from accepting employment from that branch of the government, and receive a pecuniary benefit from the money they appropriated.
We agree that the statute in question lends itself to two differing constructions. However, where there are two possible interpretations, one of which would render the statute unconstitutional, the Court should adopt the construction which upholds the statute, unless the repugnancy to the constitution is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.6
Under the facts as presented, we find that the statute,
II
The trial court found that
There are two standard tests used to review legislative classification in cases involving the equal protection clause. The first is the basic and conventional standard for reviewing discrimination or differentiation of treatment between classes of individuals. It manifests restraint by the judiciary in relation to the discretionary act of the legislature, and invests legislation involving differentiated treatment with a presumption of constitutionality. This standard requires merely that distinctions drawn by a challenged statute bear some rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate state purpose. Under this rationale, if a classification does not permit one to exercise the privilege while refusing it to another of like qualifications, under similar conditions and circumstances, it is unobjectionable. The classification must be neither arbitrary nor capricious, and it must bear a rational relationship to the objective sought to be accomplished. A classification is constitutional if there is a reasonable classification and reasonable opportunity for uniform or equal incidence on the class created.7 The appellants’ position is that the statute is constitutional because: all district attorneys in like circumstances are treated equally; and the burden is on the appellee to show that it is essentially arbitrary and clearly unreasonable. The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of classifications
A more stringent test is applied, however, in cases involving suspect classifications which touch on fundamental interests. In these instances, the United States Supreme Court has adopted an attitude of active and critical analysis which subjects the classification to strict scrutiny. Under the strict standard applied in such cases, the state bears the burden of establishing, not only that it has a compelling interest which justifies the law, but that the distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to further its purpose.9
Apparently, courts addressing equal protection issues on facts similar to those in this case have generally held that the rational basis standard is applicable and that the test is whether the statute is reasonably necessary to a legitimate state interest.10
We find that the statute is not invidiously discriminatory under either the rational basis or strict scrutiny test. The statute preserves the efficiency, objectivity and integrity of the district attorneys and prevents any possible abuse to the office during the campaign to promote the officeholder‘s candidacy.11
REVERSED.
LAVENDER, C. J., IRWIN, V. C. J., WILLIAMS, J., REYNOLDS, S. J., and DOOLIN, HARGRAVE and OPALA, JJ., concur.
SIMMS, J., dissents.
BARNES, J., certified his disqualification. The Honorable LESTER A. REYNOLDS was appointed in his stead.
SIMMS, Justice, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The statute in question,
We have already passed on this question. In Riley v. Cordell, 200 Okl. 390, 194 P.2d 859 (1948), the first syllabus by the Court provides:
“The provisions of Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States prescribing the qualifications of United States Senators are exclusive, and 20 O.S. 1941, § 5, providing that ‘no justice of the Supreme Court shall become, during the term for which he may be elected or appointed, a candidate for any office other than a judicial position‘, does not prevent a justice of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma from becoming a candidate for the nomination for United States Senator.”
Other courts have reached the same result when presented with the question, see e. g., Stockton v. McFarland, 56 Ariz. 138, 106 P.2d 328 (1940); State v. Crane, 65 Wyo. 189, 197 P.2d 864 (1948); Wettengel v. Zimmerman, 249 Wis. 237, 24 N.W.2d 504 (1946).
The fact that we may have other statutes which also impose similar unconstitutional restrictions upon other officers of the state who choose to run for federal office, affords no support for upholding this statute.