# Appendix — Beauchamp v. City of Oklahoma > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0281%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 400 U.S. 917 ## Text -. + CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION =), - w ‘ APPENDIXA ae] 10. Oklahoma fan Sec. 27. % 6 Sa a € 2 Midge Dtedtos~fur purchase, -CONSTFUCHION Or repair of . public wulitic y. - a $- ees “Any incorporated. city or town in this State may, ‘by amuaority of the qualified property tix paying voters of such city or town, voling at an election to be held for that purpose, be ullowed to become indebted in a larger-- umount’ than + that specified. in . section twenty-six, for” the purpose ‘of-. purhiusing or constructing public utilities, or dor repiiring the same, to be owned exclusively by such city: Prov ided, that any: such’ city. or town incurr Ting any” such indebtedness requiring the assent of the voteré as . afores: id. shall’ have the power to. provide for. .and ‘before Or at the time og incurring such indebtedness. : shall provide for the collection of an annual tax 4n-~ fa) addition*to the other taxes ‘provided for by this Constitution, sufficient to -pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due, and also to constitute a- sinking: fund for the,payment of the principal thereof withive Twenty, -five years from the time Qf contracting the sume. A-1 -«. r) . £ ; a i: . | : : : - ro en PP L . ae v's = — OKLAHOMA.STATUTES : + 0.8 Seu 2 | . if ere Pizintiff 10 be real party itiinteres:: ) Midas ae: . Rom s Ms : a ee pa “Every, aetlon pmust be pr kei «32 th ame’ : - ‘ “Teal. pattv if intere | : Tess @iiicle Dut: this, cacti cha ae . 20049 75. - Bor ey Pee 7h > - - ee . . ie ; : : . Woes a. ~ One or ie bets ces Of deteddeeg for benefit of alk: : dope ; : : ; € » ae ~ “When the question is one ‘ NT Done eTes! of ‘Many persons. or when t We" Parts ate we ReTOUS and it} may be impracticable t. ring the neTore the court, ON€_OF-More tay Sie OF detaad For The henct Fm rcgh all ©: : t. ds L286) Bee 322s 4. Pleas in, abatement; Rasing of defase i MOE or ~ . answer, - a anies Pee Mae Vs : ses oie : Pe es ~~ “Where a defens@ in abat ymedt does -- an yn 1 \ "face of the:petition. it mav be ruse gether Sa emotion bd _ pe “ ie “in the answer. When ‘the dG fense iS 5 . . . ? ; ae . oe “ ; ‘ \* joined with. the UCieMudant s pects Joifscts venich « ‘ ¢ : 7 Pee 4 eS ee a one — a. = dl “appear on the face. ot ine pet “argie he TNs motion or demurrer. Whe L Tie Geos ob tuscd 4 . the ‘answer, ‘the, court may trv tke sscg ement Drier 1Q the: trial on the merits. When 2 2fosEy ) 4 p i A : pas . Ps ste Ys AE : . ) ? . a . ~ ° « : . Jane @. % ° é ' ? Po a - Ny . F; > ° t By ; je iar “st “1s : ‘ iS riigse 1 chy motion 41/ aT a — hae Ve } . th See eS 4IOTIC ti. ie” 1» eee SN a he GS CNng . be ° : os) lO ratSCitvin: the seqwer cee @io Preserve ifs right 1 er Se have the ruling ‘revi€Wed on inte.) 7 2. *> ae Pita Me tae ced Me eae here ‘ tes ates xy ‘ or ote . F te ay ) oA . ” ; 7 s” %s et Ate a \ 2 7 fe 7 y ee e as A ; i “we : PR beh re ts Duties ot Bond Com nassioner = Certificate Bond ineon- “ . ? ‘ i ° ° : _ testable after 30 dav. - ee rs . - % P ee . ei ' e > = i ; os ‘ “ x TE - 7 a — ° = ; ; Toa . : It- shagl . “be (Me. duty } oe See es PRR ee a} eS ee = such security, Wile eee SD UR. ertilicate of said ss . Bond Comniissioner. to be assis in gecordance With the ae ats ~. forms: of procedure ‘so drovig a & he inSontest: : ~ ay. court in the State of Quis Sma unless suit thereen ‘ 1j j % Tk a ng td . - ’ ¥ tg 7 ee shall be brought ih 2 court SE umsdiction of the | vs . : : a) A sj ae. eet , = freer a 5h et ee . - ral? vs HE CITY OF OKL AHOMA CLFY. \ Municipal Corporation, Ne te ndant. ; best Paget f : . APPENDIX € cae ) ) ) # a A i NO. CD-70-696 i ne 6, . > ° s ) ; ry é ) JOURNAL ENTRY SUSFAINING Ree MOTION IN ABATEMENT On this ESL ia of September, 1970, came an tor hearmg \ “the Motion in Abatement of the Defendant, The City oF. Oklahonya City, fhe p: irties being phesent by “theit attorneys.” =Intervenor, ‘and Rey. HH. ‘* Williani H. Brogden. for’ plaintift , _Semtner: David Me Harbour, for Municipal. Counselor and * Walter M. ‘Powell, Assistant @hunicipal Counselor, attorneys tor defendant: and the Court having. heard arguinents Of counsel. and being fully advised. entered judgment in aecordance with ‘terms of .the | sig minute: * - & “Ent. pees on lor heuring on motion in. abatement, Motion susti uined and ¢ cuse dismissed: notice of Intention to uppeal in open court. Defenitant gave oral notice ‘ot Antent. P.M. today. Parr” > Plaintitts give oral: to file motion to advanee uppeal in Supreme C ourt ane “Present same: there at 3:00. Il iS -THERERF ORE ORDE RE p):? ADJUDGED AND DIL- of RE LD. thi ye tudgment “aforesaid Minute. be entered im accordance witli the . (s) Jack R. Parr Judge of the District Court . 