Title: State Finance Committee v. O'BRIEN

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

105 Wn.2d 78 (1986) 711 P.2d 993 THE STATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, Petitioner, v. ROBERT S. O'BRIEN, as Treasurer, Respondent. No. 51945-5. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. January 9, 1986. Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, and Elvin J. Vandeberg and Clifford D. Foster, Jr. (of Kane, Vandeberg, Hartinger & Walker), Special Assistants, for petitioner. Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, and David E. Walsh, Deputy, for respondent. Edward L. Fleisher and Martin H. Brown on behalf of the Legislature, amici curiae for petitioner. BRACHTENBACH, J. This is an original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the state treasurer to sign resolutions authorizing the sale of state bonds. The petitioner correctly and precisely states the issues: The writ shall issue. The issues arise from Const. art. 2, § 19: "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." The title to the bill at issue provides that it is "an act relating to capital projects ..." Lines 6 and 7 of the first *80 section of the bill authorize the State Finance Committee to issue general obligation bonds of the State in the amount of $285,851,000 to finance projects therein described. [1, 2] The two issues are title and subject matter. Our decision is made with two long-established premises in mind. First, the statute is presumed to be constitutional and the challenger bears a heavy burden to overcome that presumption. Second, article 2, section 19 is to be liberally construed in favor of the validity of the legislation. State Higher Educ. Assistance Auth. v. Graham, 84 Wn.2d 813, 529 P.2d 1051 (1974); State v. Grisby, 97 Wn.2d 493, 647 P.2d 6 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211, 75 L. Ed. 2d 446, 103 S. Ct. 1205 (1983). [3, 4] Examining the title it admittedly is broad in scope, but so be it. In a comprehensive opinion, 90 pages including the dissent, this court dealt with the title issue. Gruen v. State Tax Comm'n, 35 Wn.2d 1, 22, 211 P.2d 651 (1949), overruled on other grounds in State ex rel. State Fin. Comm. v. Martin, 62 Wn.2d 645, 384 P.2d 833 (1963). We there said, and it is still good law: Gruen, at 22. This title gave fair notice to legislators and the public that the Legislature was considering capital projects. That, in fact, is what it was considering. Turning to the subject matter issue, the Attorney General argues that the act authorizes a wide range of capital projects with separate and distinct purposes. It is correct that the authorized capital projects range from fisheries to educational facilities. However, it is equally true that the overall subject is singular capital expenditures to carry out legitimate governmental *81 purposes. In a landmark decision by Justice Hamilton, this court established the fundamental rules about subject matter. Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line Ins. Co. (Mut.), 69 Wn.2d 392, 403, 418 P.2d 443 (1966). We said: A branch of government which is independent and coequal, which the judiciary is, must respect the decisions of an also independent and coequal branch, which the Legislature is. Absent a clear violation of the constitution, which we do not perceive here, the Legislature is entitled to determine what is within the "subject" of a bill. It did so and we should not inquire further. The writ shall issue. UTTER, DORE, PEARSON, and ANDERSEN, JJ., and HAMILTON, J. Pro Tem., concur. *82 CALLOW, J. (dissenting) Article 2, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution reads: The title of House Bill 1328 reads as follows: There is no reference in the title to the incurrence of debt by the issuance and sale of $285,851,000 of general obligation bonds. The test of the sufficiency of the expression of the subject of a bill is that it must give notice of its object so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into its contents. In other words, the title of the bill should reasonably inform a reader about the subject matter of the bill. Flanders v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 183, 558 P.2d 769 (1977); Brewster Pub. Schs. v. PUD 1, 82 Wn.2d 839, 514 P.2d 913 (1973); State Sch. Directors Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Indus., 82 Wn.2d 367, 510 P.2d 818 (1973); American Fed'n of Teachers, Yakima Local 1485 v. Yakima Sch. Dist. 7, 74 Wn.2d 865, 447 P.2d 593 (1968); State v. Lounsbery, 74 Wn.2d 659, 445 P.2d 1017 (1968); Treffry v. Taylor, 67 Wn.2d 487, 408 P.2d 269 (1965), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 10, 17 L. Ed. 2d 10, 87 S. Ct. 70 (1966). State v. Winters, 67 Wn.2d 465, 466-67, 407 P.2d 988 (1965), appeal dismissed, 384 U.S. 208, 16 L. Ed. 2d 481, 86 S. Ct. 1461 (1966), stated: (Footnote omitted.) House Bill 1328 deals with the issuance of general obligation bonds and the funding for a myriad of capital projects. The title of the bill gives no notice of