Case Title: STATE EX REL NYBO v DISTRICT COUR

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-01-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO, 12171 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 19 71 STATE ex r e 1 KEN NYBO, Petitioner, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R T H E C O U N T Y O F LEWIS AND CLARK, and t h e H O N O R A B L E VICTOR H. FALL, JUDGE, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: Kendrick Smith argued, Butte, Montana. Stanley M. Doyle appeared, Polson, Montana, For Respondents: Arnold H. Olsen argued, Helena, Montana. For Amicus Curiae: Hon, Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Submitted : December 21, 1971 Filed: 2 0 r,gV A . . PER CURIAM: This is an o r i g i n a l proceeding seeking a w r i t of prohi- b i t i o n d i r e c t e d t o the d i s t r i c t court of t h e f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Judge F a l l presiding. O n November 15, 1971, a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n t h i s Court seeking t o s e t a s i d e an order denying a motion t o quash a w r i t of mandate issued by Judge F a l l . P e t i t i o n e r Ken Nybo had been named defendant i n an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandamus i n cause No. 35351, f i l e d October 26, 1971, i n the respondent d i s t r i c t court i n Lewis and Clark County. The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandamus was by Harry L. B i l l i n g s who sought mandamus t o inspect the books of one "Save Our S t a t e Committeef1 ( h e r e i n a f t e r referred t o a s SOS), under t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 94-1431(4), R.C.M. 1947. B i l l i n g s was designated p l a i n t i f f and a p p l i c a n t , and it it was alleged t h a t Nybo, designated defendant, was chairman of SOS and had custody of t h e "booksf1. The a p p l i c a t i o n alleged t h a t B i l l i n g s was an incorporator, d i r e c t o r and s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r of an organization c a l l e d "Citizens Opposed t o Sales ax" (here- i n a f t e r referred t o a s COST), and thus e n t i t l e d t o inspect t h e books of SOS. It was alleged t h a t COST and SOS were opposing organizations concerned with defeating o r passing Referendum !I68 a t t h e e l e c t i o n on November 2 , 1971. Referendum !I68 was provided f o r by t h e 1971 Montana Revenue Act, whereby t h e l e g i s l a t u r e enacted i n t o law a 40% income tax s u r t a x e f f e c t i v e on passage and approval of t h e A c t , It then referred t o t h e people a measure with two questions: (1) For reduction of the already imposed 40% income tax s u r t a x t o 10% and f o r enactment of a 2% s a l e s and use tax; o r (2) a g a i n s t t h e reduction of the 40% income tax s u r t a x t o 10% and a g a i n s t enactment of a 2% s a l e s and use tax. In other words, the l e g i s l a t u r e imposed an a d d i t i o n a l tax and gave t h e people a choice of continuing t h a t tax o r sub- s t i t u t i n g a new one; t h e only apparent d i f f e r e n c e being i n who would pay. It would be a gross understatement t o say t h a t such a choice would be controversial. The l e g i s l a t u r e passed along t h i s choice t o the people a t a s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n on No.vember 2, 1971. The Act called t h i s s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n a "special general election". I n t h e d i s t r i c t court mandamus a c t i o n , t h e prayer f o r r e l i e f asked t h a t an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandus be issued r e - turnable within a very b r i e f period, compelling defendant t o open t h e books of SOS t o inspection; t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t have costs and an attorney fee. A h a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandamus was issued by the respondent court on October 26. It was returnable on October 28 a t 10 a.m. It was never served on defendant Nybo. Nonetheless, on t h e return day, t h e respondent court heard testimony by p l a i n t i f f B i l l i n g s and statements by h i s counsel who admitted s e r v i c e had n o t been had, but a s s e r t e d t h a t defendant Nybo was "hiding out". After a b r i e f hearing t h e following colloquy occurred: "COURT: Well, you a r e an o