2 ag peerrr as eee Bees | eee Bs + y IN THE SUPREME COURT OF - THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA eee f es : me i : * Barbara i, Be, hichtmp CO Bane 2 J ; &) ies , Platntitt Sc. _\ ee: aes as : k ‘NO. 44475 _ 3 . , ws .. at? ) | City’ of Oklahoma City, a Municipal ) . NEporation: Jafhes HE “Notick, “Mayor of ) sere City of Oklahoma City: Patience ALat- & ‘ ling. Jonm M.- Smith. George N. Sturm, ? ei Nelson bf. Keller. Bill HL. Bisliop. Ben ) Franklin, “A. L. Dowell and Rowe Cook, 2 ee of the City Council | * ) : : . z ‘es a aa F . ~ Defendants r : ; . e wee « ry ‘ | of ~ SYLLABUS : . eae "ity fs nae Oklahoma does not have a well-defined period for A es bringing challenges to general obligation bond elections within the meaning of City of Phoenix‘ y Kolodziejski, Ur Se _.. 90S: Ct. 1990, 96 Le Fd. 2d 523. eT general obligatio® bond election held by the City zi of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on June 9, 1970: having not. . been challenged Prior to the date éf the decision inCitveof s+ Phocnix vy. Kolodzicjski — 2 Ua Si ccenienctincmnens el S, Ct 1990. 26 Li Ad. 2d'523. is not open to challenge on the -- basis of the ruling in such decision. Ae fo Ho wu’ ¢ 4 a ORIGINAL ACTION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION, ; WRIT DENIED i: A->. of 5 - ‘ & ‘ } ae ' - . AA fe eRe AT, ey -_- .— oO a ae _ 5 James E. Work * Oklahoma City? Oklahoma, \” i os Por Plaintitt, ‘ : . 0 P ° ~ Roy H. Semtner “> oe) og Municipal Counselor’ James G. Hamill oth Assistaitt Municipal Colnselor’ en: , Walter MJ Powell a or Assistant Municipal Counselor | ‘ Roland Pague ME oe: , ? Assistant Municipal Counselor +. . Oklyhoma City-Oklahoma, _- , For Defendants. no. “Bs - eee ée Mi . : ARWIN, €, 15) 0 2) Soa ea (This it an original action filed ia this Court on September _ 17, 1970. in whick’ the plaintiff contends that the portion of Art: J0.-§27. of the Oklahoma Constitution, requiring persons voting atthe election therein. fprovided, to . be “quatitied | . property! tax paying voters." violates the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion, ¢ AS oi, ok a . ean, 9 We accept original jurisdiction of the action because vf the “public importance ,of the -matter and the need for gin early determination of the involved qttestion. © There appears to be no dispute us to the facts. On June 9, 1970, the ‘City, pursuant to-Art. 10, $27, of the Oklahoma . constitution, held: a special Clection in/which eleven proposi- tions were submitted to the registgred qualified -tax paying voters of the City as to whether the City) should) incur ‘indebtidness_ by ‘issuing its general obligation bonds intmounts _ totaling more than $69,000,000.00. to provide finds for the several purposes of purchasing and/or constructing public Improverrents consisting of sanitary sewers, storm sewers. Water Works systems. solid-wiste disposal system, municipal mainten-. ance and service facility, fire stations and equipment, trattic: control, airports, park and recreational A-6 / facilities, municipal : = O i? ae te aw — ra libraries “and petblic transportation system. Included in the lection was the further matter of levying and collecting an annual tax upon all taxable property in the City to pay the. “interest and principal of the bonds us they became serially’ due, The propositions received ‘the required majority vote fuvor thereet, Plaintiff Was not allowed to vote in this Bectiot ‘because sie was not a property taxpayer, The City then commenced proceedings to sell 1 more than $19,000,000.00 of said’ bonds. The Attorney General of Oklahoma, as. ex- -offitio, Bond ‘Commissioner of the State “a Ok|: thom, approved the bonds on August 1.8. 1970. Tithe 62 S. 1901, S$ 13, provides that bonds of a municipatity shall 2 incontestable Unless suit Js brought pence within thirty days from the date of sueh approval, Plaintiff then filed this action against the City and the members. of the City Council on September 17, 1970, -for herself and all-others in her class. She alleges the facts abdve narrated. The parties stipulate that plaintiff is not a real or ~ personal property taxpayer but i& an otherwise qualified and registered voter in the City of Oklahoma City. Plaintiff alleges” that only qualified property tax. paying Voters Were permitted to vote at the election, and: thereby. stie w: rs excluded from voting. She prays that the defend Wits be nar wie from issuing - athe bonds, on the grodnd that Art. 10. 7. violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth re a Our Constitution, Art. 10, $26. provides that no eity shall become indebted in’an amount exceeding, in one year. the IMmcome and: reversre provided. lor such year, without the consent of ‘three-Hilthis of the voters thereof and even then the. indebtedness could not exceed, including existing indebtedness, ot the valuatfon of the taxable property therein. 