Case Title: Opinion of the Justices (Requiring Attorney General To Join Lawsuit)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-hampshire

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as
well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, One Charles Doc Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any
editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes
to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address:
reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00
a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home
age is: http:/ /www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme.

‘THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Request of the Senate
No. 2011-319

OPINION OF THE JUSTICES
(Requiring Attorney General To Join Lawsuit)

Submitted: May 23, 2011
Opinion Issued: June 15, 2011

‘The New Hampshire Senate (Senate) adopted the following resolution on
May 4, 2011, and filed it with the supreme court on May 5, 2011:

“Whereas, there is pending in the senate HB 89, ‘An act requiring the
attorney general to join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act;’ and

“Whereas, HB 89 as passed by the house of representatives and
presently pending before the senate would require the attorney general to move
to join the state of New Hampshire as a plaintiff in the lawsuit pending in
federal court captioned State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of
Health and Human Services et al. (hereinafter ‘the lawsuit); and

“Whereas, at least 27 of the 50 states have joined as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit; and

“Whereas, the lawsuit challenges the applicability of portions of a federal
law that would require individual New Hampshire citizens to purchase health
insurance, even if they did not wish to do so; and
“Whereas, the provisions being challenged in the lawsuit reflect matters
of broad public policy, but do not presently affect the individual liberty or
property interests of any individual New Hampshire citizen; and

“Whereas, Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution states:
‘full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the said general
court, from time to time, to make, ordain, and establish, all manner of
wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, directions, and
instructions, either with penalties, or without, so as the same be not repugnant
or contrary to this constitution;’ and

  

“Whereas, Part I, Article 37 of the New Hampshire constitution sets forth
the principle of separation of powers as an integral part of our governmental
system of checks and balances; and

“Whereas, a question has arisen as to the constitutionality of the
provision in HB'89 requiring the attorney general to join the lawsuit; now,
therefore, be it

“Resolved by the Senate:

“That the justices of the supreme court be respectfully requested to give
their opinion upon the following questions of law:

“1, Does the requirement in HB 89 that the attorney general move to
have the state of New Hampshire join as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, violate Part I,
Article 37 of the New Hampshire constitution?

“2. Does the requirement in HB 89 that the attorney general move to
have the state of New Hampshire join as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, fall within
the broad grant of authority to the general court set forth in Part Il, Article 5 of
the New Hampshire constitution?

"3. Does HB 89 as adopted by the house of representatives and
presently pending before the senate violate any other provision of the New
Hampshire constitution?”

To the Honorable Senate:

 

‘The following response is respectfully returned:

House Bill (HB) 89 as passed by the New Hampshire House of,
Representatives (House) requires the attorney general, ‘no later than July 1,
2011,” to join the state of New Hampshire as @ plaintiff in the lawsuit pending

in federal court captioned State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of

  
Health and Human Services et al. (the Florida case}. See Florida ex rel. Bondi
v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10-cv-91-

RV/EMT, 2011 WL 285683 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2011), clarified by 2011 WL.
723117 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2011). The Florida case challenges the
constitutionality of the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It
was brought by the attorneys general and/or the governors of at least twenty-
six states and others against the United States Departments of Health and
Human Services, Treasury and Labor and their secretaries. See id. at *1

