Title: Governor Bob Riley and Robert L. Childree, comptroller of the State of Alabama v. The Joint Fiscal Committee of the Alabama Legislature et al.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

CLERK 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
Readers a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter o f Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 
229-
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
a n y 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r 
o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
OCTOBER TE3RM, 2008-2009 
1080468 
Governor Bob R i l e y and Robert L. Childree, comptroller of 
the State of 
Alabama 
J o i n t F i s c a l Committee of 
the 
Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e e t a l . 
Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-08-900752) 
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r 
R e h e a r i n g 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
T h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f 
A p r i l 3, 2009, i s 
w i t h d r a w n , 
and 
the f o l l o w i n g i s s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r . 
1080468 
Hank Sanders and Roger B e d f o r d , members o f t h e Alabama 
Senate; 
John 
K n i g h t , 
a member 
o f t h e Alabama 
House o f 
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ; and t h e J o i n t F i s c a l Committee o f t h e Alabama 
L e g i s l a t u r e , o f which Sanders, B e d f o r d , and K n i g h t a r e 
members 
(the i n d i v i d u a l l e g i s l a t o r s and t h e J o i n t F i s c a l Committee a r e 
h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e l e g i s l a t o r s " ) , 
sued Governor Bob R i l e y and t h e s t a t e c o m p t r o l l e r , 
R o b e r t L. 
C h i l d r e e 
( h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " ) , 
i n the Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t , s e e k i n g a 
judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t Governor R i l e y ' s use o f the l i n e - i t e m 
v e t o t o v e t o § 4 o f House B i l l 328 ("H.B. 328"), t h e g e n e r a l -
fund 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l f o r f i s c a l 
y e a r 2009 
(October 1, 
2008, t h r o u g h September 30, 2009), was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and 
a l s o 
s e e k i n g i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f . 
The t r i a l 
c o u r t e n t e r e d a 
summary judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e l e g i s l a t o r s , and t h e R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n now a p p e a l s . 
We a f f i r m . 
I . 
We s e t f o r t h t h e f a c t s a t the r o o t o f t h i s d i s p u t e i n our 
p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n d e n y i n g t h e R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s 
p e t i t i o n 
f o r 
a 
w r i t 
o f mandamus 
s e e k i n g 
t h e 
d i s m i s s a l 
o f t h e 
l e g i s l a t o r s ' c o m p l a i n t . 
We 
s t a t e d : 
2 
1080468 
"The 
u n d e r l y i n g 
a c t i o n 
a r i s e s from Governor 
R i l e y ' s v e t o o f § 4 o f House 
B i l l 328 ('H.B. 328'), 
the g e n e r a l - f u n d a p p r o p r i a t i o n s b i l l f o r f i s c a l 
year 
2009, e n a c t e d d u r i n g the 
2008 R e g u l a r S e s s i o n o f t h e 
Alabama 
L e g i s l a t u r e . 
That 
s e c t i o n 
p r o v i d e s , i n 
p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"'Of t h e 
amounts a p p r o p r i a t e d i n t h i s 
a c t from t h e S t a t e 
G e n e r a l 
Fund f o r t h e 
f i s c a l 
year 
e n d i n g 
September 30, 2009, 
17.75% o f 
each a p p r o p r i a t i o n i s c o n d i t i o n e d 
upon t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f funds i n 
t h e S t a t e 
G e n e r a l 
Fund, t h e recommendation o f the 
D i r e c t o r o f F i n a n c e , and t h e a p p r o v a l o f 
t h e 
Governor w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e 
f o l l o w i n g 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
from t h e S t a t e 
G e n e r a l Fund t o t h e f o l l o w i n g a g e n c i e s : 
''Alabama 
M e d i c a i d 
Agency 
$622,478,155 
' 
'Alabama Department 
o f P u b l i c H e a l t h 
$84,641,324 
' 
'Alabama Department 
o f S e n i o r S e r v i c e s 
$17,554,599 
' 
'Alabama Department 
o f Human Resources 
$112,881,321 
' 
'Alabama Department o f 
M e n t a l H e a l t h and 
M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n 
$143,258,026 
''Department o f C h i l d Abuse 
and N e g l e c t P r e v e n t i o n 
$1,011,610 
"'The 
a b o v e - l i s t e d 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
s h a l l be funded i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y from 
t h e 
S t a t e G e n e r a l Fund i n [ f i s c a l 
y e a r ] 
2009, 
In t h e event funds a r e not a v a i l a b l e t o 
f u l l y 
f u n d t h e c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
f r o m t h e S t a t e G e n e r a l 
Fund made i n t h i s 
s e c t i o n t o o t h e r 
a g e n c i e s , 
t h e Governor 
s h a l l 
a p p o r t i o n 
a v a i l a b l e funds i n 
t h e 
G e n e r a l 
Fund p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y 
a c r o s s - t h e -
b o a r d t o t h o s e a g e n c i e s f o r 
t h e f i s c a l 
year 
3 
1080468 
t h a t ends September 30, 2009. I n 
the event 
revenue i s not a v a i l a b l e t o f u n d a l l o f 
t h e s e c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s , earmarked 
items and l i n e - i t e m a p p r o p r i a t i o n s s h a l l be 
r e l e a s e d p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y . 