2 . ‘Art. 10. $27: of the Constitution allows a city. by a , Majority of the "qualified property tax paying voters’ t become indebted "in a larger amount than that specified in section twenty-six" for the purpose of purchasing or construdt- “ing publié Utilities.-or-for repairing the same. and provides at the city shill collect an annual tax sufficient to pay fhe ‘indebtedness. Our construction of Art.. 1O. $272 supra.’ was x ; a A-7 é f : 4 i ® e . . * . ‘ . = CA Wagaat recently re- ‘considered tin Settle vy. City of Muskogee, OAL. 462 P.2d 642, promuigated in ike 1909. In Settle. we also discussed) our undertinding of the principles announced it T Kramer v. Union Free School, 395 US. 621, 89S. Ct. 1886, 23 L, Pd. 24-583 (1909), and Cipriano y. Gityv.of Houma, 395-U.S, 701. 89 S. Ct. 1897, 23 L.kd. 2d 647 (]969). We held. for the ‘reasans stated in the Settle case. that $27 of Art. 10. did not conflict: with these principles and that $27 didnot wolate the Equal Protection-Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court “HER for many wears been committed: to the rule in the ‘Settle cause that only taXpayers: oyning real or personal property, us provided in ‘Art. 16,327, may -Vvote for incurring i naineesiaete for public improvements enumerated therein. Henry» Oklahoma City. 188 Ok. 308. 108 P. 2d 148. mn Alter our decision in the Settle case. supra, and subsequent to, the election in the instant case June 9, 1970), the United States Supreme Court (June 23, 1970) decided City of Phoenix Kolodzicjski, ~ = | i 90 S. Ct. 1990, -26.L. Ed. .2d $33: In Phoenix.the Supreme Court of the United States held’ that the Arizona Cénsitution and statutes, as spelicd lo” exclude nonproperty, owners “from voting in. elections to approve Issuance oT general obligation bonds, Perey the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. However. the Supreme Court recognizey that it) would be unjustifiably disruptive to‘give its decision full retroactive effect and placed a. limitation thereon. The language limiting the tetroactive vlteet of the decision is set forth ip a dismembered form = for clarificatron: f i “We therefore adopt a rule similar to that . employed. with respect to the applicability. of the Cipriano decision: Our decision in this case will apply only to authorizations for general obligation bonds Which are not final as of June 23, 1970..the diite of this @eeision. - . 3 “4 (a) “In the case of Stat& authorizing chil lenge to bond elections within: a detinite’ period. all elections held prior lo the date of \-S | ~ * ~this decision” will not be diffected by this decision unless: a challenge gn the grounds” sustained. by this decision has been or is brought within the period “specified by stute law: : Ee oo —_ ' » (b) . “bus the case ‘of States. including ‘uwppar- ently \Arizona,-that do not havea well-defined period for bringing challenges to bond: clee-, tions, all elections. held’ prior to the date of _ this decision that have not yet been challeng- ed on the grounds sustained ‘in. this decision will’ not be open to chailerige on the basis of ‘our ruling in this cage:* nad Ah ae." *, ie s ‘ The parties have submitted this. cuse to ous Court for determination of a single issue and that ist Does Oklahoma have a well-defined period for bringing challenges to general bond elections within the incaning of City of Phoenix? Plaintiff? contends: that Oklahoma has a definite period for challenging general bond elections: «that paragraph (a) is. appheable; and that this Court shoald enjoin the issuapee of the bonds. ign MT : . Defendants contend that Okluhoma does not have’: Well-defined period lor bringing challenges: to general bond . “elections: that Paragraph (b) is applicable: and that this Court should not.enjoin the issuance of the bonds. The ekection’on the bonds under consideration was held. on June®, 1970, and the decision in Phoenix was rendered on June 23. 1970. The. bonds in question were approved by the Bond Commissioner of Oklahoma on August LS, 1970, and thereafter and within the time allowed by 62.0. S. 1961, $13.4 challenge lo the approval of the bonds Was brought on the grounds”, sustained in-Phoenix. The only statutory chactinent that is pertinent.to the Issue Involved-is 62.O. S.