You have asked that the undersigned justices of the supreme court
render an advisory opinion as to whether Hi 89 is constitutional. Sce N.H.
CONST. pt. I, art. 74. Part Il, Article 74 of the New Hampshire Constitution
provides, “ach branch of the legislature as well as the governor and council
shall have authority to require the opinions of the justices of the supreme court
upon important questions of law and upon solemn occasions.” N.H. CONST.
pt. I, art 74 (emphasis added). While these coordinate branches of
government have no obligation to seck our opinion, where, as here, one house
of the legislature has done so, we are required to perform our constitutional
duty by providing our opinion, save in certain narrow circumstances that do
not apply here, Sce Opinion af the Justices (Appointment of Chief lustice), 150
N.H. 355, 356 (2003) (supreme court justices have “no authority under Part Il,
Article 74 to issue advisory opinions to either branch of the legislature
regarding existing legislation’), Opinion of the Justices, 123 NH. 510, S11
(1989) (supreme court justices are not “empowered to give advisory opinions on
legal questions involving resolution of questions of fact). “Iti the role of this
court in our co-equal, tripartite form of government to interpret the
Constitution and to resolve disputes arising under it” Petition of Below, 151
NH. 185, 199 (2004) (quotation omitted). However, our intent is only to
answer the questions posed, not to opine upon whether HB 89 reflects a wise
public policy. ‘See Smith Insurance, Inc, v. Grievance Committee, 120 N.H.
856, 863 (1980). We leave such matters to the other branches of government.
‘See id. sce also Mahan v, NH, Dep't of Admin, Services, 141 NH. 747, 749-50
(1997) (judiciary is reluctant to evaluate the wisdom of an executive or
legislative choice of public policy goals or the means to achieve them),

 

You have asked three questions about the constitutional validity of HB
89. Your first question asks whether HB 89, as passed by the House, would
violate Part I, Article 37 of the New Hampshire Constitution. We answer in the
affirmative. Your second question asks whether HB 89's requirement that the
attorney general join the State as a plaintiff in the Florida case falls within the
grant of authority to the general court set forth in Part II, Article 5 of the New
Hampshire Constitution. We answer this question in the negative. Your third
question asks whether HB 89, as passed by the House, violates any other
provision of the New Hampshire Constitution. Historically, we have declined to
answer general inquiries on constitutional infirmity and, in keeping with that
practice, we respectfully decline to answer the third question. See Opinion of
the Justices (Weirs Beach), 134 N.H. 711, 717 (1991).

Standard of Review

Before setting forth our analysis regarding your first and second
questions, we note the proper standard of review. "When we interpret statutes
already in effect, they are construed to avoid conflict with constitutional rights
wherever reasonably possible.” Opinion of the Justices (Certain Evidence in
‘Sexual Assault Cases), 140 N.H. 22, 26 (1995) (quotation omitted). The same
standard applies when we review proposed legislation “for itis understood that
the [legislation] if enacted will be construed harmoniously with an individual's
constitutional rights in any given case." Id. at 26-27. Thus, in reviewing
proposed legislation, as when we review an existing statute, “we presume it to
be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable
grounds.” New Hampshire Health Care Assoc, v. Governor, 161 N.H. 378, 985
(2011) (quotation omitted). This means that “we will not hold [the act) to be
Unconstitutional unless a clear and substantial conflict exists between it and
the constitution.” Id. (quotation omitted). “It also means that when doubts
exist as to the constitutionality of a (legisiative act), those doubts must be
resolved in favor of its constitutionality.” Id. (quotation omitted).

 

I__Part Il, Article §

Your second question asks whether “the requirement in HB 89 that the
attorney general move to have the state of New Hampshire join as a plaintiff in
the lawsuit, fall[s] within the broad grant of authority to the general court set
forth in Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.” Part II, Article 5
empowers the legislature, among other things, “to set forth the several duties,
powers, and limits, of the several civil and military officers of this state . . . so

” N.H. CONST,

 

‘The plain language of Part Il, Article 5 authorizes the legislature to set
the duties of civil officers only to the extent that doing so does not contravene
the constitution. The constitution, thus, makes the legislature's authority
pursuant to Part II, Article 5 subject to other constitutional provisions such as,
the Separation of Powers Clause. Therefore, if setting forth a duty violates
another provision of the constitution, then such action does not “fall within the
broad grant of authority” Part Il, Article 5 confers upon the legislature.
Accordingly, if HB 89 violates the Separation of Powers Clause, it is “repugnant
or contrary to [our] constitution,” and does not “fall within the broad grant of
authority to the general court set forth in Part Il, Article 5.” Because our
answer to your second question depends upon our answer to your first, we
turn now to your first question.
IIL Separation of Powers

Your first question asks whether HB 89 would violate the separation of
powers doctrine set forth in Part I, Article 37 of the State Constitution. Part I,
Article 37 provides:

In the government of this state, the three essential powers
thereof, to wit, the legislative, executive, and judicial, ought to be
kept as separate from, and independent of, each other, as the
nature of a free government will admit, or as is consistent with that
chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution
in one indissoluble bond of union and amity.