f f i c e r of t h i s Court. I f you present t h a t t o be t h e f a c t , I w i l l accept it a s such. Prepare a Preemptory [ s i c ] W r i t of such a nature t h a t i f necessary, why t h e S h e r i f f may force h i s entry i n t o t h e o f f i c e and s e i z e what- ever is t h e r e , and M r . Nybo I want brought forthwith before t h i s Court t o explain---Was he ever served? "MR. OLSEN: No, s i r , he was n o t , and I submit t h a t he has been evading us. I I COURT: Well, under the circumstances prepare an appropriate paper s o t h a t he w i l l be forthwith brought before t h i s court t o explain h i s a c t i o n and be subject t o interrogation by you i n open c o u r t . That's the way we do t h a t ." I t [ ~ I h e way we do t h a t " became what is e n t i t l e d "Peremp- t o r y Writ of anda am us" which is i n p a r t a s follows: "THE STATE O F MONTANA t o KhT NYBO, Chairman of t h e Save Our S t a t e Committee, Helena, Montana, Greeting: 11 WHEREAS, t h e above e n t i t l e d came on regularly f o r hearing on the 28th day of October, 1971, a t 10:OO A.M. and, "WHEREAS, the applicant and p l a i n t i f f , HARRY L. BILLINGS, was regularly and duly sworn and t e s t i f i e d , and, "l.JHEREAS, t h i s court has duly found and determined t h a t t h e defendant, KEN NYBO, i s the Chairman of t h e Save Our S t a t e Committee, herein a f t e r referred t o a s S.O.S., an unincorporated a s s o c i a t i o n formed f o r the purpose of promoting t h e passage of Referendum No. 68 ( t h e s a l e s tax) which w i l l appear on t h e b a l l o t of t h e November 2, 1971, s p e c i a l general e l e c t i o n , and, "WHEREAS, t h i s court has duly found and adjudged t h a t the defendant, KEN NYBQ, Chairman of S.O.S., has advertised urging passage of t h e Sales Tax Referendum and has represented t h e o f f i c e s t o be under t h e name of KEN NYBO, S.O.S., Helena, Montana, and t h a t address was found t o be Room 305 of t h e Union Bank Building, Helena, Montana, and, "WHEREAS, t h i s court has taken s p e c i a l n o t e of Section 94-1431, Subsection (4), RCM1947: a s follows, "' (4) t h e books of account of every t r e a s u r e r of any p o l i t i c a l party, committee, or organization, during an e l e c t i o n campaign, s h a l l be opened a t a l l reasonable o f f i c e hours t o t h e inspection of t h e t r e a s u r e r and chairman of any opposing p o l i t i - ca 1 [party] o r organiza t i o n f o r t h e same e l e c t o r i a 1 d i s t r i c t ; and h i s r i g h t of inspection may be en- forced by Writ of Mandamus by any court of compe- t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' "wI.IEREAS, t h i s court has duly found and adjudged t h a t the books of account a r e i n t h e possession and under the d i r e c t i o n of said defendant Chairman, KEN NYBO, a t h i s o f f i c e s a t Helena, Montana, a f o r e s a i d , and, "WHEREAS, t h i s court has duly found and adjudged t h a t the defendant, KEN NYBO, and t h e organization, S.O.S. Committee, have f a i l e d , refused, and neglected t o open t o public inspkction a s provided by law, and, "wHERUS, t h i s court has duly found and adjudged t h a t the organization S.O.S. Committee and the defendant, KEN NYBO, f a i l e d , refused, and neglected t o open t h e books t o said p l a i n t i f f , HARRY L. BILLINGS, upon regular and orderly demand t h e r e f o r e [ s i c ] a t t h e ordinary and regular hours of business on the 26th day of October, 1971, a t Room 305, Union Bank Building, Helena, Montana, and, "WHEREAS, t h i s court has duly found and adjudged t h a t t h e defendant, KEN NYBO, and t h e organization, S. 0. S. Committee, Helena, Montana, have evaded t h e duly and regularly issued process, namely an A l t e r n a t e W r i t of Mandate issued by t h e above e n t i t l e d court, upon t h e a p p l i c a t i o n duly v e r i f i e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f , HARRY L. BILLINGS, "NOW THEREFORE, t h i s c o u r t , being w i l l i n g t h a t speedy j u s t i c e be done i n t h i s case on behalf of him, t h e p l a i n t i f f and a p p l i c a n t , does command you, DAVE MIDDLEMAS, S h e r i f f , Lewis and Clark County, S t a t e of Montana, t o forthwith seek out KEN NYBO, Chairman S.O.S. Committee, a t any place t h a t he can be found and bring him torthwith before t