-1961. S13, which provides: "Tt shall be the duty of the Bond Commissioner {0 ‘prepare uniform forms and ‘preseribe a method of A-9- | tJ ON “ ‘procedgre under. the laws of the Stat@ in all cases whore Jit is desired to issue public securities or bonds, in any county, township, nuinicipi lity or politie: ihor _ other sub-divisions thereof of the State of Oklahoma: - and it shall be the fiirther duty ol” said Bond fCopmissioner to examine ‘into ‘and pass uperr any security as issued, and such seetrity, when deelared by the certificate-of Said Bond Conmnissioner to be issued dy accordance with the forms of procedure so provided shall be incontestable in any court in the, # State of Oklahoma .unless suit) th&con shall be brought in a court’ having jurisdiction of the sanie . within thirty days from the date of the ‘approval thereot by the Bond Commissioner.’ ° YAsoa practical niatter the Bend Cominissioner does not. perform his duties under the aboye enactment until a general bond election has been held and the proceedings leading to the, . sale of the bonds. have been completed. In many instances, the Bond Commissionger-is requested to consider the legality of only a part or a series of the bonds that have been approved at a bond election. Thereafteft, he may be requested to, consider another part or another series of the bonds that’a municipality desires to sell that had beea approved at the previous election. As an example: General obligation bonds are approved" at an election held in February, 1969, On June 1, 1969, the Bond Commissioner approves the issuancesof a certain-series of the bends approved at the February 1969; election. Thirty days after the Bond (Commissioner has acted, his determination is no _ longer open to challenge. Thereafter, the Bond Commissio1 er approves another series.of bonds which were voted upon «hd approved at the February, 1969, bond éleetion: Thirty, ditys after the Bond Commissioner has acted, his determination is no longer open to challenge. am . The Bond Commissioner:is not required to perform his duties or act under $13, supra, within a specified time, but thirty days after he has acted his determination is no longer open to challenge. It is to be noted that the above enactment is directed to the Bond Commissioner's determination as to the legality of the bonds to be issued, but. is silent concerning a “A-10 » : mag ’ J! challenge to a general bond election or the pefiod of time within which a challenge to, the election may be brought. This Court has recognized that: arreactioi “may be brought to: ~ challenge the validity, of a’ bond electibn prior to the Bond Commissioner's official. actions pursuant to §13. supra, not- withstanding the. fact there is no specific statutory authority authorizing such action. . > In Munger vy. Tawn Of Watonga,106 Okl. 76,-233 P. 24 l. an action was filed to enjoin the issuance and selling of certain municipal bonds. At issue was the conduct of the election. The trial: court sustained a demurrer: to Plaintiff's petition and on appeal this. Court reversed with directions to ‘vacate the judgment and overrule: the dumurrer to the petition. Although’ $13, supra, Was not discussed, Munger is. authority. for challenging the conduct of an Clection prior to the action by the Bond Commissioner. "os IrGilliland City of Clinton, 131 Okl. 186, 268 P. 254, an action was filed ir the trial court to enjoin the sale of bonds on the grounds of illegal voting. A tempa@rary injunction was issued and a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction was filed. On hearing, the motion, the temporary injunction was dissolved and an appeal was perfected. Weaaffirmed the judgment of the trial’ court on. the ground that we did not think, under the record. that the election was void. Although §13, supra, was not discussed, this case*is authority for challenging the conduct of an election. prior to the action by the Bond Commi§sioner, . In Whiter, Pottawatomie County, 199 OK. 103/184 P. 2d. 440 (1947), an action was filed against the Board of County CommissiOners, the County Treasurer and the Attorney Genera! to enjoin the issuance of bonds prior to the time the Attorney General, acting as the Bond Commissioner had performed his ~ duties pursuant to $13, supra. In that case we‘held: "The question whether the election at) which bonds were voted is legal or illegal is a matter properly to be considered by the Coinmissioner in-the performance of his duty: fe a oe "Subsequent to. the holding of «an election at . A-11 ; Pens ael. at Winch bonds are voted and ‘previous to the per- formince by the Bond Commisstoner of tha duties prescribed by law with reference thereto the citizen taxpayer is without capacity or authority to sue in. ; = 1% the courts to have such bongs declared illegal because of the illegality of such election." | “Although the Pottawatomie County case’ and $13, supra, Were not considered or discussed in Tettleton V. eity, of Duncan, 200 OKI. 631, 198 P: 2d. 740 (1948), the decision in Tettleton, modified by. imphcation, our holding -in ‘the Pottawatomie County case that) laxpayer was’ without authority to sue previous to the performance of the Bond Commissioner. In Tettleton, an action was