On October 30, 
2008, t h e Governor 
s h a l l 
c e r t i f y t o t h e 
D i r e c t o r o f F i n a n c e and n o t i f y t h e 
C h a i r o f 
t h e 
Senate 
F i n a n c e and 
T a x a t i o n - G e n e r a l 
Fund Committee, t h e C h a i r o f t h e House 
Government A p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
Committee, and 
t h e L e g i s l a t i v e F i s c a l 
O f f i c e r t h e amount 
o f p r o j e c t e d a v a i l a b l e revenue i n 
the S t a t e 
G e n e r a l 
Fund 
and the 
s o u r c e 
o f t h e 
a d d i t i o n a l revenue a v a i l a b l e t o f u n d a l l o r 
any 
p o r t i o n 
o f 
t h e 
c o n d i t i o n a l 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s made i n t h i s 
s e c t i o n . 
The 
c o n d i t i o n a l 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s made i n 
t h i s 
s e c t i o n from t h e S t a t e 
G e n e r a l Fund a r e 
f i r s t 
p r i o r i t y c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
and 
s h a l l be r e l e a s e d i n t h e i r 
e n t i r e t y 
b e f o r e any 
o t h e r c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
from 
t h e 
S t a t e 
G e n e r a l 
Fund 
may 
be 
r e l e a s e d . 
The amount o f revenue 
c e r t i f i e d 
by 
t h e Governor 
on 
October 
15, 
2 008 
[ s i c ] , 
t o 
be 
a v a i l a b l e 
f o r t h e 
c o n d i t i o n a l 
S t a t e 
G e n e r a l 
Fund 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s made i n t h i s 
s e c t i o n 
s h a l l 
be 
the 
amount 
o f 
funds 
a l l o c a t e d 
p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y 
t o each 
agency f o r i t s 
o p e r a t i o n p l a n f o r [ f i s c a l year] 2009.' 
"On May 19, 2008, p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Const. 1901, 
A r t . V, § 126,^ 
Governor R i l e y sent a message t o t h e 
l e g i s l a t u r e 
t h a t he was d i s a p p r o v i n g § 4 o f H.B. 
328: 
"' B e g i n n i n g on page 128, l i n e 10, by 
s t r i k i n g 
t h r o u g h 
l i n e 
10 
and 
each 
subsequent l i n e , t h r o u g h l i n e 20, on page 
128, and resuming on page 129, l i n e 1, 
and 
s t r i k i n g 
t h r o u g h 
t h a t 
l i n e 
1 and each 
subsequent l i n e on page 12 9, t h r o u g h 
l i n e 
4 
23, 
and resuming on page 130, l i n e 
1, 
s t r i k e 
through 
s a i d 
l i n e 
and 
each 
s u c c e e d i n g 
l i n e 
t h r o u g h 
l i n e 
1-, 
thus 
s t r i k i n g and d e l e t i n g t h e e n t i r e s e c t i o n 4 
o f s a i d b i l l . 
T h i s i t e m , o r these 
i t e m s , 
a r e 
b o t h 
i l l e g a l 
under t h e laws o f the 
S t a t e o f 
Alabama and u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l under 
t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama. 
I n the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, as 
amended, i n A r t i c l e X I , S e c t i o n 213, t h e r e 
i s a s p e c i f i c 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r e q u i r e m e n t 
t h a t t h e s t a t e 
c o m p t r o l l e r 
s h a l l 
i s s u e 
w a r r a n t s f o r 
t h a t p r o p o r t i o n o f each c l a i m 
w h i c h t h e money a v a i l a b l e f o r 
payment o f 
a l l 
c l a i m s b e a r s t o t h e whole, and such 
w a r r a n t s 
f o r such 
p r o r a t e d 
sums 
s h a l l 
t h e r e u p o n be p a i d by t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r e r . 
T h i s 
p r o v i s i o n 
c l e a r l y 
imposes 
a 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
o b l i g a t i o n on t h e 
s t a t e 
c o m p t r o l l e r t o p r o r a t e , 
b o t h 
a c r o s s t h e 
b o a r d , p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y t o a l l departments 
and a g e n c i e s . 
S i m i l a r l y , under s t a t e law. 
