Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; June 19, 1987; Alabama; State Supreme Court
The Circuit Court of Mobile County denied plaintiffs Ollie Kiel and others declaratory and injunctive relief against Act 85-233, which prohibits the distribution of election campaign materials within 600 feet of polling places on election days, classifying such action as a misdemeanor punishable by fines between $100 and $500. The plaintiffs argue that this Act violates various provisions of Alabama law and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, they reference Ala.Code 17-7-18, which restricts unauthorized personnel within 30 feet of polling locations, and constitutional provisions concerning the conduct of elections. The defendants, including Mobile County Sheriff Thomas J. Purvis, contend that Act 85-233 does not conflict with Ala.Code 17-7-18 or Alabama constitutional provisions, asserting it does not pertain to the conduct of elections as defined by the Constitution. The court agrees with the plaintiffs that Act 85-233 relates to the conduct of elections and is a local law addressing matters covered by general state law, implying potential constitutional inconsistencies. Additionally, the court acknowledges that Alabama's Constitution permits local legislation and outlines a procedure for its enactment.
Local legislation can be enacted to address specific local needs, but it cannot provide special treatment if those needs are already addressed by general legislation, as stipulated by §105 of the Alabama Constitution. In Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham, it was established that the focus is not on the broad subject matter but on whether the local law aims to achieve something not adequately covered by general law (Drummond Co. v. Boswell). Act 85-233 is a local law applicable only to Mobile County and prohibits distributing election campaign materials within 600 feet of polling places, thus impacting election conduct. This act contravenes §104(29) of the Alabama Constitution because it conflicts with §17-7-18, which allows no unauthorized person within 30 feet of a polling place. Act 85-233 imposes a further restriction of 570 feet, creating inconsistency with §17-7-18, which uniformly applies a 30-foot rule. Prior rulings indicate that local laws must be substantially different from general laws to be valid under §105, which is not the case here. The appellants also raised an Equal Protection Clause argument regarding the classification of Mobile County, but since Act 85-233 violates §105, the court found it unnecessary to address this issue. The Circuit Court of Mobile County's denial of the appellants' requests for declaratory and injunctive relief was determined to be erroneous. Consequently, Act 85-233 is declared invalid, and the court reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