brought ‘to restrain. the issuairce:and Sale of certain bonds prior to the certification of the Bond - Commissioner. The election was challenged on the grounds that the call and the ballots were insufficient to advise the voters of the question presented and that a sufficient number of illegal voters were Spermitted to’ vote to change ‘the result of the - ,»lection, The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's ™ +: evidence. and we “affirmed on appeal. Tettleton clearly estab- -lishes that an action may be maintained to challenge the legality of a bond election prior to the performance of, thes Bond Commissioner. Bai tiie ere The Pottawutomie County case was cited with approval in_ Rieck v. Town of Longdule, Okl., 389 P. 2d 482 (1964 ). In -Rieck, the Bond Commissioner was not joined “as a party - defendant and this Court wg aS ' } "Stibsequent to the holdimdor an election at * which bonds are voted and previous to the per- formance by’ the Bond Commissioner of the duties™ — $ preseribed by law with reference thereto, titegitizen taxpayers’ suit ine the courts: to ‘have such bonds declired illegal because of the illegality: of- such © election may be abated. upon préper motion.” -Although Rieck cited with approval the Pottawatomic County Case, it did not hold that a taxpayer was without . A-13 4 - , e * -_—— —_ capacity or autherity to sue to: have bonds declared illegal because of the illegality of the election, prior to the action by the Bond Commissioner, us held in the Pottawatomie County caset but held that a taxpdyer's suit in the courts to have bonds declared illegal because of the illegality of the election may be abated upon proper motion, where the suit is filed previous to the action of the Bond Commissioner, vA Our Court.has never Had the occasion to consider a case Wherein an actign was pending in a trial court at the tinie the Bond Commissioner performed his duties under $13, and one - reason for this is: When a municipality submits a request to the Bond Commissioner to determine the legality of a general bond issue, the munieipality, through its .proper officials.” certifies that no litigation is pending questioning or affecting the legality . of the bond issue. i ie Nay as - The only issue \presented in this original action is whether Oklahoma has a well-defined period for bringing challenges to general bond elections within the meaning of City of Phoenix, supra. | : Since out decisional .law recognizes that an action may be ‘Maintained prior to the time the Bond Commissioner performs his duties under $13. supra; and there is‘no statute prescribing the time in which ‘the Bond Commissioner is\required ‘tox: perform ‘his duties. tinder $13. supra: we can only conclude and hold that Oklahoma does not have a well-defined period for bringing challenges to general obligation bond elections within the meaning\of City of Phoenix, supra. » we further hold that.the general obligation bond. election held by the City of Oklahoma *City,°Oklahoma, on June 9, 1970, haying not been challenged prior to the date of the decision in City of Phoenix, supra, is not opch to challenge on the basis of the ruling in City of Phoenix, supra... | a Plaintiff's prayer for an injunction is denied: CONCUR: BERRY; V.C.J., and BLACKBIRD. JACKSON “and LAVENDER, JJ. CONCUR SPECIALLY: DAVISON and WILLIAMS, JJ. DISSENT: HODGES and McINER- NEY. JJ. a eee : _ A-13 = I- OAla., 462 P. 2d G42. 646 (1969 Ne 1940, at = hate r Cognex -IN TH StL PREME i ~. ~- OURT protection of the law doe CS ROU POGUE AR - does: require that classificati nL De Dat “ holly arbitrary. Walrers i. City OXSe S.0Ct. 505. 98 L, Ed. 66 Since 1 terpretation us rendering - ineltgi tronded debts ‘by municipalities, thox not pay taxes on | ‘ - | . e 2 re > 2 u t DINO . LOS i fonera eee X Ase k ' » ‘ are é i ) i}. etc ) “2 x ; §TONS la \ - ' aN TMOL fy iN? = }. — 2 are! ; w. MW i ‘ . ~et - “a = ~ .. 4 ;O ~ > rere a3 Ma] . ~ re) ul e @¢ ’ INTIS . - a ’ * ~ YN led ~ s ~ s . supplied) on ry -Oklal 2d 148.152. (P9404. In my opinion. the first majority of the Court-in th. (1970)... distinguishes that va cause. There, the question .. Constitution -permift 2 Star Tanpay ers the Vote in electra: general obligation bonds? ar From the facts sta ited gn thereto ue second LOMPe Hit \ ara.“ & —— ae ‘ . wh ee Seem LEK 5 A’eds Val iN j ond * o . 5 ‘ ‘ 4 188 O81. 3508. 