Title: Whitcomb v. Young

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

279 N.E.2d 566 (1972)
Governor Edgar D. WHITCOMB et al., Appellants,
v.
Esther Jean YOUNG, and Arthur Rhea, On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Citizens of the State of Indiana, Appellees.
No. 1171S342.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 7, 1972.
*568 Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Edward W. Johnson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paul G. Roland, Indianapolis, for Thurman M. DeMoss, Member, Indiana Election Bd.
Buena Chaney, Mann, Mann, Chaney, Johnson & Hicks, Terre Haute, John R. Price, Carmel, Frank E. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellees.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a summary judgment of the Marion Circuit Court in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees upon their "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment."
The Complaint is against the Members of the Indiana State Election Board and alleges, in part:
Also the prayer of said Complaint was:
The Amendment to Article 6, § 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, as ratified by the electorate on November 3, 1970 reads simply:
A comparison of the above Amendment with the former Article 6, § 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana reveals that the only obvious change is in the emphasized *569 words, "four", "eight" and "twelve", which previously read "two", "four" and "six".
Both the Appellees and the Appellants filed Motions for Summary Judgment on the pleadings, exhibits thereto and "Stipulation of Facts", and on June 10, 1971 the Marion Circuit Court entered the following:
Although the Complaint expressly requested,
at no place in its "Summary Judgment" entry did the Marion Circuit Court make any such declaration; instead, it failed to find specifically the "effective date" of said Amendment but did hold expressly, in the election of the Secretary of State, Auditor of State, and Treasurer of State who were elected in the election of 1970, that said officials:
On August 6, 1971, a "Motion to Correct Errors" was filed alleging that:
This was supported by a Memorandum of the same date and said "Motion to Correct Errors" was overruled on September 22, 1971. Praecipe for Record of Proceedings was filed on September 24, 1971. This Court granted the Petition to Advance in order that the real issues may be resolved as expeditiously as possible, in view of the necessity for an early opinion.
First. It is of primary importance to start the resolution of the issues by noting that both parties stipulated that the Amendment to Article 6, § 1 does not include a date at which it will become effective. Thus, an immediate presumption arises that such Amendment was effective at 6:00 P.M. (when the polls closed) on November 3, 1970. This has previously been adjudicated by this Court in the case of Kirkpatrick v. King (1950), 228 Ind. 236, 91 N.E.2d 785. In that case, Kirkpatrick (the Appellant) was elected Sheriff of Hancock County at the same time as the ratification of the Amendment to Article 6, § 11 was adopted, which Amendment read:
Appellant Kirkpatrick erroneously claimed the right to hold such office for an additional four year term commencing January 1, 1951. However, Judge Emmert, speaking for this Court concerning the effective date of that Amendment, stated:
This Court continued by stating:
Thus, the Secretary of State, Auditor of State and Treasurer of State elected in the election of November 3, 1970 were not, as contended by Appellees, "already elected at the time the Amendment became a part of the Constitution", for said elections and ratification were "at the same time".
Further, in the instant case, it would appear that Appellees, by their Complaint, were contending in the trial court (as to the Amendment now in question) "* * * that the effective date of the Amendment not be in 1970 * * *." However, in this Court said Appellees have changed their contention and now agree with Appellants that the effective date is November 3, 1970 at 6:00 P.M., for Appellees expressly state:
Thus, the issue is narrowed as to whether said Amendment is effective as to said officials who were elected at the same time as the Amendment became effective.
Second. What is the purpose of an effective date? Simply to ask that question results in the obvious answer that it is the date and time at which the "Amendment" becomes operative. Having previously established that the effective date of the Amendment to Article 6, § 1 was at 6:00 P.M. on November 3, 1970, the presumption of its becoming operative at the same time is so strong as to require positive, irrefutable proof that it was meant to become operative at some other future time. The members of the General Assembly are presumed to know the holding of this Court in the Kirkpatrick case, supra, and of the necessity to take affirmative action to establish a date other than the immediate effective date of the "Amendment" if it is intended for the same to become operative at some other time. Kirkpatrick v. King, supra.