Code o f Alabama, § 41-4-90, r e q u i r e s t h e 
g o v e r n o r , i n 
the 
event t h e e s t i m a t e d budget 
r e s o u r c e s 
d u r i n g t h e budget year a r e 
not 
s u f f i c i e n t 
t o pay a l l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n 
f u l l , t o r e s t r i c t a l l o t m e n t s t o p r e v e n t an 
o v e r d r a f t o r d e f i c i t i n 
any f i s c a l year f o r 
w h i c h 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
a r e 
made, 
by 
p r o r a t i n g , w i t h o u t 
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t 
any department, b o a r d , bureau, commission, 
agency, 
o f f i c e , 
o r 
i n s t i t u t i o n 
o f t h e 
s t a t e , t h e a v a i l a b l e revenues among t h e 
v a r i o u s 
departments, 
b o a r d s , 
bureaus, 
commissions, 
a g e n c i e s , 
o f f i c e s , 
and 
i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e , 
The law goes 
f u r t h e r t o more 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
s t a t e , " i n 
o t h e r words, s a i d a p p r o p r i a t i o n s s h a l l be 
p a y a b l e i n 
such p r o p o r t i o n as t h e t o t a l sum 
o f 
a l l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s b e a r s t o t h e t o t a l 
revenues 
e s t i m a t e 
by t h e Department o f 
5 
1080468 
F i n a n c e as a v a i l a b l e i n each o f s a i d 
f i s c a l 
y e a r s . " 
"'The 
L e g i s l a t u r e , 
i n 
i t s 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n 
b i l l , House B i l l 328, 
cannot 
s u p e r s e d e , change, a l t e r , 
or amend e i t h e r 
t h i s 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
amendment 
or 
t h i s 
s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , b o t h of w h i c h 
r e q u i r e 
p r o p o r t i o n a l p r o r a t i o n among a l l r e c i p i e n t s 
o f s t a t e funds i n s a i d a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l . 
' " A l t h o u g h 
w e l l 
i n t e n d e d , 
i n 
the 
u n f o r t u n a t e event 
t h a t 
p r o r a t i o n becomes 
n e c e s s a r y , the L e g i s l a t u r e cannot 
p r o v i d e , 
e i t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y or l e g a l l y , s p e c i a l 
p r o t e c t i o n 
f o r any 
i n d i v i d u a l a g e n c i e s 
or 
departments of s t a t e government. 
'"For 
t h e s e reasons 
I have found i t 
n e c e s s a r y to l i n e i t e m v e t o s a i d 
b i l l . 
I 
most s i n c e r e l y encourage you t o agree 
w i t h 
my 
d i s a p p r o v a l 
of 
s a i d 
i t e m , 
or 
i t e m s . 
Done t h i s 19th 
day 
of May, 
2008.' 
" S e c t i o n 
126, 
A l a . 
Const. 
1901, 
does 
p r o v i d e 
t h a t 
t h e 
l e g i s l a t u r e may 
' r e p a s s ' the v e t o e d i t e m ; 
however, Governor R i l e y ' s message was 
d e l i v e r e d 
to 
the l e g i s l a t u r e on the 
l a s t day 
of the 2008 R e g u l a r 
S e s s i o n of the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e . 
I n an 
a f f i d a v i t 
f i l e d w i t h 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t , Greg Pappas, the 
c l e r k 
of t h e Alabama House of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t a t 11:54 
p.m. 
on May 
19, 2008, as a m o t i o n f o r 
adjournment s i n e 
d i e was 
b e i n g made, he 
was 
g i v e n 
Governor R i l e y ' s message v e t o i n g 
§ 4 of H.B. 
328. 
The 
m o t i o n 
t o 
a d j o u r n 
was 
p a s s e d 
a t 
11:55 
p.m. 
Thus, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had no o p p o r t u n i t y 
t o a d d r e s s 
Governor R i l e y ' s a c t i o n w h i l e 
i t was 
i n 
s e s s i o n . 
"^The 
d i s p a r i t y i n the October 30, 2008, d a t e i n 
a p r e c e d i n g sentence and 
the October 15, 2008, date 
as the d a t e t h a t Governor R i l e y c e r t i f i e s the amount 
6 
1080468 
o f funds a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
i s 
not e x p l a i n e d . 