108 P.: s ' ™~ EES % 1 pu On of Ane wale OMS to approve the issuance ‘of sel q orth. There,at is stated. that propery TENSS METS To” he levied to service the Involved i indebted: -authorized to allogate ott her re in ye on gy general obligato ‘ S04. : 7.00 tor fiscal yCaF LO of i made in recent i eur. obligation service requiremen sources paid $3,244,778 00 ¢ o. of current earnings aus dist M. Alsip rv. Citi “of Chandki However. this was net yarmis Wherein are cited other caries J And. while it may si SIN OF eight: cities dnd tows . eentury or so ehave there be “other than’ ad valorem xf “amount of: the eXpPensyes of calegories: of expenditures allocable. Viz.. the cities of Suliw .An-each Qt tose instanees 1 darexuy: thes acre Paid with fumds produced ‘trom waterw orks tunable back fo the ow ners at rye CLILuk = . “ as . _& ae eal = ? > 7 *, 3 Ty SIRO TARR NOUS KS Teg aren ent Ql 0 A . ~~ - = 3 eines * ‘ ° Y ares - , ste «. mame n . i\ Pleal “Mer than d> ofsuch general -‘- ¥ = s ‘ - - ABs . eV i r . . - Here. the applicable Start Cousti ctional provision requires annual tan levies on. Personal _ yi real prope TIy in the-city: suffigient to meer all interes course, a CITY. may pay for permarfert copia] impn wWelMents eul . e ‘“ nd pemcipal maturites.. Ot LIST r Os] 30s Pg 312 (J 9Q5) - Sosa bn * 3 Me Ba? 1a)% RSENS LT ‘OD 1N Alsip. Sse F -Sdausd Y al - . an > ae eee «4 A. 2k YW WOlUW ADOWN that OTN, in S in ONlaRomiu in ahe’ past’ halt ‘ 7 3 irs i gal . Sac =e us irom SOUTCA's ebenies fo: may an considerable SVP Pes yp esas — ALN, “"5, ere * See 6 eee a se iad 114 HOOVE those : ; ? ° oy ae oe ee -: Anat a fO WR CPN Were PTAA ere WW 7 . aa nt et ‘ CMO) aye re | Pe \ a . .. v appended’ Irom such other: d irom ad alice levies. J.. \ me . ; sae by revenues IronyAhe involved utility. ar ~As t& the tact of the Plesent case, every body knows , OMahoma City has issued millions of dollars in’ revenue bonds ein ivable.trom sewer danese water rents and what npt to build - capital improvements hot obtain: able trom. tax: revenues within the cohstitutronal debt limits, and Ahad to enact t sales tax: to make salary” adjustments for its employees. This is not a “condemnation of Oklahoma City. To the-cvontrary, it demon- strates that Oklahoma City and its. ciliZzeris and officials must use all lawful und constitutional sources. of revenue available to provide-the varied services required ot so k irge a modern, 0h 8h t polit: tn, growing city and Yet maintain itst cash position it black". . a. In copy ol the published election proclamation: attached to petition filed in the trial court in the case from which the uppeal, sister to this case. urose. pursuant to authority Vested in OMahoma City by Article X. Sect! fone 27, Oklahoma € ‘onstitus ° ti i. the City specified in. the several involved propositions ving Voted upon that in addition to, that is. on top of allojher taxes of all sorts the personal and real property ad Valorem taxpayers Were already paving: that those such taxpayers who voted Were voting ‘tax liens - tor different. -additional taxes » “ eguinst their such respective properties. _-* In the election with which we are hefe concerned. it is ny delet that the election-authorities have not arbitrarily discrimi- ! UgsiNSst any bne for the tollowiig re-emphasized: reasons, I. In est. Mrs. Kolodz; sishi Was a - quali- fied. voter eXcept that she owned no taxabl® real estate. As-ansowner of taxable personalty, In Okla- 2 * homa City at the involved election she would hey been welcomed ut the polls, bois : ’ . - 2.) Oklahomii City must and petorce will pay for the improvements: obtained with the proceeds of this bond issue from revenues received only from ad valorem ti iXes on real iind Genome. property. Y respectfully « concur ‘specially. : A-160-. ie 3 IN THE SUPREME. COURT OF THE = OF OKLAHOMA Barbara J. Beauchamp, “\ re Hanae sans “eid No. 44.475: ’ t \ WS. re aru, F s ) ) , ) ‘ eis" ) City of Oklahoma City, a Municipal) o Corporation: James Hi Norjek. Mayor of © ) the City’-of Oklahoma City: Patience.) Lattymg, John M. Smith. George -N. ) Sturm, Nelson E. Kelleg, Bill, H2 Bishop.) Ben Franklin, A.L.-Powell and Rowe © ) Cook. Members of ile City Council, ) ae ot Defendants. ) ad i . e oe DAVISON. J., CONCURRING SPECIALLY, , . i ° ‘ . In concurring specially | desire to express my views for denying plainty{t's prayer for the-injunction. In Cite of Phoenix vy. Kolodziejski,_ U.S. : 90S. Ct. 1990. 26 L. Ed' 2d 523. the question presented was: Does the Federal Constitution permit a State {oO restrict to real property taxpayers the vote in elections to approve. the issuance Of general obligation bonds? The court, with- three Justices fi dissenting and ote Justice abstaining. extended the principles in. the Kramer. and Cipriano cases and held that the Arizona Constitution and statutes. as upplied to exclude non-owners of real property trom voting in elections to approve issuance of general obligation bonds, violated the Federal Constitution. In making the determination, the majority of. the court concluded that .""The differences between -the interests of real property. - @avners and the interests of NON property Owners “are not - sufficiently substantial to justify excluding the latter from the .