Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
No. 81,074
STATE OF KANSAS ex rel. NICK A. TOMASIC,
WYANDOTTE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
Relator,
v.
THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF
WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY, KANSAS,
Respondent.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.
It is fundamental that our state constitution limits rather than confers powers. Where the constitutionality of a statute is involved, the question presented is, therefore, not whether the statutory act is authorized by the constitution, but whether it is prohibited thereby.

2.
In determining constitutionality of a statute, it is the court's duty to uphold a statute under attack rather than defeat it, and if there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, that should be done.

3.
Statutes are not stricken down unless the infringement of the superior law is clear beyond substantial doubt.

4.
There is no precise definition of what constitutes a valid public use, and what may be considered a valid public use or purpose changes over time. As long as a governmental action is designed to fulfill a public purpose, the wisdom of the governmental action generally is not subject to review by the courts.

5.
Traditionally, the test utilized in determining if a legislative enactment violates equal protection principles is whether the classification bears a rational relationship to the purpose of the legislation. The legislature is presumed to act within its constitutional power despite the fact that the application of its laws may result in some inequity.

6.
The rational basis test contains two substantive limitations on legislative choice: Legislative enactments must implicate legitimate goals, and the means chosen by the legislature must bear a rational relationship to the goals.

7.
A statute is rationally related to an objective if the statute produces effects that advance, rather than retard or have no bearing on, the attainment of the objective. So long as the regulation is positively related to a conceivable legitimate purpose, it passes scrutiny; it is for the legislature, not the courts, to balance the advantages and disadvantages.

8.
Because a legislature is not required to articulate its reasons for enacting a statute, it is entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature. A legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.

9.
Whether embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment or inferred from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenges if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.

10.
The legislature is not prohibited from making distinctions between classifications of persons. Rather, these constitutional limitations amount to a requirement that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.

11.
In taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom of classification.

12.
Great latitude is granted to the legislature to delegate certain functions to the administrative branch of government. Courts start with the presumption that the legislature and the people have the right to assume that public officials will exercise their express and implied powers fairly, honestly, and reasonably. While standards must accompany a delegation of authority, great leeway should be allowed the legislature in setting forth guidelines or standards, and the use of general rather than minute standards is permissible. When the standard expressed in the statute is merely a finding of necessity, such a determination of need is constitutionally adequate when coupled with the assumption that it will be made fairly, honestly, and reasonably.

13.
The modern trend is to require less detailed standards and guidance to the administrative agencies in order to facilitate the administration of laws in areas of complex social and economic problems.

14.
The standard of whether a redevelopment plan will "enhance the major tourism area," as set forth in L. 1998, ch. 17,

Download 81074.pdf

Kansas Law