the authorization of general obligation bonds to provide for funding those projects which would impose a $285 million debt upon the State. While it is proper for the Legislature to refer to sections of the revised code in the title of an act, this cannot take the place of the constitutional requirement that the title must contain some statement indicating the actual content of the bill. State ex rel. Seattle Elec. Co. v. Superior Court, 28 Wash. 317, 68 P. 957 (1902). If notice were to be given to the members of the Legislature and to the general public of the subject of the bill, there should have been added to its title the phrase, "and providing for the funding thereof by the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds." When the Code Reviser published the contents of the bill as chapter 4 of Laws of 1985, 1st Ex. Sess., the insufficiency of the title apparently was recognized and the words "bonds for capital projects" were added as a heading at the beginning of the chapter long after the passage of the bill by the Legislature. The session laws reflect this at page 2289, in the following form. HB 1328 concerns the issuance of bonds to fund innumerable capital improvements for the executive and administrative departments of state government. The term "Capital Budget" in the title provides no notice that the capital projects will be paid for by the sale of bonds, yet every act that the bill amends (now amending sections of the Revised Code of Washington) contained the word *84 "bond" in its title. See Laws of 1969, ch. 13; Laws of 1973, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 135; Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 308; Laws of 1979, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 230; Laws of 1980, ch. 141. The contents of the bill were in the following format: The bill continues for section after section in the same recitations regarding the authorization of the issuance of general obligation bonds. The bill dealt with the issuance of general obligation bonds and the title should have said so. It is a commonsense requirement that the title of a bill expressly indicate its content without the need to search further, or to imagine all of the possible subjects which might be encompassed under a particular title. The news media reports the titles of bills, and the titles only, from *85 time to time for the information and edification of the general public. The titles of the bills alone are printed as an index for those interested in legislation. The passage of bills is often upon a reading of the bill by title only. When that title does not indicate that the bill is an indebtedness authorization or a spending bill, it may well escape the notice of those that the framers of the constitution meant to inform. The majority relies upon Gruen v. State Tax Comm'n, 35 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 211 P.2d 651 (1949) which quotes from State ex rel. State Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle, 32 Wn.2d 13, 24-26, 200 P.2d 467 (1948), as follows: It is recognized that the application of these rules can be *86 restrictive or flexible, but it is submitted that they should not be so interpreted as to weaken Const. art. 2, § 19 to the extent that its "threefold" purposes will not be accomplished. See Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line Ins. Co. (Mut.), 69 Wn.2d 392, 418 P.2d 443 (1966). A "capital project" is any physical public betterment or improvement. Gerges v. Koch, 62 N.Y.2d 84, 464 N.E.2d 441, 476 N.Y.S.2d 73 (1984); State ex rel. Sullivan v. Burns, 51 Ariz. 384, 77 P.2d 215 (1938). The word "capital" may have different meanings when used in different connections. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation v. Filoon, 310 Mass. 374, 38 N.E.2d 693 (1941). The term can refer to property, money, wealth, the place where legislative and executive offices are located, the sum total of corporate stock, or that portion of the produce of the industry of a country that may be made directly available to finance production. Black's Law Dictionary (5th rev. ed. 1979); Webster's Third New International Dictionary. It usually refers to many things other than the funding of projects by the issuance of bonds. It is argued that the subject matter of the bill is included in the words "Capital Projects". If that construction is to be the future guide to the interpretation of Const. art. 2, § 19, then such general undescriptive topics as "state business" and "legislative concerns" may well be approved bill titles in the years to come. When the State Constitution was formulated it borrowed heavily from the Organic Act which established the territorial government of Washington. In the act we find in section 6 I submit that to embrace in one bill the issuance of bonds for the funding of projects for the Department of Social and Health Services, for Fisheries, for Higher Education, and for an agricultural trade center, among others, covers more than one subject. Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. Terr. *87 131, 144, 13 P. 453 (1887), though handed down nearly 100 years ago, is applicable today. It finds no difference in the terms "object" and "subject" and states in part, quoting from decisions of other states: Harland v. Territory, supra, was overruled by Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 267, 28 P. 520 (1891), which held that so long as the title embraces but one subject it is acceptable even though the bill contains any number of sub-subjects. With this I cannot quarrel. However, neither Marston nor later cases permit the true content of a bill to be unexpressed in its title, nor do Marston and the following cases grant approval to omnibus-catchall bills. HB 1328 is a bill abounding in the possibilities for logrolling which Const. art. 2, § 19 was designed to avoid. Logrolling has been defined as the exchange of political favors, especially the trading of votes among legislators to achieve the passage of projects of interest to one another. It is the combining together of two or more legislators for the assistance of one another when their votes should be cast independently. The purpose of Const. art. 2, § 19 was to require that any subject of legislation pass or fail on its own merits. It was the purpose of article 2, section 19 to discourage legislators from voting for the unwise or improvident projects of others in order to secure votes for their own particular projects. State v. Winters, 67 Wn.2d 465, 407 P.2d 988 (1965), appeal dismissed, 384 U.S. 208, 16 L. Ed. 2d 481, 86 S. Ct. 1461 (1966); Robison v. Dwyer, 58 Wn.2d 576, 364 P.2d 521 (1961). There is no showing that that was done here, and, indeed, it would not be the function of this court to inquire into the inner workings of the Legislature in any case. It is, however, the function of the court to look to the compliance by the Legislature with Const. art. 2, § 19. That the bill was in the form in which logrolling was a possibility is underscored by the comment of a legislator made during floor discussion (as reflected by the record submitted to us), when it was said: Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line Ins. Co. (Mut.), supra at 403, was relied upon by the majority. That decision as quoted held that the purpose of Const. art. 2, § 19: The majority pays no heed to the argument of the Attorney *89 General that when article 8, section 1 (as changed by amendment 60) and article 2, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution are read and applied together to HB 1328, the specter is raised that the debt limitations of amendment 60 could be threatened by the consolidation of the authorization of numerous bond issues into one bill. It is argued that especially when legislative bills create long-term debt, each subject must be covered in a separate bill. In 1972 amendment 60 was added to the Washington State Constitution by a vote of the people of the state. The purpose of the amendment was stated to be the reduction of the interest costs of future bonding and the restriction of the Legislature's ability to incur state debt without the approval of the voters. It was stated in the Official Voters Pamphlet, at 51, that the then existing limitation on the incurrence of debt had been ineffective. The explanation of HJR 52, which became amendment 60, was stated in part as follows: The passage of HB 1328 may ultimately menace the constitutional debt ceiling of amendment 60. It is because of that risk that it is proper when bills include debt authorization through the issuance of bonds that Const. art. 2, § 19 be strictly construed and each bill contain a bond authorization relating to only one subject. As stated in the discussion in the House on June 10, 1985: Transcript of House Floor Debate at 3-4 (June 10, 1985). The authorization and control of indebtedness is the responsibility of the Legislature. This responsibility cannot be passed on to the State Finance Committee. It is conceded by the requirement of a 60 percent vote of both House and Senate that the indebtedness incurred by HB 1328 is limited by the prohibition against the incurrence of debt which will cause the maximum annual debt service on all outstanding general obligation debt to exceed 9 percent of the arithmetic mean of general state revenues for the preceding 3 fiscal years. HB 1328 was an omnibus bill "with a little something for everyone." As such it violated the one subject rule by consolidating multiple projects into one all inclusive bill. As stated in Blaine v. Seattle, 62 Wash. 445, 447-49, 114 P. 164 (1911): The legislative action proposed in Blaine contained the same flaws and fatal contamination as that before us. The same precepts and mandates should apply to the issue here. I would hold that HB 1328 contained more than one subject and that its subject was not expressed in its title. *92 I would dismiss the action and would not require the State Treasurer to sign the State Finance Committee resolutions. GOODLOE, J., and SCHUMACHER, J. Pro Tem., concur with CALLOW, J.