h e above e n t i t l e d c o u r t ; "AND, you, S h e r i f f Middlemas, a r e f u r t h e r ordered and t h i s court does command you t h a t you go t o t h e o f f i c e of the S.O.S. Committee a t Room 305 of t h e Union Bank Building and t h e r e demand oL anyone present o r i f no one is present t h a t you do e n t e r t h a t room and t h a t you s e i z e t h e books of account of t h a t p o l i t i c a l committee, S.O.S. Committee and you bring such books of account forthwith t o t h e above e n t i t l e d court . I t The foregoing r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g document would appear be a judgment, a search warrant, a warrant of a r r e s t , a body attachment---all without due process o r any process of law; defendant not having been served nor the court having obtained j u r i s d i c t i o n over him. O n t h e following day, October 29, counsel f o r defendant Nybo (apparently now a criminal deiendant a l s o ) appeared. O n November 1 defendant's counsel f i l e d a motion t o quash on t h e grounds t h a t the "extraordinary w r i t of mandate was improvidently entered". A b r i e f i n support of t h e motion was a l s o f i l e d . O n t h a t same day, November 1, t h e r e appears i n t h e c o u r t records another t r a n s c r i p t , wherein the motion t o quash was f i l e d and t h e respondent d i s t r i c t court summarily, without even reading o r hearing its contents, denied t h e motion and proceeded t o allow p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel t o cross-examine defendant Nybo and force production of the books. Counsel f o r Nybo made s e v e r a l objections, t r i e d t o o f f e r some evidence, and asked t o be heard; a l l i n vain. He was summarily denied and t h e hearing terminated by t h e court announcing: "Court is i n recess." The foregoing shows a lack of procedural due process and a lack of fundamental f a i r n e s s t o t h e extent t h a t t h e e n t i r e matter i s void. But, it did not even s t o p there! O n November 5, t h e same d i s t r i c t judge awarded c o s t s , a s well a s attorney fees i n t h e amount of $500, a g a i n s t Nybo. It i s patently obvious t h a t such c o s t s and attorney fees awarded a s a r e s u l t of a void proceeding cannot stand. However, t h e i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of prohibition goes f u r t h e r . It seeks, i n e f f e c t , a r u l i n g n o t only t h a t the proceedings were void, but t h a t they were void because t h e organization SOS is not within t h e purview of s e c t i o n 94-1431(4), R.C.M. 1947. I n t h i s regard p e t i t i o n e r a s s e r t s t h a t SOS was a b i p a r t i s a n organization t o promote passage of Referendum #68 and thus was l e g i s l a t i v e i n n a t u r e and not p o l i t i c a l within t h e sense and meaning of s e c t i o n 94-1431(4), R.C.M. 1947. P e t i t i o n e r f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h e respondent d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motion t o quash may have been a determination which would render p e t i t i o n e r and members and contributors t o SOS l i a b l e t o prosecution under t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 94-1469 o r s e c t i o n 94-1470, R.C.M. 1947, both of which contain criminal sanctions. This Court issued an order t o show cause requiring t h e d i s t r i c t court t o quash t h e w r i t previously granted t h e r e i n , o r appear t o show cause why it was not done. The Court a l s o ordered copies of t h e papers served on t h e Attorney General. The Amicus Curiae b r i e f of the Attorney General takes no position on the issue of whether the organization SOS is a "political" organiza- t i o n subject t o the so-called Corrupt Practices Act. The Attorney General does, however, urge t h i s Court t o decide the question. In response t o our order t o show cause, the respondent d i s t r i c t court appeared by answer e s s e n t i a l l y asserting t h a t since the records of SOS were inspected, the matter is moot. Further, it did not intend t o make any holding t o indicate whether or not SOS and its contributors were i n violation of the Corrupt Practices Act. As t o t h i s phase of t h e instant p e t i t i o n , we have examined the Corrupt Practices Act, particularly as t o section 94-1444, R.C.M. 1947, which