“The concept of the separation of powers contained in virtually every American
constitution was designed to protect the people from the tyranny of government
which could result from the accumulation of unbridled power in any one

branch of the government.” Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. 552, 556 (1981).

“We have long acknowledged that the complete separation of powers
would interfere with the efficient operation of government, and that
consequently there must be some overlapping of the power of each branch.” Id,
The drafters of our constitution recognized this political reality, and provided
that the “three essential powers [of government] ought to be kept as separate
from, and independent of, each other, as the nature of a free government will
admit, or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds the whole
fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of unity and amity.” N.H.
CONST. pt. I, art. 37; see Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. at 556.
Nonetheless, while, as a practical matter, there must be some overlapping
among the three branches of government, the New Hampshire Separation of
Powers Clause is violated when one branch usurps an essential power of
another. New Hampshire Health Care Assoc., 161 N.H. at 386,

In this matter, we must consider whether the legislature, by mandating
that the attorney general join the State of New Hampshire as a party in the
Florida case opposing the federal law, would usurp an essential power of the
executive branch. See Duquette v, Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737,
747 (2007). We, therefore, begin by examining the constitutional powers of the
legislative and executive branches.

Part Il, Article 2 of the State Constitution vests the legislature with the
“supreme legislative power,” which specifically includes the power to make
Jaws, name certain civil officers, and define the duties of “the several civil and
military officers of this state.” N.H. CONST. pt. Il, art. 5; see New Hampshire
Health Care Assoc,, 161 N.H. at 386, These powers are among the legislature's
“essential” powers.

 
“The panoply of powers granted to the Governor and Council by the
Constitution . .. of this state is extensive.” Barry v, King, 106 N.H. 279, 281
(1965). Part Il, Article 41 of the State Constitution provides that the Governor
is the “supreme executive magistrate." The constitution makes the Governor
“responsible for the faithful execution of the laws.” NH, CONST. pt. Il, art. 41
‘The power to execute laws, therefore, is one of the executive branch's “essential
powers.’

 

At issue is whether directing the attorney general to initiate a specific
civil lawsuit, here by joining the State to an existing case as a plaintiff, would
usurp an essential power of the executive branch. To determine whether HB
89 would usurp an essential power of the executive branch, we must examine
the meaning of the phrase “faithful execution of the laws” as contained in Part
I, Article 41

When our inquiry requires us to interpret a provision of the constitution,
‘we must look to its purpose and intent. Bd. of Trustees, N.H. Judicial Ret,
Plan v. Sec'y of State, 161 N.H. 49, 53 (2010). We first look to the natural
significance of the words used by the framers. Id. “The simplest and most
obvious interpretation of a constitution, if in itself sensible, is most likely to be
that meant by the people in its adoption.” Id. (quotation omitted).

“White the constitution as it now stands is to be considered as a whole as
if enacted at one time, to ascertain the meaning of particular expressions it
may be necessary to give attention to the circumstances under which they
became parts of the instrument.” Id. at 53-54 (quotation omitted). “By
reviewing the history of the constitution and its amendments, the court
endeavors to place itself as nearly as possible in the situation of the parties at
the time the instrument was made, that it may gather their intention from the
language used, viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances.” Baines
¥.N.H, Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

