Title: State Ex Rel. Helm v. Kramer

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

82 Wn.2d 307 (1973) 510 P.2d 1110 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Bruce Kenneth Helm, Petitioner, v. A. LUDLOW KRAMER, as Secretary of State, Respondent. No. 42801. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. May 30, 1973. As amended by order June 4, 1973. David T. Kirkland, Richard L. Prout, and Thomas D. Coughlin (of Hageman, Prout, Kirkland & Coughlin), for petitioner. Slade Gorton, Attorney General, Wayne L. Williams and Thomas F. Carr, Assistants, for respondent. [As amended by order of the Supreme Court June 4, 1973.] HUNTER, J. This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel the Secretary of State (respondent), to accept for filing the necessary documents tendered by the relator, Bruce Kenneth Helm, for the referendum of Laws of 1973, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 137, § 110. The relator in his writ alleges full compliance with the statutory and constitutional requirements to entitle him as a taxpayer and legal voter to seek such referendum. The relator states that by reason of the Secretary of State's refusal to accept the documents for filing, he and the people of the state of Washington will be deprived of their constitutional right, reserved to the people of the state of Washington to pass upon this section of the above act at the next general election. The section is as follows: The procedure followed by the legislature for the ultimate adoption of this section was in conformity with the direction contained in RCW 43.03.028, which provides for the establishment of a state committee on salaries to consist of seven members, as follows: *310 RCW 43.03.045 provides: Pursuant to said section, the Governor transmitted in his budget the recommendations for salaries as fixed by the state committee on salaries, with the exception of the salary provided for members of the legislature in the amount of $10,560 annually, which the Governor reduced in his recommendation to $7,200. The legislature thereupon, in its adoption of the budget for certain state agencies, included therein in section 110, the restoration, to the extent of $10,560, for the annual salary recommended by the state committee on salaries for members of the legislature, and either adopted the Governor's recommendations or made reductions in adjusting the salaries for other state elected officials. The budget bill concluded with the usual emergency clause for a budget bill as follows: The constitutional provision, under which the relator seeks to have section 110 referred to the people for their approval or disapproval at the next general election on November 6, 1973, is paragraph (b) of article 2, section 1 as set forth in the seventh amendment to the state constitution: (Italics ours.) The italicized part of the referendum provision is the exception which is commonly known as the emergency clause. In the absence of the emergency clause, no act, bill or law would become effective until 90 days after the adjournment of the session at which it was enacted. Paragraph (c) as contained in our Seventh Amendment so provides: "No act, law, or bill subject to referendum shall take effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was enacted...." Thus, in order for a bill to take effect at an earlier date, it is necessary for the legislature to declare the law to come within the exceptions of article 2, section 1 (b) by appending to the bill the customary so-called "emergency clause" containing the exceptions. The issue then in determining whether a bill is referable by referendum, is whether either of the exceptions contained in the emergency clause can be sustained. [1] The relator contends the emergency clause cannot be sustained as to section 110, for the reason that there is *312 no showing by the bill on its face, or by those matters of which we may take judicial notice, that an emergency exists for the increase of salaries of the respective state elected officials. In so doing, he fails to recognize that the emergency clause contains two exceptions, one which relates to the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and the other for the support of state government and its existing public institutions. It has long been recognized by our decisions in construing this section of the constitution, supra, that these are two distinct exceptions the first as to the existence of an emergency for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and the second as to the support of state government and its existing public institutions, irrespective of an emergency. In the recent case of State ex rel. Hoppe v. Meyers, 58 Wn.2d 320, 363 P.2d 121 (1961), involving the testing of an emergency clause in a mandamus proceeding wherein it was sought to refer an act to the people under the referendum provision of our constitution, we clearly delineated the two exceptions. We there stated on pages 326 and 327: We therefore need not consider the existence or nonexistence of an emergency in the emergency clause. If section 110 comes within the second exception that the enactment was in support of the state government and its existing public institutions, then the relator cannot prevail irrespective of the existence of an emergency. [2] We even went so far as to state in State ex rel. Pennock v. Reeves, 27 Wn.2d 739, 743, 179 P.2d 961 (1947), citing State ex rel. Case v. Howell, 85 Wash. 281, 147 P. 1162 (1915): The emergency clause in this case can then be sustained in the event section 110 can be determined to be in support of state government and its existing public institutions without regard to the existence of an emergency. There can be no question but what the biennial budget for 1973-75, in which section 110 is contained, is in support of state government and its existing public institutions. The enactment is implicitly so entitled: The issue then is whether section 110 is properly within the state budget. The relator vigorously argues that it is not; that this is not the budget in the traditional sense; that it is truly not an appropriation but an enactment for the increase of salaries of elected state officials. We are satisfied that the relator is in error. This same contention was raised in the early case of State ex rel. Jones v. Clausen, 78 Wash. 103, 138 P. 653 (1914). In that case the legislature, in a *314 general appropriations bill, increased the salary of the deputy state auditor from $1,800 annually to $3,600. We there stated through