" ^ S e c t i o n 126 p r o v i d e s : 
"' 
The governor 
s h a l l 
have power t o 
approve o r d i s a p p r o v e any i t e m o r i t e m s o f 
any a p p r o p r i a t i o n b i l l embracing 
d i s t i n c t 
i t e m s , and t h e p a r t o r p a r t s o f t h e 
b i l l 
approved s h a l l be t h e 
law, 
and t h e i t e m o r 
i t e m s 
d i s a p p r o v e d 
s h a l l be v o i d , 
u n l e s s 
r e p a s s e d 
a c c o r d i n g 
t o 
t h e 
r u l e 
and 
l i m i t a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d f o r 
t h e passage o f 
b i l l s o v e r t h e e x e c u t i v e v e t o ; and 
he s h a l l 
i n w r i t i n g s t a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e i t e m o r 
i t e m s he d i s a p p r o v e s , 
s e t t i n g t h e same out 
i n 
f u l l i n h i s 
message, b u t i n such case 
t h e 
e n r o l l e d b i l l 
s h a l l not be 
r e t u r n e d 
w i t h t h e governor's o b j e c t i o n . ' " 
Ex p a r t e R i l e y , [Ms. 1071702, December 17, 2008] 
So. 3d 
( A l a . 
2008). 
F o l l o w i n g 
our d e n i a l o f t h e R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s 
p e t i t i o n f o r 
t h e w r i t o f mandamus, p r o c e e d i n g s 
i n t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t resumed, and t h e R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f i l e d an answer t o 
the 
l e g i s l a t o r s ' 
c o m p l a i n t . 
On January 9, 2009, t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e l e g i s l a t o r s ' m o t i o n f o r 
a summary 
judgment, 
w h i c h had been 
f i l e d 
and t o w h i c h t h e 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had responded b e f o r e 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
s t a y e d the 
p r o c e e d i n g s 
i n t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
t o 
c o n s i d e r 
t h e 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s p e t i t i o n f o r 
a w r i t o f 
mandamus. On January 
7 
1080468 
16, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d 
t h e l e g i s l a t o r s ' 
surainary-
judgment m o t i o n , h o l d i n g t h a t Governor R i l e y ' s v e t o o f § 4 o f 
H.B. 
328 was 
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
because, 
i n t h e message 
t r a n s m i t t i n g news o f t h a t v e t o t o the l e g i s l a t u r e . 
Governor 
R i l e y had m e r e l y 
r e f e r r e d t o t h e " i t e m o r i t e m s " 
he was 
p u r p o r t i n g 
t o v e t o by 
l i n e , 
s e c t i o n , and page number as' 
opposed t o s e t t i n g the i t e m o r items "out 
i n f u l l " as r e q u i r e d 
by A l a . Const. 1901, A r t . 
V, § 126. 
The t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a l s o 
r e j e c t e d t h e R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s argument t h a t § 4 o f H.B. 
328 was i t s e l f 
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and t h e r e f o r e 
u n e n f o r c e a b l e 
r e g a r d l e s s 
o f any p r o c e d u r a l 
d e f e c t s 
i n Governor 
R i l e y ' s 
a t t e m p t e d v e t o . 
That same day, t h e R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
f i l e d 
i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t 
s t a y e d 
i t s o r d e r p e n d i n g our r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s 
a p p e a l . 
I I . 
The R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n argues, 
f i r s t , 
t h a t t h e message 
Governor R i l e y sent t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e n o t i f y i n g i t 
t h a t he 
was, 
under § 126, e x e r c i s i n g h i s l i n e - i t e m v e t o a u t h o r i t y t o 
v e t o § 4 o f H.B. 328 c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r a l 
r e q u i r e m e n t 
i n § 126 t h a t t h e g o v e r n o r " i n w r i t i n g s t a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e 
i t e m o r i t e m s he d i s a p p r o v e s , 
s e t t i n g t h e same out i n f u l l i n 
8 
1080468 
h i s message 
The R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n argues t h a t § 
126 
does not r e q u i r e Governor R i l e y t o quote the d i s a p p r o v e d 
i t e m 
or items i n h i s message t o the 
l e g i s l a t u r e , 
o n l y t o 
c l e a r l y 
i d e n t i f y t h a t i t e m or those i t e m s f o r the l e g i s l a t i v e 
r e c o r d , 
which, the R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a l l e g e s . Governor R i l e y d i d by 
c i t i n g the r e l e v a n t l i n e , page, and s e c t i o n numbers. 
However, 
a l t h o u g h we agree t h a t Governor R i l e y c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d 
the 
d i s a p p r o v e d 
i t e m s , 
we 
cannot 
agree 
t h a t 
h i s 
s h o r t h a n d 
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those items i s tantamount t o " s e t t i n g the 
same 
out 
i n 
f u l l " 
or 
t h a t 
h i s 
f a i l u r e 
t o 
do 
so 
i s 
i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l . 
"The 
a u t h o r i t y t o d e t e r m i n e the amount o f 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
n e c e s s a r y f o r the performance of the e s s e n t i a l f u n c t i o n s 
o f 
government 
i s 
v e s t e d 
f u l l y 
and 
e x c l u s i v e l y 
i n 
the 
l e g i s l a t u r e . " 
Morgan County Common v. P o w e l l . 