When interpreting the meaning of a constitutional provision adopted by
popular vote, we will give the words in question the meaning they must be
presumed to have had to the electorate when the vote was cast. See Town of
Canaan v. Sec'y of State, 157 N.H. 795, 799 (2008). “The language used by the
people in the great paramount law which controls the legislature as well as the
people, is to be always understood and explained in that sense in which it was
used at the time when the constitution and the laws were adopted.” Id.
(quotation omitted). We consider a delegate’s statements in determining the
‘meaning of an amendment if the statements interpret the amendment’s
language “in accordance with its plain and common meaning while being

* We use the term “Governor because itis the torm used in the New Hampshice Consttuton, but express no
‘opinion as to whether the tem refers fo the Governor alone or aso includes tne Execute Counc,

6
reflective of its known purpose or object.” Bd. of Trustees, N.H. Judicial Ret,
Plan, 161 N.H. at 55 (quotation omitted).

 

New Hampshire adopted its first constitution in 1776 after the State
became independent of British rule. Warburton v. Thomas, 136 N.H. 383, 388,
(1992). This constitution, which was a temporary document, centered all the
governing power in the legislature. Id. It did not provide for a governor or any
other executive officer; nor did it provide for an independent judiciary. Id.
“The centralization of power in the legislature reflected the framers’ distrust of
the unchecked power of the royal governors under England's rule.” Id.

‘The 1776 temporary constitution remained in effect until 1784. Id. At
that time, the Separation of Powers Clause, Part I, Article 37, was added to the
constitution, as was Part II, Article 41, which, for the first time, created the
executive as a separate branch of government. See Manual of the Constitution
109, 116, 125-30 (1902). “As applied to the executivet,] the primary purpose
[of Part I, Article 37] is to protect it from legislative encroachment.” Opinion of
the Justices, 118 N.H. 582, 585 (1978).

When Part II, Article 41 first became part of our constitution in 1784, it
provided only: “There shall be a supreme executive magistrate who shall be
‘styled The President of the State of New Hampshire, and whose title shall be
His Excellency.” Manual of the Constitution, supra at 125. In 1792, this
single sentence was amended to change the name of the executive to the
Governor. Id. at 147, 17.

‘The grant of power in Part II, Article 41, making the Governor the
“supreme executive magistrate,” is “something more than a verbal adornment
of the office.” Barry, 106 N.H. at 281 (quotation omitted). It “implies such
power as will secure an efficient execution of the laws.” State v, Dawson, 119
P. 360, 363 (Kan. 1911). The 1792 constitution empowered the Governor to
implement this grant of power by convening the Executive Council “for ordering
and directing the affairs of the state, according to the laws of the land,” N.H.
CONST. pt. Il, art. 62. See Barry, 106 N.H. at 281; see also S. Marshall, The
New Hampshire State Constitution: A Reference Guide 177 (2004),

Part Il, Article 41 was next amended nearly two hundred years later, in
1966, as a result of the 1964 constitutional convention. See Opinion of the
Justices, 113 N.H. 141, 148 (1973). “All but the first sentence of this article
was added by the constitutional amendment in 1966.” Id.; see Journal of
Constitutional Convention 287, 289, 292, 313, 315 (June 10, 1964). Asa

result of the 1964 constitutional convention, Part II, Article 41 now reads:

 

 
‘There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall be
styled the Governor of the State of New Hampshire, and whose title
shall be His Excellency. The executive power of the state is vested
in the governor. The governor shall be responsible for the faithful
execution of the laws. He may, by appropriate court action or
proceeding brought in the name of the state, enforce compliance
‘with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation
of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right, by any
officer, department or agency of the state. This authority shall not
be construed to authorize any action or proceedings against the
legislative or judicial branches.

‘As amended, Part Il, Article 41 makes clear that the Governor is
responsible for “the faithful execution of the laws.” It also provides an
additional method for implementing this power: the Governor may initiate
court actions in the name of the state to “enforce compliance with any
constitutional or legislative mandate” or to “restrain violation of any
constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right by any officer, department or
agency of the state.” As we noted in Opinion of the Justices, 113 N.H. at 148,
the amendments to Part II, Article 41 were intended *to impose a duty upon the
executive to carry out the legislative mandates as well as to enforce
constitutional requirements.”