Mr. Justice Chadwick, on page 105: This custom has since been continued as demonstrated by provisions for increasing wages and salaries for certain state employees in the present state agency budget, Laws of 1973, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 137, §§ 39, 58 and 86, which provide: [3] In the instant case, in addition to authority for the inclusion of section 110 in the general appropriation budget under the rule of State ex rel. Jones v. Clausen, supra, is the express statutory direction that it be included in the 1973-75 biennial appropriation budget by RCW 43.03.045, supra, of the state committee on salaries act. Moreover, our research discloses no limitation in our state constitution or our state statutes limiting the authority of the legislature to provide for increased salaries of state elective officials in the biennial general appropriations budget in support of state government. There can then be no question but what section 110, supra, is lawfully included in Laws of 1973, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 137, the 1973-75 biennial budget for certain state agencies. *317 Section 110 is therefore an integral part of the aforesaid budget which is clearly in support of state government and its existing public institutions, coming within the second exception of the referendum section of the seventh amendment to our state constitution. That appropriation acts come within this exception as stated in State ex rel. Brislawn v. Meath, 84 Wash. 302, 147 P. 11 (1915), was exhaustively examined and supported in State ex rel. Blakeslee v. Clausen, 85 Wash. 260, 148 P. 28 (1915). We there said on page 269: (Italics ours.) [4] Moreover, it is significant to note that the word "support" of state government used in its fullest sense, must include the providing of compensation for state elective officials in state government when reflected by an appropriation. In State ex rel. Flanagan v. Taylor, 43 S.D. 264, 268, 178 N.W. 985 (1920), that court there stated: Further, in using the word "support" of state government in its fullest sense we turn to the purpose of section 110, as expressly stated in the state committee on salaries act, RCW 43.03.027: The purpose of section 110 is therefore obvious: To provide adequate salaries and adjustments on the basis of the *319 elective officers' responsibilities; and to retain and attract the best qualified state elective officials. To test whether or not this purpose in support of state government and its existing public institutions was in fact implemented by the enactment of section 110, we can take judicial notice of the following statement by the Governor in his budget message: We can take judicial notice of the Consumer Price Index of the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1973, page 4, chart 1, all items index and its rate of change, from 1964 to January 1973, which shows an increase in prices on all items from the figure of 95 in 1964 to 127.7 in January 1973. We can take judicial notice of the overall average of percentage salary increases for Washington state civil service employees for the period of July 1, 1965 through June 30, 1973, as contained in the records of the Department of Personnel of the State of Washington: We can take judicial notice of the increased duties and *320 responsibilities of legislators by the provision for an additional legislative session and the continuation of standing legislative committees during the interim. [5] We can therefore conclude that it was in fact discriminatory to consider increases for state civil service employees consistently each year since 1965, and, with the exception of the judicial officials in 1972, with no increases for state elected officials during that same period; that the adjustment of salaries across the board of all state elected officials was long overdue, and that the legislature was carrying out the legislative direction of the state committee on salaries act in implementing the purposes of that act in support of state government by establishing and adjusting salaries on the basis of cost of living increases, the responsibilities of their office, the increased responsibilities of their office, and on the basis of being reasonably competitive with other comparable employment, in order to retain in and attract the best qualified persons to the respective state elective positions. We believe these matters of which we have taken judicial notice clearly show section 110 was enacted for the purpose of and was in support of state government and its existing public institutions, and does in fact implement that purpose. For the reasons heretofore stated, there can be no question as to whether section 110 comes within the second exception of article 2, section 1(b) as set forth in the seventh amendment of our state constitution, and cannot therefore be subject to referendum. The relator's writ must be and is denied. HALE, C.J., FINLEY, ROSELLINI, HAMILTON, STAFFORD, WRIGHT, and BRACHTENBACH, JJ., concur. UTTER, J. (concurring) I concur on the ground stated by the majority that our constitution, as interpreted by our earlier cases, states that a law providing for the support of state government and its existing institutions is not subject to referendum. Our previous cases hold appropriations for salary increases are properly part of the state budget. As *321 the majority notes, the only authority in this country dealing with the issue of whether appropriations for salaries for state officers and employees are for the support of state government, holds affirmatively on that issue. State ex rel. Flanagan v. Taylor, 43 S.D. 264, 178 N.W. 985 (1920). There is no case in our country where constitutional provisions similar to ours have been held to permit a referendum under the circumstances present in this case. [1] It is to be noted that district court judges may, strictly speaking, not be state elected officials. Our reference in this opinion to state elective officials hence does not include district court judges. We perceive that no issue has been raised as to their severability which we do not reach. [2] For convenience we will refer to the pertinent statutes relative to the state committee on salaries as the state committee on salaries act. [3] We are mindful of the later South Dakota case, State ex rel. Martin v. Eastcott, 53 S.D. 191, 220 N.W. 613 (1928), which disaffirms the language of Flanagan when it is applied to acts which merely increase salaries and do not appropriate money for the positions. This is not the case here.