The trial court has attempted to distinguish the case at bar from the Kirkpatrick case by stating merely that there were present in that case factors not present here. We do not agree that such factors are in any way determinative of the issues. Even without Kirkpatrick, however, the same conclusion must be had. It cannot be overlooked that at the 95th Regular Session of the General Assembly, the session at which the amendment in question was proposed, agreed to and referred, the General Assembly also proposed, agreed to and referred amendments to the Judicial Article of our State Constitution. The proposed judicial amendments specifically provided for a deferred effective date of adoption. It seems highly improbable that if the General Assembly had intended a similar deferment for the amendment in question it would have failed to so provide, because its awareness of its necessity is thus very evident, and the conclusion is inescapable that its intent was for the amendment to become operative at the earliest possible time. Having previously concluded that in the construction of constitutional provisions many of the well established rules for statutory construction apply, it is appropriate to consider how the effective dates of statutes are determined.
There being no provision to the contrary in our Constitution, it follows that amendments *573 thereto become effective and operative upon completion of the last act necessary to fulfill the constitutional requirements  in this case ratification by the voters, which was completed with the closing of the polls on November 3, 1970.
It should also be noted that Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States, in effect at the same time the Constitution was adopted, provides that amendments thereto
(Emphasis ours)
Such ratification is the last act necessary in the amendment process prescribed. As further evidence that amendments to our State Constitution become effective when ratified, unless otherwise provided by the amendment, it should be observed that the operative date of that constitution was itself deferred by the inclusion therein of such a provision, thus recognizing that its framers well understood that such was necessary if the effective date of adoption was to be deferred beyond its actual date of adoption. (Schedule, Constitution of Indiana).
Third. It should be noted that the June 10, 1971 entry by the Marion Circuit Court was upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and that the stated basis for said "Summary Judgment" was the "pleadings, motions, exhibits, facts and evidence herein"; that said "Amendment" did not contain a date upon which it will become effective; that the legislative intent would be controlling and that the resolution of the effective date should be by the Indiana General Assembly and the Courts.
Although it may be contended that such stated basis (pleadings, motions, exhibits, facts and evidence herein) is all uncontroverted and therefore, all being in support of the Appellees' position, that a Motion for Summary Judgment could only be entered for the Appellees. This was obviously the argument of the Appellees. However, in line with Federal decisions interpreting the Federal rule on "Summary Judgments" from which the Indiana rule is substantially drawn, it has been held in this State that cross-motions for "Summary Judgment" do not in themselves establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact; that in such case there is no genuine issue only for the purposes of the party's own motion.
In 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1239 pp. 176-177, it is stated that:
Fourth. Since we are dealing with a constitutional amendment, it would be well to observe that it is the vote of the electorate which establishes or fails to establish the amendment's creation. But such electorate is expressing either satisfaction *574 or dissatisfaction with a legislative proposal which the Legislature is powerless to adopt as a law. However, the electorate is voting either to affirm or deny the legislative intent and in this sense the courts should use the same rules of construction in interpreting a constitutional amendment as is used in construing a statute. In Re Todd (1935), 208 Ind. 168, 190, 193 N.E. 865.
One such rule is that extrinsic evidence which attempts to establish legislative intent, can be used only in the case of an enactment or amendment to a constitution which is ambiguous on its face. On the other hand, when a statute or amendment to a constitution is clear, then no extrinsic evidence may be admitted as to legislative intent. 26 I.L.E. Statutes §§ 101-130; Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 4702.
Here, however, the constitutional amendment is not ambiguous as to its effective date, and each party hereto admits that its effective date was at 6:00 P.M. on November 3, 1970. The erroneous use of extrinsic evidence in this situation would foster ambiguity where none exists.
Moreover, the suggestion by Appellees' Complaint that the said Amendment "be effective with the next Gubernatorial Election in order that these State Officials serve concurrent terms" would constitute the Court supplying an explicit operative date which it cannot do, since it cannot supply omissions or remedy defects under the guise of construction; to do so would be to legislate in the clearest manner. 26 I.L.E. Statutes § 102.