292 A l a . 
300, 
306, 
293 
So. 2d 830, 
834 
(1974) ( c i t i n g Abramson v. Hard, 
229 
A l a . 2, 155 
So. 590 
(1934)). 
S e c t i o n 126 of the c o n s t i t u t i o n 
g r a n t s the g o v e r n o r l i n e - i t e m v e t o power, w h i c h can be used to 
d i s a p p r o v e s p e c i f i c items i n an a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l ; however, 
when he 
e x e r c i s e s 
t h a t power the 
g o v e r n o r 
i s p e r f o r m i n g 
a 
t r a d i t i o n a l l y 
l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
i n o r d e r 
to 
9 
1080468 
ensure t h a t the governor does not exceed the l i m i t e d a u t h o r i t y 
g i v e n by § 126 and i m p e r m i s s i b l y e n c r o a c h upon the f u n c t i o n s 
o f the l e g i s l a t i v e branch, § 126 must "be n a r r o w l y o r 
s t r i c t l y 
c o n s t r u e d 
so as not 
t o t h w a r t 
the lawmaking powers of 
the 
l e g i s l a t i v e department." Hunt v. Hubbert, 588 So. 2d 848, 
864 
( A l a . 
1991) 
(Houston, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t ) . See a l s o 
Stong V . P e o p l e . 
74 C o l o . 283, 
290, 
220 
P. 999, 
1002 
(1923) 
("The 
power of the Governor over 
l e g i s l a t i o n by the e x e r c i s e 
o f the v e t o i s a l e g i s l a t i v e power. 
I t can o n l y be e x e r c i s e d 
when 
c l e a r l y 
a u t h o r i z e d 
by 
a 
s p e c i f i c 
p r o v i s i o n of 
the 
C o n s t i t u t i o n not o n l y because s a i d a r t i c l e 3 [ p r o v i d i n g f o r 
s e p a r a t i o n o f powers] so r e q u i r e s , but because, b e i n g a power 
i n d e r o g a t i o n o f the g e n e r a l p l a n o f the s t a t e government, the 
language c o n f e r r i n g i t must be 
s t r i c t l y 
c o n s t r u e d . " ) . 
For t h i s r e a s o n , 
i t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t h a t Governor 
R i l e y 
i d e n t i f i e d by l i n e and page number the e n t i r e t y of § 4 o f 
H.B. 
32 8 as 
the 
d i s a p p r o v e d 
i t e m 
i n h i s v e t o message; 
he 
was 
r e q u i r e d by 
§ 126 
t o 
" s e t [ 
] 
the same out 
i n 
f u l l . " 
The 
n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , and commonly u n d e r s t o o d meaning of 
the 
p h r a s e 
" s e t t i n g 
the 
same 
out 
i n 
f u l l " 
i s 
t h a t 
the 
d i s a p p r o v e d 
i t e m " i s t o be w r i t t e n out i n i t s e n t i r e t y . 
I t i s 
10 
1080468 
u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t 
Governor 
R i l e y 
f a i l e d 
t o 
do 
t h i s 
i n 
h i s 
message t o the l e g i s l a t u r e p u r p o r t i n g t o v e t o § 4 o f H.B. 
328. 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
t h a t v e t o 
i s of no 
e f f e c t . 
See 
S t a t e ex r e l . 
R o b e r t s o n v. McGough, 118 
A l a . 
159, 
166, 
24 
So. 
395, 
3 97 
(1898) ("Whenever a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n i s p l a i n 
and 
unambiguous, when no two meanings can be p l a c e d on the words 
employed, 
i t i s mandatory, 
and 
c o u r t s 
are 
bound 
t o 
obey 
i t . " ) 
I I I . 
The 
R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n argues t h a t , even i f we 
h o l d 
t h a t Governor R i l e y ' s a t t e m p t e d v e t o 
o f § 4 o f H.B. 
328 
i s 
v o i d f o r f a i l u r e 
t o comply w i t h § 126, 
§ 4 o f H.B. 
328 
i s 
n e v e r t h e l e s s 
u n e n f o r c e a b l e , 
because, 
i t 
argues, 
i t 
i s 
^The 
l e g i s l a t o r s have a l s o argued t h a t Governor R i l e y ' s 
a t t e m p t e d v e t o of § 4 o f H.B. 
328 does not comply w i t h § 
126 
because, t h e y argue, § 4 i s not an " i t e m or i t e m s " s u b j e c t t o 
the 
l i n e - i t e m v e t o ; 
r a t h e r , t h e y argue, 
i t i s a 
c o n d i t i o n 
p l a c e d upon c e r t a i n a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . 
