" Jefferson Cty. v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115, 117 (Ala. 1981). The taxpayers also argue that §§ 13 and 95, Ala. Const. of 1901, prohibit retroactive application of § 71.01(G) to their vested rights and the trial court's final judgment, which, they argue, are afforded protection under the Alabama Constitution.

"The legislature shall pass general laws for the cases enumerated in this section, provided that nothing in this section or article shall affect the right of the legislature to enact local laws regulating or prohibiting the liquor traffic; but no such local law shall be enacted unless notice shall have been given as required in section 106 of this Constitution." In Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115 (Ala. 1981), this Court considered a constitutional challenge to Act No. 689, a local act that required a manufacturer of malt or brewed beverages in Jefferson County to designate a particular sales territory for each of its brands and to name a specific wholesaler for each such territory. The Court considered the constitutionality of the local law in light of the general statutes governing the licensing of wholesalers and retailers of malt or brewed beverages then found at Ala.

Another purpose is to prevent deception of persons immediately affected. Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115, 118 (Ala. 1981). A final purpose is to prevent the community involved from being misled as to the law's purpose, and thus to prevent a fraud on the public.

See Deputy Sheriffs Law Enforcement Association of Mobile County v. Mobile County, 590 So.2d 2391 (Ala. 1991), and Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115 (Ala. 1981). The Employees Association, the Pension Board, and the County Commission allege that material elements of the legislation were purposefully withheld from the public notice as part of a plan to prevent opposition to a "windfall of benefits" that they contend the Act provides to certain nonmembers of the Retirement System.

Rather, the point is that § 104 is not so much a specific authorization to pass such general acts as a prohibition against private acts on the subject. Thus, the point stressed by the dissent (quoting Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115, 119 (Ala. 1981)) that specific provisions of the Constitution prevail over more general provisions, can be seen to be completely irrelevant here. More pertinent here is the principle that, if two provisions of the Constitution are seen to conflict, and one of them is contained in Article I, the Declaration of Rights, the provision from the Declaration of Rights will prevail.

Id. This Court has held in Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115, 119 (Ala. 1981), that "the requirements of [§] 106 are satisfied by the giving of notice of a proposed local law to those who would be immediately affected by its enactment: persons within the locality in which the law is intended to, and by its very terms does, operate." (Emphasis in original.)

Hence, the classification of § 3-1-5 is to be determined under the definitions in the original § 110, as quoted above. See Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115, 117 (Ala. 1981). Art. IV, § 110, as amended by Amendments 375 and 397, defines a general law as "a law which in its terms and effect applies either to the whole state, or to one or more municipalities of the state less than the whole in a class."

And Plaintiff's failure to allege facts showing that he had an employment contract or any other basis for a legitimate expectation of continued employment as required to establish a federal due process claim under § 1983 also calls for the dismissal of any parallel due process claim arising state law. See Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115, 122 (Ala.1981) (“We consider our analysis of the ... due process issues under the United States Constitution equally applicable to those same issues under the Alabama Constitution.”); Alabama State Personnel Bd. v. Garner, 4 So.3d 545, 550 n. 2 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (recognizing that the due process guaranteed under the Alabama Constitution is “coextensive” with the due process guaranteed under the United States Constitution). IV. Demand for Attorney's Fees

They contend that, unless there is an express provision in a general law that allows local variation, local legislation is prohibited. In support of that argument, they cite Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115, 119 (Ala. 1981). In that case, this Court held that local legislation did not violate the constitutional prohibition in § 105, Ala. Const. 1901, against a local law addressing the same "case or matter" as a general law.

It is also clear from its text that § 107 should be read in pari materia with § 106, given its direct reference to § 106 and the fact that both sections involve the same overall requirement: Notice to the people who will be affected by the law in question. Cf. Jefferson Cty. v. Taxpayers & Citizens of Jefferson Cty., 232 So.3d 845, 870 (Ala. 2017) (observing that " ‘[e]ach section of the Constitution must necessarily be considered in pari materia with all other sections’ " (quoting Jefferson Cty. v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115, 119 (Ala. 1981) ) ). As background to these constitutional provisions, it is important to note that there is no mystery behind the purpose of § 106 (and therefore also § 107 ).