Fifth. While this Court holds that the effective date of the Amendment to Article 6, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution was at 6:00 P.M. on November 3, 1970, it should be noted how insubstantial the nature of the erroneously admitted extrinsic evidence is, although relied upon by the trial court.
a. 1970 O.A.G. No. 37 correctly states:
(Our emphasis)
Having taken such a positive and judicially supported stand, the Attorney General's Opinion then backwaters and attempts to state upon what basis a contra position could be argued. His Opinion then concludes:
b. The lower court stated:
This statement by the trial court presupposes that the 1971 Session of the General Assembly could have done something; however, the Amendment to Article 6, § 1 of the Constitution (ratified Nov. 3, 1970) could only be changed by another amendment thereto, which timewise would be an impossibility under the constitutional provision as to the manner of adopting amendments thereto. Indiana Constitution, Art. 16 Sec. 1.
Had the 1971 Session of the General Assembly initiated another amendment, it could not have been submitted to the electorate for ratification until November of 1974, even if the 1973 Session of the General Assembly had agreed to the first proposal. However, the question presented to the trial court required of necessity that an immediate determination be made as to whether the Secretary of State, Auditor of State and Treasurer of State must stand for election in the general election of 1972.
c. The lower court further stated:
It is interesting to note, although the question presented was deemed by Appellees to be of sufficient importance to require a Court decision, that the affidavit of only one Senator was utilized and it merely stated that it was his "belief" that the Secretary of State, Auditor of State and Treasurer of State "should not only have four year terms but also that those terms should run concurrently with the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and Attorney General".
Even were we to assume that any particular Senator and Representative was duly possessed with authority to speak for all members of the General Assembly, this Court cannot sit in judgment upon the motives of the Legislature when such are not clearly expressed in the body of the Enactment or Amendment to the Constitution itself. Parker, Clerk, et al. v. State ex rel. Powell, 1892, 132 Ind. 419, 31 N.E. 1114; Cooley Constitutional Limitations, Section 222.
d. The trial court's Summary Judgment also refers to the fact "that the Indiana House of Representatives in 1967 clearly indicated its intent as to what would not be the effective date by its defeat of Representative Burton's motion to set such date at the election of 1970;" however, the motion referred to was as follows:
Although this motion was defeated, such action by only the House of Representatives can be explained upon several different bases, among which is that the effective date of the "Amendment" was already determined as of 6:00 P.M., November 3, 1970 (in accord with the Kirkpatrick case, supra), so that said motion was unnecessary. However, here again this Court cannot speculate as to the particular motives to which actions of the General Assembly may be attributed.
The fallacy of Appellees' position upon this point becomes even more apparent when we consider that although the incumbent Secretary of State, Auditor and Treasurer were all elected in 1970, the terms of all did not begin in that year. Therefore, had the Burton motion carried and been incorporated into the amendment, the tenure *576 of the incumbents in the offices of Secretary of State and Auditor would be obvious, but we would, nevertheless, face the same issue with respect to the Treasurer, whose term did not commence until 1971. Under such circumstances, the deferment would be applicable to the Secretary and Auditor but not to the Treasurer. This result would not square with Appellees' theory of legislative intent to coordinate the terms of these officers with that of the Governor and other state officials, for obviously they cannot so coincide if they do not coincide with each other. Although we wholly reject Appellees' suggestion that we speculate as to the motives of the General Assembly, this would have been a sufficient reason for rejection of the Burton motion.
e. Although the "Summary Judgment" does not specifically mention Exhibit D of the Complaint, it may be noted in passing that such is the Biennial Report to the Indiana General Assembly for 1969 by the Constitutional Revision Commission and Exhibit E is the July, 1970 Legislative Ledger. Each of these documents is inadmissible to prove legislative intent, and said Exhibit E even suggests the possibility of electing the Secretary of State, Auditor of State and Treasurer of State and all state and local officials on the "off-year" so that their election would not be subject to influence by the election of a President of the United States at the time of a national election.
As heretofore stated, in the instant case, the effect of attempting to determine legislative intent by resorting to various items of extrinsic evidence is to create uncertainty where none exists.
This Court holds that the Amendment to Article 6, § 1 of the Indiana Constitution, ratified as of 6:00 P.M. on November 3, 1970, was both effective and operative from and after said time and date.
The persons elected to the offices of Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of State at the general election held November 3, 1970 were each elected for terms of four years, and said offices will next be subject to election at the general election to be held in the year 1974.
The decision of the lower court is hereby reversed and said court is directed to strike the entry of "Summary Judgment" entered June 10, 1971 and to enter "Summary Judgment" for the Appellants herein in accord with the provisions contained within the "Conclusion" of this Opinion.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.