- franchise." * .| believe and) conclude. that there “are ‘ significant and -- controlling tacts that distinguish the situation in the instant Case cfrom that in’ the Phoenix .case. Inv the present- case + the * A-l 7 R > constitutional provision (Art. 10. $27) permits “personal. _ property taxpayers'and real property taxpayers to vote. A tax is required. to be levied upon their personal and real property to “pay the bohds.In Arizona Voting Was restricted fo real property tuxpayers. In the present) case $27 permits the property tux paying voters: to incur indebtedness -and encumber. their property: without limit. In Phoenix thé ‘question us to Whether "or not a state eould constitutionally conter upon, all of its electors exclusive and absolute power ‘to incur general bonded indebtedness without limit at the expense of personal and real Property owners was -not presented or considered. The imypor- tanee and significance of this distinguishing feature of our Constitution was-fully prese nted and discussed in settle 1 Cee ? . "of Muskogee, 462 P. 2d 642, . It is My. opinion that ‘the Phoenix decision is not controlling in the present situation. [am shes to state that. Mr. Justice Williams concurs in the above Views: oe es a ff . ‘the City of Oklahoma City: Patience an : * . ai te , ; : ’ _ IN THE SUPREME-COURT OF \ THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. Barbara J. Beauchamp, y : © Plaintiff. | Vs. No. 44.475 « City of Okkithomg City, # Municipal Corporation; James H. Norick. Mayor of . Latting, John: M.° Smith. George N. Sturm, Nelson E. Keller, Bill H: Bishop, Ben Franklin, A. L.*Dowell and Rowe Cook Members of the City Council. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) je Defendants. McINERNEY, J. (DISSENTING) I dissent: fron the” decision of the majority to accept jurisdiction in’ this original ‘proceeding. | Would deny .the application. to accept jurisdiction and leave Plaintiff to her reinedy in the District Court, ’ , wr ty! A delay. in: the early determination of the question of public importance would not Necessarily. result. Our decision in Supreme Court case No. 44.478. Martin et al’ vy. City of Oklahoma City, decided this date. is an appeal from the District Court) by two protestants to’ the identical bond election. challenged in this original proceeding. The absence of a record In a true adversary proceeding: coupled) with the stipulation herein precludes inquiry into Whether the status of Barbara /L Beauchamp as an unqualified voter in general Obligation bond elections is self-imposed, 68 O. S- Supp. 1965; § §, 2431. 24201. or legally imposed, Art. 10. $27. Oklahoma Constitu- tion hf the former, Plaintiff's Standing to institute this action is. questionable. 3 There iire onlytwo reasons Why the Us S. Supreme Court - A-19_ Sed oar i haseheld exclusion of non-property: taxpayers unconstitutional. “One is that it discriminates against the impoverished. See Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U. $. 663. 16 L. Ed 2d 169, 86 S. Ct. 10791966). The other is thatsuch an exclusion is irgitional as applied to persons who indirectly pay “such taxes through the form of higher rents to their Jandlords, and such. Cit of Phoenix y. Kolodziejski, ——_U.. S. 90 S.Ct. 1990, 26 L. Ed 2d $23 (1970), - Although the Plaintiff externally: appears. to come within the results of the foregoing’ cases, she fails to allege or prove that she comes-within the reasons therefor, First. Plaintiff makes no plea of personal poverty. Harper, supra. Second, while ~ Plaintiff correctly states that the U. S. Supreme Court has « sustained) the indirect) payment ‘of property daxes theory, Phoenix, supra, she totally ignores the fact that payment of persona taxes would by itself have been sufficient to entitle her to vote at the challenged election: and by the very nature of the personal tax there can be no "vicarious" or "indirect" payment of the tax {im the sense of property taxes paid by landlords « being passed on their tenants if the form of increased rents. and the tike). >. | ate It would appear, therefore, that Plaintiff has not based her failure to pay a personal tax (and hence her exclusion from the challenged election) upon the circumstance of grounds con- -demned by the U. S. Supreme Court as impermissibly dis- ‘iminatory Or irrational, ie.. poverty. or Vicdrious actial- pw ment. In the absence of any factual showing-or adversary record, of the Plaintiff's standing, | am-of. the opinion that no adequate actual "case or controversy" has been properly demonstrated sulficent to. invoke and sustain this Court's jurisdiction; and | “would, therefore, deny the application to assume jurisdiction. & ee ad 4 Vv IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA - Georgann Martin Max Troub ) ) pater ) Plaintiffs in’ Error =) aes, vs ee ) NO, 44478 ) ) ) ) The City of Oklahoma City | Defendant in Error "SYLLABUS. soo WA os The Legislature may nuke registration a prerequisite to the right. to vote: in order, to a, fraud and B® protect the purity of the ballot. Art. § 6, Oklahoma Constitution, - . 