The 
l e g i s l a t o r s 
argue 
t h a t the term " i t e m " i n § 12 6 a p p l i e s o n l y t o a s p e c i f i c 
sum 
o f money d e s i g n a t e d 
f o r a s p e c i f i c purpose, w h i l e the R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
argues 
t h a t 
the 
term 
" i t e m " 
r e f e r s t o 
any 
enumerated p a r t o f an a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l . 
However, because 
we 
have 
a l r e a d y 
h e l d 
t h a t 
Governor 
R i l e y ' s 
v e t o 
i s 
v o i d 
because i t d i d not comply w i t h the p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of 
§ 126, 
we need not a d d r e s s the m e r i t s o f t h i s argument. 
11 
1080468 
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . ^ 
The R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n argues t h a t § 4 
of H.B. 328 v i o l a t e s b o t h A l a , Const. 1901, A r t . 
X I , § 213, 
and A r t . IV, § 71. 
S e c t i o n 213 p r o v i d e s : 
" I n c a s e t h e r e 
i s , a t t h e end o f any f i s c a l 
y e a r , 
i n s u f f i c i e n t money i n t h e s t a t e 
t r e a s u r y f o r 
t h e 
payment o f a l l p r o p e r c l a i m s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e s t a t e 
c o m p t r o l l e r 
f o r t h e 
i s s u a n c e 
o f w a r r a n t s , 
t h e 
c o m p t r o l l e r s h a l l i s s u e w a r r a n t s f o r t h a t 
p r o p o r t i o n 
o f each such c l a i m w h i c h t h e 
money a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e 
payment o f a l l s a i d c l a i m s bears t o t h e whole, and 
such w a r r a n t s f o r 
such p r o r a t e d sums s h a l l t h e r e u p o n 
be p a i d by t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r e r . " 
S e c t i o n 71 p r o v i d e s : 
^The 
l e g i s l a t o r s 
argue 
t h a t 
t h e 
i s s u e 
o f 
t h e 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f 
§ 4 was not p r o p e r l y r a i s e d because, t h e y 
a l l e g e , t h e o n l y 
i s s u e 
r a i s e d by t h e i r 
c o m p l a i n t was the 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y 
of Governor R i l e y ' s v e t o . 
A l t h o u g h the 
l e g i s l a t o r s acknowledge t h a t t h e 
R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a s s e r t e d 
as 
an 
a f f i r m a t i v e 
d e f e n s e 
t h a t 
§ 4 o f H.B. 
328 was 
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , 
they argue t h a t t h e R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
s h o u l d 
have made 
t h a t 
a s s e r t i o n as a c o u n t e r c l a i m 
i f i t 
d e s i r e d t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e . 
We d i s a g r e e . 
Assuming f o r the 
sake o f argument t h a t the l e g i s l a t o r s a r e c o r r e c t and t h a t t h e 
R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s h o u l d have l a b e l e d as a c o u n t e r c l a i m i t s 
a s s e r t i o n t h a t § 4 o f 
H.B. 328 i s 
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , R u l e 8 ( c ) , 
A l a . R. C i v . 
P., n e v e r t h e l e s s 
p r o v i d e s 
t h a t an a f f i r m a t i v e 
defense t h a t i s 
m i s t a k e n l y 
d e s i g n a t e d as a c o u n t e r c l a i m , o r a 
c o u n t e r c l a i m 
t h a t 
i s e r r o n e o u s l y 
l a b e l e d 
an 
a f f i r m a t i v e 
d e f e n s e , s h o u l d be t r e a t e d 
"as i f t h e r e had been a p r o p e r 
d e s i g n a t i o n . " 
Most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f § 4 
was argued by b o t h s i d e s a t t h e t r i a l - c o u r t 
l e v e l , and the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d e f i n i t i v e l y r u l e d on t h e i s s u e . 
Moreover, the 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
i d e n t i f i e d 
the 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y 
of § 4 o f H.B. 328 as an i s s u e on 
a p p e a l , 
and both s i d e s have argued t h e m e r i t s o f t h a t i s s u e t o t h i s 
C o u r t . 
12 
1080468 
"The 
g e n e r a l 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n 
b i l l 
s h a l l embrace 
n o t h i n g but a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e 
o r d i n a r y expenses 
o f 
t h e 
e x e c u t i v e , 
l e g i s l a t i v e , 
and 
j u d i c i a l 
departments o f 
t h e 
s t a t e , f o r i n t e r e s t on the p u b l i c 
debt, and f o r 
the p u b l i c s c h o o l s . 
. 
. 
. 
