Title: State v. Dewing

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

131 N.W.2d 434 (1964) STATE of North Dakota ex rel. C. P. DAHL, Director of the State Laboratories Department, Petitioner and Respondent, v. Ralph DEWING, Director of the Department of Accounts and Purchases, Helgi Johanneson, Attorney General, and Ben Meier, Secretary of State, all as members of the State Auditing Board, and William L. Guy, Governor of the State of North Dakota, Respondents and Appellants. No. 8190. Supreme Court of North Dakota. November 10, 1964. Helgi Johanneson, Atty. Gen., and Vance K. Hill, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for respondents and appellants. William J. Daner, of Wheeler & Daner, Bismarck, for petitioner and respondent. ERICKSTAD, Judge. On petition of the State of North Dakota, on relation of the Director of the State *435 Laboratories Department, an alternative writ of mandamus was sought. The District Court granted an alternative writ, and, following a hearing pursuant to said writ, issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing certain action on the part of the State Auditing Board. From this writ the members of the State Auditing Board and the Governor of this state appeal. The material parts of the petition are as follows: The essential portions of the peremptory writ read as follows: The appellants specify as error the District Court's finding that the Governor's veto was void and contend that the writ should not have been issued. A study of Sections 25, 79, and 80 of our State Constitution is necessary for a proper consideration of this case. The material portions of Section 25 read as follows: The full text of Sections 79 and 80 follows: The appellants argue that the item vetoed by the Governor was a line item for the salary of the Director of the State Laboratories Department, as contained in Senate Bill 1, providing for the appropriations for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our state government, and that it was not an initiated measure governed by Section 25 of the Constitution but was merely an item of a bill enacted by the Legislature, subject to the Governor's veto power under Sections 79 and 80. They cite State ex rel. Sandaker v. Olson, 65 N. D. 561, 260 N.W. 586, to support their view: The Director of the State Laboratories Department contends that the Governor's veto of the Director's salary "extends to an initiated measure, in violation of Section 25 of the North Dakota Constitution * * *." He argues that the law establishing the Laboratories Department was created by an initiated measure and that even though the section providing for the salary of the Director has been amended twice by the Legislature by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected, it still retains its initiative character under the majority opinion in State ex rel. Strutz v. Baker, 71 N.D. 153, 299 N.W. 574. Two members of the court concurred especially in the Baker case, as follows: The Director acknowledges the concurring opinion in said case but states that even if the rationale of the concurring opinion were to be adopted by this court, so that Section 19-01-03, N.D.C.C., dealing with the appointment and salary of the Director, and Section 19-01-08, N.D.C.C., dealing with the payment of expenses of the Department, which sections have been amended by the vote necessary to amend an initiated measure, were to be considered no longer initiative in character, the veto extends to the other sections of the initiated measure which have not been amended, and therefore the veto is void. Let us review the legislative history of the act creating the State Laboratories Department. The act establishing the State Laboratories Department, an initiated measure consisting of fifteen sections, was approved by the electors on June 28, 1938. N.D. Sess.Laws 1939, ch. 258. Section 3, among other things, provided that the annual salary of the Director should not exceed $3,000.00. With the adoption of the North Dakota Revised Code in 1943, Section 3 became Section 19-0103. Section 19-0103 was amended in 1947 to provide that the Director receive an annual salary of not more than $3,600.00. N.D.Sess.Laws 1947, ch. 181. In 1949 this section was amended to provide that the Director "shall receive an annual salary of such amount as appropriated therefor by the legislative assembly." N.D.Sess.Laws 1949, ch. 314, sec. 6. All of these amendments were adopted by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house of the Legislature. That portion of Section 6 of the initiated measure dealing with the procedure of payment of expenses was amended in 1959. N.D.Sess.Laws, ch. 373, sec. 1. In 1963 the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1, known as the "Omnibus Bill." This is now contained in Chapter 1 of the 1963 North Dakota Session Laws. Subdivision 42 of Section 3 of this bill provided for the appropriations for the 1963-65 biennium for the State Laboratories Department. Line 1 of this subdivision read: "Salary Director .... $18,000.00." This line item was vetoed by the Governor following the adjournment of the Legislative Assembly. The Senate and House journals indicate that the bill originally was passed by more than a two-thirds vote of all the members elected in each house. House Journal 1458, Senate Journal 1163, 38th Legislative Assembly. Minor changes were made in all sections of the initiated measure when the Code was revised in 1943. The revisors' notes indicate that the revisions were for clarity and brevity, without change in meaning. Some parts were omitted as being obsolete or as surplusage. The revision made no substantive change in the initiated measure and therefore did not affect its character as such. House Bill 49, enacted by the Legislature in 1943, adopted the North Dakota Revised Code. The vote for the adoption of the Revised Code was by more than two-thirds of all the members elected in each of the houses of the Legislature. House Journal 368, Senate Journal 449, 28th Legislative Assembly. It is important to note at this point that the initiated measure created the State Laboratories Department and the office of Director thereof. The Director was given general charge of the Department, subject *439 to the supervision of a commission also created by the measure. Neither the office nor the duties have been changed by the specific amendments or by the revision of the Code in 1943. As the initiated measure still expresses the original will of the electors, it retains its initiative character. As the veto of the line item providing for the Director's salary in the general appropriation bill has the legal effect of eliminating the Director, it destroys an office created by the initiated measure and thus violates that portion of Section 25 of our State Constitution, which prohibits the extension of the Governor's veto power to an initiated measure. An argument is made that the veto did not have this effect, for the reason that clerkhire funds appropriated for the Department could be used to pay the salary of the Director, and that said funds were used at the Governor's suggestion to pay the Director's salary. One answer to this argument is that it is stipulated that the clerkhire funds appropriated to the State Laboratories Department are depleted. Another answer is that there is no appropriation for the payment of the salary of the Director if the veto is effective, and where there is no appropriation, no recourse can legally be had to the Emergency Commission for a transfer of funds from another line item of the State Laboratories Department appropriations or from the State Contingency Fund. Backman v. Guy, N.D., 126 N.W.2d 910, at 915. The action on the part of the District Court granting the peremptory writ is hereby affirmed. MORRIS, C. J., and BURKE, TEIGEN and STRUTZ, JJ., concur.