 

Statements of delegates at the 1964 constitutional convention as well as
the ballot question posed to the voters confirm this interpretation. The ratified
amendments to Part II, Article 41 had their genesis in Resolution 58 of the
1964 constitutional convention. Sce Journal of Constitutional Convention,
supra at 404 (index). Resolution 58 was a resolution ‘establishing the
‘executive power in the governor, placing executive departments of the state
under his supervision, and charging him with execution of the laws.” Id.
According to the ballot question posed to the voters, its purpose was “to clarify
and reinforce the executive powers of the governor by providing that he shall be
vested with the executive power, shall be responsible for faithful execution of
the laws and may by appropriate legal action enforce constitutional and
legislative mandates within the executive branch.” Id. at 309.

 

As one delegate explained, “The new Resolution 58 permits the governor
to continue to direct the affairs of the State and now he must enforce respect
for legislative mandates, powers, rights and duties.” Id. at 288. This delegate
also explained that the ratified amendments were intended to be consistent
with the doctrine of separation of powers. See id. As he stated:

Now we know the doctrine [of separation of powers] is essential to
American government and we know it requires constant
implementation. Whenever the executive branch needs authority,
it cannot legislate one word. Only the Legislature manufactures
authority. Ifthe General Court needs better enforcement, it cannot
enforce compliance or restrain violations, These are executive
functions.

Id. (emphasis added),

This history reveals that the intended purpose of Part II, Article 41 is to
grant the executive branch the exclusive power to enforce the law. See

‘Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 202 (1928) (‘Legislative power
is the authority to make laws, but not to enforce them . . . . The latter [is an]

executive function] |. Enforcement “includes criminal as well as civil
process.” State v. McPhail, 180 So. 387, 390 (Miss. 1938); see United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (enforcing criminal laws is within the
“special province” of the executive (quotation omitted)}; Buckley v. Valeo, 424
USS. 1, 138 (1976); see also Riley v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, 57 So.
3d 704, 720 (Ala. 2010). As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,
“The Executive Branch . . . has the exclusive authority not only to decide
whether to prosecute, but also to decide which of alternative statutory sections,
which may carry penalties of varying severity, the defendant will be charged
with violating” United States v, Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651, 670 (24 Cir. 2008).

 

The executive branch is also responsible for initiating civil actions on
behalf of the State. As the United States Supreme Court has observed, “[a],
lawsuit is the ultimate remedy for a breach of the law,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at
138, and itis the Governor whom the New Hampshire Constitution makes
“responsible for the faithful execution of the laws," N.H. CONST. pt. II, art. 41;
see State Through Bd, of Ethics v. Green, 545 So, 2d 1031, 1036 (La. 1989)
(‘The authority to file a civil lawsuit has traditionally been held to constitute an
‘execution of the laws,” and the power to ensure that the laws are faithfully
executed is committed to the governor under the Louisiana Constitution,).

HB 89 would usurp this essential power because it would divest the
executive branch entirely of its authority to decide whether to initiate a
particular civil action on the part of the State. The executive branch, not the
legislative branch, is empowered to protect the interests of the people by taking
care that the laws are faithfully executed. As the United States Supreme Court
has explained, the enforcement power “exemplified by its discretionary power to
seek judicial relief, is authority that cannot possibly be regarded as merely in
aid of the legislative function.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 138. Enforcement actions
are within the “special province” of the executive. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464
(quotation omitted)

  

Itis the executive, not the legislative branch, in which the constitution
vests the “supreme executive” authority to determine whether it is in the public
interest to litigate a particular matter. Necessarily, this includes the decision
not to initiate a specific civil action on the part of the State. The executive
branch alone has the power to decide the State's interest in litigation. If
enacted, HB 89's usurpation of an exclusively executive function would violate
the separation of powers doctrine, See Opinion of the Justices, 129 N.H. 714,
718-19 (1987),