contains a prohibition against cor- I I porations paying o r contributing i n order t o aid o r promote the i n t e r e s t s , success, or defeat of any p o l i t i c a l party or organization. I I A referendum measure of the l e g i s l a t u r e i s not such a s would be classed a s the " i n t e r e s t s , success, or defeat of any politica 1 party or organization"; unless, the legis la t u r e classes i t s e l f a s a " p o l i t i c a l party or organization1'---which it is not, i n the sense of the terms used. This Court has long held t h a t a referendum is e n t i r e l y I I legislative" in character. S t a t e ex r e l . Hay v. Alderson, 49 Mont. 387, 407, 142 P.210; Fitzpatrick v. S t a t e Board of Examiners, 105 Mont. 234, 240, 70 P.2d 285. When the l e g i s l a t u r e r e f e r s a measure t o t h e people, it i s seeking the people's voice singly and collectively, by individuals or groups. For instance, labor unions, league of women voters, chambers of commerce, newspaper editors and reporters. a l l may have views and cannot constitutionalLy be r e s t r i c t e d from expressing t h e i r views. I n t h e context of t h e Corrupt Practices Act, section 94-1444, R. C.M. 1947, t h e words " p o l i t i c a l party o r organization" do not include t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s own processes nor such groups. The Ohio Supreme Court in 1939, considered t h i s matter i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n concerning a t a x levy. S t a t e ex r e l . Corrigan v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 169 Ohio S t . 42, 157 N.E.2d 331,333, 336, involved an a c t i o n i n quo warranto t o determine t h e l e g a l i t y of a corporation's contributions t o a committee organized t o promote t h e adoption of c e r t a i n issues which were submitted t o t h e voters a t a general e l e c t i o n . The s t a t u t e invol-ved, s e c t i o n 3599.03, Ohio Revised Code, provided i n p a r t p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s action: 11 (A) N o corporation engaged i n business i n t h i s s t a t e s h a l l , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , pay, use, o f f e r , advise, consent, o r agree t o pay o r use the corpora- t i o n ' s money o r property [a] f o r o r i n a i d of a p o l i - t i c a l party, committee o r organization * JC *." (Emphasis supplied) In consideration o t t h e i s s u e , t h e Ohio court s t a t e d : "It i s obvious t h a t , i n t h e above-quoted * * * portion 1 of t h e s t a t u t e appearing a f t e r [ a ] , t h e word poli- t i c a l ' modifies n o t only ' p a r t y ' but a l s o the words 1 committee, o r organization.' The words ' p o l i t i c a l p a r t y ' have a well understood ordinary meaning. Those words describe an a s s o c i a t i o n of individua3.s whose primary purposes a r e t o promote o r accomplish e l e c t i o n s o r appointments t o public o f f i c e s , positions o r jobs. Although the word ' p o l i t i c a l ' may have a very broad meanding, i t s meaning may be considerably narrowed where it i s thus used t o modify t h e word 'party! See Heidtman v. City of Shaker Heights, 163 Ohio S t . 109, 126 N.E.2d 138. Obviously, i n r e f e r r i n g t o 'a p o l i t i c a l party, committee, o r organization' i n t h i s s t a t u t e , t h e General Assembly intended by the words 'committee, o r organization; t o r e f e r only t o a committee o r organization which is an adjunct of a p o l i t i c a l party o r an a s s o c i a t i o n formed f o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same purposes o r performing sub- s t a n t i a l l y t h e same functions a s a p o l i t i c a l party. 11 The Ohio court then concluded: ' 1 Our conclusion i s t h a t respondent corpora t i o n could lawfully c o n t r i b u t e t o a committee organized and con- ducted merely f o r the purposes of advocating t h e adoption of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment and the passage o r bond issues and t a x levies." (Emphasis supplied) W e find then t h a t the Corrupt Practices Act does not cover the s i t u a t i o n here and no further discussion is necessary. By what we have said heretofore, we hold t h a t the orders of the d i s t r i c t court referred t o a r e s e t a s i d e and the e n t i r e matter dismissed, with each party t o pay its own costs.