A l l o t h e r 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s s h a l l be made by s e p a r a t e 
b i l l s , each 
embracing b u t 
one s u b j e c t . " 
We examine t h e s e arguments i n t u r n . ^ 
S e c t i o n 213 d e t a i l s t h e manner i n which 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
are t o be r e d u c e d i n the event t h e r e i s a gap between t h e 
t o t a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s made by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e amount 
a v a i l a b l e 
t o t h e S t a t e 
t o 
f u n d 
t h o s e 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t s e t s out 
a f o r m u l a p r o v i d i n g t h a t a l l c l a i m s 
f o r 
a p p r o p r i a t e d 
funds 
w i l l be funded p r o p o r t i o n a l l y . 
I n 
o t h e r words, 
a l l c l a i m a n t s 
w i l l 
have 
t h e i r 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
reduced p r o r a t a , o r by t h e 
same p e r c e n t a g e . 
See O p i n i o n o f 
the J u s t i c e s No. 156, 265 A l a . 501, 503, 92 So. 2d 429, 431 
{1957) {"[T]he C o n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f reduces an a p p r o p r i a t i o n 
a c c o r d i n g t o a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f o r m u l a from t h a t amount 
f i x e d 
^The 
R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n has p r o p e r l y r a i s e d t h e i s s u e s 
whether § 4 o f 
H.B. 328 i s 
i n 
c o n f l i c t w i t h b o t h §§ 213 and 
71 
o f the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n . A t o r a l argument, 
a q u e s t i o n 
a r o s e as t o whether the R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had r a i s e d t h e 
i s s u e whether § 4 o f 
H.B. 328 a l s o c o n f l i c t s w i t h § 126 o f t h e 
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n ; the p a r t i e s s u b s e q u e n t l y 
f i l e d 
l e t t e r 
b r i e f s a d d r e s s i n g 
t h a t i s s u e . 
Upon r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d and 
the 
b r i e f s , 
we must 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t 
t h i s 
argument i s 
not 
p r o p e r l y b e f o r e us. A c c o r d i n g l y , we e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n as 
t o 
i t s 
m e r i t s . 
13 
1080468 
by the L e g i s l a t u r e t o a l e s s e r amount as d e t e r m i n e d by 
the 
C o n s t i t u t i o n . " ) . 
C l e a r l y 
t h e n , 
under 
§ 
213, 
a l l S t a t e 
a g e n c i e s 
and departments are 
s u b j e c t 
t o the same pro 
r a t a 
r e d u c t i o n s i n the event o f a s h o r t f a l l i n funds, and 
n e i t h e r 
the g o v e r n o r nor the l e g i s l a t u r e can spare a f a v o r e d agency 
from those r e d u c t i o n s w i t h o u t 
v i o l a t i n g § 
213. 
I n 
§ 
2 
o f 
H.B. 
328, 
the 
l e g i s l a t u r e 
s e t s 
f o r t h 
the 
s p e c i f i c a p p r o p r i a t i o n s i t i s making f o r f i s c a l year 2009 --
s u b s e c t i o n 
2A 
d e t a i l s 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
t o 
the 
l e g i s l a t i v e 
b r a n c h , s u b s e c t i o n 2B d e t a i l s a p p r o p r i a t i o n s t o the j u d i c i a l 
b r a n c h , 
and 
s u b s e c t i o n 
2C 
d e t a i l s 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
t o 
the 
e x e c u t i v e 
b r a n c h . 
As 
an 
example, 
i n 
i t e m number 
2 
0 
i n 
s u b s e c t i o n 2C, the l e g i s l a t u r e a p p r o p r i a t e d $100,000 from the 
g e n e r a l f u n d t o B r i e r f i e l d Ironworks Park. 
S e c t i o n 2 o f 
H.B. 
328 c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n these t y p e s of a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . 
In § 4 of H.B. 
328, however, the l e g i s l a t u r e s t a t e s t h a t 
17,75% o f each a p p r o p r i a t i o n made i n § 2 i s c o n d i t i o n e d upon 
the a v a i l a b i l i t y 
o f funds, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f s i x s p e c i f i e d 
s o c i a l - s e r v i c e a g e n c i e s 
("the p r o t e c t e d a g e n c i e s " ) , which § 4 
p r o v i d e s 
" s h a l l be 
funded 
i n t h e i r 
e n t i r e t y . " 
The 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n argues t h a t 
t h i s added c o n t i n g e n c y 
-- 
t h a t 
14 
1080468 
17.75% o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s made i n 
§ 2 t o o t h e r 
a g e n c i e s 
("the 
n o n p r o t e c t e d 
a g e n c i e s " ) 
i s 
c o n t i n g e n t 
upon t h e 
a v a i l a b i l i t y 
o f funds — 
i s c l e a r l y 
an attempt by t h e 
l e g i s l a t u r e t o d i c t a t e how a p p r o p r i a t i o n s s h o u l d be r e d u c e d 
i n 
the event o f a s h o r t f a l l , i . e . , i n 
t h e 
event t h e t o t a l amount 
of a p p r o p r i a t i o n s exceeds t h e 
amount o f revenue a v a i l a b l e t o 
f u n d 
t h o s e 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
t h e 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
argues, 
because § 213 
a l r e a d y 
speaks t o 
p r e c i s e l y t h i s s u b j e c t , t h a t i s , 
how t o reduce a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
i n t h e event o f a 
s h o r t f a l l , and s e t s 
f o r t h a 
d i f f e r e n t 
f o r m u l a 
f o r r e d u c i n g 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s , § 4 o f H.B. 328 i s 
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and must t h e r e f o r e cede t o § 
213. 