‘The Senate, Speaker O'Brien and Majority Leader Bettencourt argue that,
HB 89 amounts to nothing more than exercise of one of the legislature's,
essential powers, i.e, “to set forth the several duties, powers, and limits, of the
several civil and military officers of this state . . . so as the same be not
repugnant or contrary to this constitution.” N.H. CONST. pt. Il, art. 5. As
previously noted, however, the legislature's power to set forth duties of civil and
military officers is constrained by other constitutional provisions,

Here, HB 89 would mandate a specific action by the attorney general that
implicates the executive branch's power to enforce the law. In mandating this
action -- to join a specific lawsuit on a particular side -- the legislature would
exceed its authority to prescribe the duties of the attorney general. In so doing,
it would deprive the executive of its essential power to determine the State's
interest in civil litigation. While the legislature is responsible for setting forth
the duties of “the several civil and military officers of this state,” it may not do
so in a Way that usurps one of the executive branch's essential powers.

 

Moreover, the Governor is the head of the executive branch. The
attorney gencral is a member of the executive branch, and is a constitutional
officer, appointed by the Governor and Council pursuant to Part Il, Article 46 of
the New Hampshire Constitution. See Opinion of the Justices, 115 N.H. 159,
161 (1975). The Governor is the “supreme executive magistrate.” N.H. CONST,
pt Il, art. 41. The Governor has the highest authority in the executive branch,
including the authority to initiate an “appropriate court action or proceeding”
to “enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or
restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right, by
any officer, department or agency of the state.” Id. Thus, given the Governor's
constitutional position as “supreme executive magistrate,” New Hampshire law
recognizes the Governor's power to direct the attorney general to appear in
pending actions on behalf of the State. See RSA 7:9 (2003) (“The governor and
council may, in any action or proceeding, wherever pending, represent to the
attorney general that he should appear to protect the interests of the state or of
the people, and thereupon it shall be his duty to appear.”).

‘The Senate distinguishes the Florida case from “the kind of civil or
criminal enforcement action that the Attorney General typically commences on
behalf of the state.” “In an ordinary case,” the Senate observes, “the Attorney
General brings a criminal indictment to enforce the criminal law against an

10
individual believed to have violated it, or an enforcement action against a
person believed to have committed a civil wrong.” The Senate impliedly
acknowledges that in such a case, the legislature could not direct the attorney
general to exercise his discretion in any particular way -- to indict or sue a
specific person or to refrain from so doing,

 

The Florida case, the Senate argues, is different. It is “policy-oriented
litigation,” and, in such a case, “{t]he democratically elected lawmaking sectors
of the government should direct the state’s course of action.” “In policy-
oriented litigation,” the Senate asserts, ‘the state's interest may not always be
clear,” and deciding “[wjhether to enter the case, and on which side, are much
‘more properly characterized as policy decisions than legal decisions.” Speaker
O’Brien and Majority Leader Bettencourt share this view: “(lit cannot be
overemphasized that the decision whether to join the [Florida case| is a political
decision, not a legal decision.”

 

‘The arguments pressed by the Senate, Speaker O’Brien and Majority
Leader Bettencourt imply that because the purpose of the mandate to the
attorney general is politically based, arising out of the legislature's policy
making function, the inquiry ends there. However, the policy-making authority
to determine whether the State should join the Florida lawsuit has been
delegated by the constitution to the executive branch. Itis the executive, not
the legislative branch, in which the constitution vests the power to determine
the State's interest in any litigation.

 

 

‘The Senate observes that HB 89 “is not the first time” that the legislature
has directed the attorney general to take specific action in a pending case. The
Senate notes that in 1994, the legislature passed a law mandating the attorney
general to “pursue settlement of the border dispute between the state of New
Hampshire and the state of Maine.” Laws 1994, 264:2.

