Case Title: State Ex Inf. Ashcroft v. City of Fulton

Citation: 642 S.W.2d 617

Docket Number: 63940

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 1982-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
642 S.W.2d 617 (1982)
STATE of Missouri, ex inf. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General, ex rel. John O. BELL, Relator,
v.
The CITY OF FULTON, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation; The Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission; John E. Bates; Richard E. Malon; Keith D. Beardmore; Ray Callanan; and Gerald McHaffie, Respondents.
No. 63940.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
December 3, 1982.
*618 John M. Cave, II, Kansas City, for relator.
Lawrence M. Berkowitz, Richard Monaghan, Kansas City, for respondents.
HIGGINS, Judge.
Relator filed this action in quo warranto claiming amendments six and seven to article VI, section 27 of the Missouri Constitution providing for formation of the Joint Municipal Utility Commission never became part of the constitution and that respondents should be ousted of all rights, power and authority they claim under section 27 as amended. The court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents. Relator charges the trial court erred in its holding that both amendments had become part of the Missouri Constitution; and that the Governor had authority to proclaim the amendment which received the largest affirmative vote of two inherently conflicting amendments became part of the constitution pursuant to section 126.131 RSMo Supp.1975. Affirmed.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 14 of the First Regular Session of the Seventy-ninth General Assembly proposed amendment six:
House Joint Resolution No. 21 of the First Regular Session of the Seventy-ninth General Assembly proposed amendment seven:
Both amendments were approved by a majority of the voters. The Governor believed the two amendments were in conflict, *620 and pursuant to section 126.131 RSMo Supp. 1975, declared the amendment which received the largest affirmative vote, number seven, prevailed over amendment number six.
The City of Fulton and seventeen other Missouri municipalities formed the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission pursuant to the provisions of article VI, section 27 as amended. MJMEUC proposes to build a power plant and to issue approximately $500 million in bonds. In preparation for this activity the Board of Directors of MJMEUC has elected officers and an executive committee; adopted by-laws and appointed an executive director; rented office space, hired personnel, assessed fees to member cities totalling $67,569.00; retained consultants and commissioned feasibility studies; and hired lawyers and accountants.
Relator alleges amendments six and seven were inherently conflicting in that language in each required the repeal of then existing article VI, section 27. Relator contends when such a conflict exists both amendments must fail. Further error is assigned to recognition of the Governor's power to remedy such conflicts under section 126.131. He argues this section applies to constitutional amendments proposed by initiative and not to amendments proposed by referendum as were amendments six and seven.
The rules applicable to construction of constitutional provisions are the same as those applied to the construction of statutes, except that the former are given a broader construction due to their more permanent character. Boone County Court v. Missouri, 631 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Mo. banc 1982); State at the Information of Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Mo.1974). Where two acts are seemingly repugnant they must be construed together when possible; if they are not irreconcilably inconsistent both must stand. State v. Kraus, 530 S.W.2d 684, 686 (Mo. banc 1975). The test for determining whether a conflict exists is whether one amendment prohibits what the other permits or vice versa. See State ex rel. Hewlett v. Womach, 355 Mo. 486, 196 S.W.2d 809, 812 (1946); Vest v. Kansas City, 355 Mo. 1, 194 S.W.2d 38, 39 (1946).
Relator contends the two amendments conflict because both joint resolutions which submitted the amendments to the voters called for repeal of the same section. This does present a conflict; however, as held by the circuit court, the conflict is between the joint resolutions and is not within the text of the amendment. The Supreme Court was faced with a similar situation in Gabbert v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Ry., 171 Mo. 84, 70 S.W. 891 (1902), where the legislature submitted two proposed constitutional amendments which would amend the same section. The Court held: "When the legislature submitted the two amendments, and the people adopted them at the polls, section 28 was amended as proposed, and nothing that the legislature may have said about how the sections read after their adoption could contravene what the constitution requires." Id. 70 S.W.  at 893. Language in the resolutions will not be construed as part of the amendments.
There is no conflict between the texts of the amendments. Amendment six authorizes counties to issue utility or airport revenue bonds with voter approval. It further authorizes the governing bodies of counties and municipalities to issue industrial development revenue bonds. Amendment seven allows officers, established by contract between municipalities or political subdivisions, to issue revenue bonds for utility, industrial and airport development when authorized by voters. Amendment seven appears to include all the power granted in amendment six and provides for formation of joint commissions. Though the language used in the amendments is somewhat different thereby creating some tension between them, there is no irreconcilable conflict. Both amendments became part of the constitution when adopted by the voters.
It may be presumed that legislative action is intended to have some substantive *621 effect. See Clair v. Whittaker, 557 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Mo. banc 1977). The holding suggested by relator that adoption of two separate amendments causes each to fail would presume the legislature engaged in a meaningless act. The legislature substantially complied with the method provided for amending the constitution. See State ex rel. Board of Fund Commissioners v. Holman, 296 S.W.2d 482 (Mo.1957).
There is no irreconcilable conflict between the amendments, and as demonstrated, both became part of the constitution. Therefore, the construction made for purposes of the Governor's proclamation is without effect, and both amendments are part of the constitution.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
DONNELLY, C.J., RENDLEN, SEILER, WELLIVER and GUNN, JJ., and MAUS, Special Judge, concur.
BILLINGS, J., not sitting.