2. .? One -who attempts to sue in behalf Of members of a class must be a member of the class he purports to represent. - ' ‘ KEKEKK ~ @ APPEAL F ROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY. OKLAHOMA Hon. Jack R. Parr, Judge = ok ok of ok ok ~ e Georgann Martin and Max Troub sought to enjoin issuance f bonds voted pursuant to Art.. 10. $27, Oklahoma: Con- Nees District Court sustained City's motion in abatement because Martin and Troub were not Tegistered Voters as required » by 11 O.S. 1961, $65. 2K OK ok ok ok e A-2 l enjoin the issuance and delivery of certain general obligation, bonds approved. at an election held within the City on June 9. 1970, pursuant to Art. 10, $27, of the Oklahoma Constitution. ‘The election, and bonds, ae the alleged grounds for their invalidity. and the relict sought, are the same as those described and ° set forth in the original action in this court. numbered 44476, styled Beauchamp r. City of Oklahoma City, et al, this YP i, as . ws: \ é er : : - day decided and appearing ind P. 2d In the Beauchamp case we upheld the validity of the election and bonds wind refused to ‘issue an injunction. Therefore, if this court were’ to determine that the trial court erred: in sustaining . the motion in abatement and dismissing the cause of action, and Plaintiffs in error did have standing to prosecute the suit, then the alleged grounds for the alleged invalidity of the ggneral bond election and the relief sought by plaintiffs in-error, being the same as thosé set forth in the Beauchamp case, supra, are- considered and disposed of in the Beauchamp case, supra. _In the present case the plaintiff and intervenor did ot allege, and in, fact admit, that the$ are not registered voters in the City. The trial court sustained defendant's motion in abatement on the ground that plaintiff and intervenor were not real parties in interest and were not qualified to represent the class of registered voters. "eae Wm, Art. 10, §27, Oklahoma Constitution, restricted Voting in the election to qualified property tax paying Voters in the City: © Art, 3, $6 of the Oklahoma ‘Constitution, provides that the Legislature may by law: provide for the registration of °° electors in any city, and when it is so provided, no ‘person shall vote at any election unless he shall have registered, Title 11 O.°S. 1961, 865, provides that a "qualified - taxpaying svoter" of any city as used in $27 of Apt. 10, is detined to be a qualified elector under the Constitution and laws of Oklahoma, os In Love v. State Election Board, 197 Okl. 157. 170 P. 2d 193, 197, we held. that under Art. 3, §6, the Legislature may make registration a premequisite to the right to. vote in order to’ prevent fraud and to protect the purity of the ballot. ' ‘And fh. Loftis r. ‘School Dist. No, 52. Of Beckham County, 144 OKI. 281, 296 P. 1101, wersaid that the matter of requiring registration to vote was left to the discretion of the Legislature, Which discretion would not be. disturbed unless its acts w ere so arbitrary and capricious ‘as to offend some provision of the Constitutions of Oklahoma or of the United States. It is otir conclusion that the Legislature legally and validly required registration as’ a prerequisite to voting in the bond a A-23 , & election. Under these circumstances we must conclude that plaintiff and intervenor were primarily not qualified to vote and consequently were not real parties in interest, They were not members: of the class of registered voters and could not maintain a class action in bea gh us voters but Sage fied because they were not property tax Payers. In Hobbs y. Polley Jury of ma Rouse Parish, 49 Federal — Rules Decisions 176 (W.D. La. 1970), the situation was like that in the present: case. A party, who was not a registered voter. brought a would-be’ class action to enjoin issuance of bonds approved at an election in which only ' ‘Property taxpayers" had the right -to vote. The court said that it was axiomatic that one who attempts to sue in behalf of members of a class.must be a member of the class he’ purpofts to represent, and that the ° plaintitf, being neither a registered voter nor a property owner, Was not a real party in interést and had-no standing to prosecute the suit. The. trial court did not err. in sustaining the motion in abatement and dismissing the action. _ ALL JUSTIC ES CONCUR. a A-24 Persons who. were registered | aes lO, -_ Pad --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0281%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.