‘The Senate's reliance upon this law is misplaced. First, although the
attorney general apparently raised separation of powers questions about
legislation, he never challenged it in court, and, thus, there was never any
definitive determination as to the law's constitutionality. We are the final
arbiter of State constitutional disputes, Petition of Below, 151 N.H. at 139, and
‘we were never called upon to consider the constitutionality of Laws 1994,
264:2 or any other law directing the attorney general to take a specific action in
a particular civil case.

 

Second, Laws 1994, 264:2, a general directive to the attorney general to
“pursue settlement,” is qualitatively different from HB 89, a specific legislative
command that the attorney general not only enter the Florida case but do so on
the side of the plaintiffs. Cf. Nelson v. Wyman, 9 N.H. 33, 37-39 (1954)
(legislature may direct attorney general to conduct investigation and report

 

ul
findings to legislature). There is no suggestion that the purpose of Laws 1994,
264:2 was to require the attorney general to settle the border dispute under
any and all circumstances and regardless of his assessment of the merits of
any particular resolution, and as the Senate acknowledges, the border dispute
was not in fact settled. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 732 (2001)

Speaker O’Brien and Majority Leader Bettencourt also rely upon
legislative precedent. They argue that the legislature's ‘[clontemporaneous
[clonstruction” is relevant to determine the meaning of the constitutional
provisions at issue. See Warburton, 136 N.H. at 389. However, the precedents
upon which they rely, from the 1780's and 1790's, are not “[clontemporaneous”
with the 1966 amendments to Part Il, Article 41, which were intended to “vest
in the Governor strengthened executive power and responsibility.” Opinion of
the Justices, 113 N-H. at 148. How the legislature interpreted Part Il, Article
41 in the 1780's and 1790's is of little help in determining its meaning in light
of the 1966 constitutional amendments.

Accordingly, for all of the above stated reasons, we conclude that HB 89,
which removes entirely from the executive branch the decision as to whether to
join the State as a party to litigation, would usurp the executive branch's power
to execute and enforce the law. Therefore, in our opinion, HB 89, as passed by
the House, violates the Separation of Powers Clause and is unconstitutional
‘That being the case, it follows that HB 89 does not “fall within the broad grant
of authority to the general gourt set forth in Part Il, Article 5 of the New
Hampshire constitution.”

Lud
LINDA STEWART DALIANIS

 

 

hod
CAROL ANN CONBOY G
ROBERT J. Lf 4

William L. Chapman, of Concord, filed a memorandum in support of an

affirmative answer to the first question presented.

12
Michael A. Delaney, attorney general, & a., filed a memorandum in
support of affirmative answers to the first and third questions presented and a
negative answer to the second question presented.

Douglas & Garvey, P.C., of Concord (Ri on
the memorandum), filed a memorandum on behalf of the New Hampshire
‘Senate in support of negative answers to the first and third questions
presented and an affirmative answer to the second question presented.

William A. Glahn, Ill and Patrick H. Taylor, of Manchester, filed a
memorandum on behalf of former members of the Office of Attorney General of
New Hampshire in support of affirmative answers to the first and third

 

questions presented.

James Upshur McClammer, Jr., of Charlestown, filed a memorandum in
support of an affirmative answer to the first question presented.

‘Mosca Law Office, of Manchester (Edward C, Mosca on the
memorandum), filed a memorandum on behalf of William O'Brien, Speaker,
and David J. Bettencourt, Majority Leader, of the New Hampshire House of,
Representatives, in support of negative answers to the first and third questions
presented and an affirmative answer to the second question presented,

NH Voices for Health, of Concord (Michael J. Cohen and Thomas 6.
Bunnell on the memorandum), filed a memorandum in support of an
affirmative answer to the first question presented,

Gregory J. Vasse, of New London, filed a memorandum in support of an
affirmative answer to the first question presented,

13