This is an appeal from the trial court’s action in permanently enjoining the enforcement of House Enrolled Act No. 1673, which is Acts 1973, P. L. 160, * on the grounds that said Act violates Art. 4, §§22 and 23 of the Constitution of Indiana. This Court entertains jurisdiction pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, AP. 4(A) (8). We affirm.
The Act in issue рrovides for a method of selecting county commissioners in counties having a populatiоn of between 500,000 and 650,000 as determined by the last federal decennial census. The Act expires, by its оwn terms, on January 1, 1978 — two years prior to the next federal decennial census. Thus, the operаtion of the Act is restricted to such counties as had the requisite population according to the 1970 census. Lake County is the only Indiana county having the required population to qualify under the Aсt, and there is no possibility of any other county qualifying under the Act as the Act expires prior to thе 1980 decennial census. Therefore, the Act can only apply to the election of Lake County Commissioners in 1974 and 1976 and could never be made applicable to counties othеr than Lake County.
The trial court found that House Enrolled Act No. 1673 is not a general law which “could operate uniformly throughout the State as required by Article 4, Section 23 of. the Constitution of Indiana . . .” It, therefore, declared the Act null and void.
House Enrolled Act No. 1673 reads in pertinent part as follows:
“Be it enacted,by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
“SECTION 1. IC 1971, 17-1 is amended by adding a new chapter to be numbered 15.5 and to read as follows:
“Chapter 15.5. Organization, Terms of Office and Districts, Cоunty Commissionersin Counties of Five Hundred Thousand to Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Population; Commission on County Redistricting.
“Seс. 1. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all counties with a population of nоt fewer than five hundred thousand (500,000) nor more than six hundred fifty thousand (650,000), according to the last preceding fеderal decennial census.
“Sec. 2. In all counties included within the purview of this chapter, beginning with thе year 1974 and in all subsequent years, the county shall be governed by three (3) county commissioners elеcted from three (3) single-member districts. Each district shall contain substantially equal population. Fоr purposes of redistricting, population figures to be used shall be those of the 1970 federal dеcennial census. A commissioner shall be a qualified voter and a resident of the county and of the district from which he is elected for at least one (1) year prior to his election.
“SECTION 2. The рrovisions of this act shall expire on January 1,1978.
“SECTION 3. Whereas an emergency exists for the immediatе taking effect of this act, the same shall be in full force and effect on and after its passаge.”
A determination that the Act in question does not operate uniformly throughout the state renders it a special law and thus violative of our Constitution.
Dortch
v.
Lugar
(1971),
“[10.] Regulating county and township business;
“[11.] Regulating the election of county and township officеrs and their compensation ...”
Further, Section 23 provides that “where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general, and of uniform operation throughout thе State.”
The object of Section 23 was “not to confer any power on the legislature, but tо restrain the body in the exercise of an inherent power of sovereignty, which, in the absencе of such a restriction, it would possess.”
Gentile
v.
State
(1868),
The constitutional infirmity in the Act in question is not that it classifies on the basis of population, but is that no county other than Lake can ever qualify under its own provisions. It is clearly a spеcial law which cannot pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, the trial court was correсt in declaring it null and void.
The appellant contends that even if portions of the Act are tо be held unconstitutional, those portions are severable from the Act as a whole and, therefore, the remaining portions should be enforced. We do not agree. The provisions are so closely related and interdependent that the presumption arises that the legislаture intended
Judgment affirmed.
Note. — Reported in
Notes
As a point of information, House Enrolled Act No. 1673, Acts 1973, P.L. 160, was repealed effective, as of the 14th day of February, 1974, by Senate Enrolled Act No. 124 of the 1974 Session of the Indiana General Assembly.