The 
l e g i s l a t o r s , however, argue t h a t nowhere i n 
H.B. 328 
i s t h e r e a f o r m u l a f o r r e d u c i n g a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . When §§ 2 
and 
4 o f H.B. 328 a r e r e a d 
t o g e t h e r , 
as t h e y must be, t h e 
l e g i s l a t o r s 
argue, 
i t i s c l e a r 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
has been no 
r e d u c t i o n i n 
the a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r 
any agency; r a t h e r , t h e y 
argue, 
e v e r y agency, 
w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f t h e p r o t e c t e d 
a g e n c i e s , i s a p p r o p r i a t e d an a b s o l u t e amount e q u a l t o 82.25% 
of t h e 
amount l i s t e d and a p p r o p r i a t e d an a d d i t i o n a l 17.75% o f 
t h a t amount c o n t i n g e n t upon t h e r e b e i n g 
s u f f i c i e n t funds i n 
15 
1080468 
the 
g e n e r a l 
fund. 
Thus, 
r e t u r n i n g 
t o 
our 
example 
of 
B r i e r f i e l d 
Ironworks Park, the l e g i s l a t o r s would argue t h a t , 
i n H.B. 
328, 
B r i e r f i e l d 
I r o n w o r k s Park r e c e i v e d an 
a b s o l u t e 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f $82,250 and 
a c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n 
o f 
$17, 750, n o t a b l a n k e t a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f $100, 000 as the R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n argues. 
The 
l e g i s l a t o r s f u r t h e r argue t h a t the 
" e f f e c t " o f § 4 o f H.B. 
328 as w r i t t e n i s e x a c t l y t h e same as 
i f 
the 
l e g i s l a t u r e 
had 
s i m p l y 
l i s t e d 
a l l the 
a b s o l u t e 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n one 
s e c t i o n o f an a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l 
and 
t h e n 
l i s t e d 
a l l the 
c o n d i t i o n a l 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
i n 
the 
f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 
( L e g i s l a t o r s ' b r i e f , pp. 59-60.) 
The 
r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n b e f o r e 
t h i s C o u r t t h e n i s whether 
we 
s h o u l d 
adopt the 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 
H.B. 
328 
t h e 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n u r g e s , i n which the l e g i s l a t u r e makes a s e r i e s 
o f e s s e n t i a l l y a b s o l u t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n § 2 and t h e n almost 
i m m e d i a t e l y 
reduces 
t h o s e 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
i n 
§ 
4, 
or 
the 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of 
H.B. 
328 
the 
l e g i s l a t o r s 
urge, 
i n which 
82.25% o f each a p p r o p r i a t i o n i n § 2 i s a b s o l u t e and § 4 makes 
an a d d i t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n of 17.75% — 
w i t h the 
e x c e p t i o n 
t h a t 
100% 
of the 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
t o the 
p r o t e c t e d 
a g e n c i e s a r e a b s o l u t e . 
I f we adopt the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of 
H.B. 
16 
1080468 
328 urged by the R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , we would be r e q u i r e d t o 
d e c l a r e § 4 of H.B. 328 u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as v i o l a t i n g § 213. 
However, 
we 
have 
p r e v i o u s l y 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
" a c t s 
o f t h e 
l e g i s l a t u r e are presumed c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , " 
S t a t e ex r e l . K i n g 
V . Morton, 955 So. 2d 1012, 1017 ( A l a . 2006) ( c i t i n g S t a t e v. 
Alabama Mun. I n s . Corp., 730 So. 2d 107, 110 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) , and 
f u r t h e r t h a t "we a r e o b l i g e d t o c o n s t r u e s t a t u t e s so as t o 
a v o i d c o n f l i c t s w i t h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s i f 
p o s s i b l e . " 
C i t y o f Homewood v. B h a r a t , LLC, 931 So. 2d 6 
97, 7 
01 
( A l a . 
2005) ( c i t i n g James v. Todd, 267 A l a . 495, 505, 103 So. 2d 19, 
27 (1957) ) 
. See a l s o Alabama S t a t e Fed'n o f Labor v. McAdory, 
246 A l a . 1, 9, 18 So. 2d 810, 815 (1944) 
( " [ I ] n p a s s i n g upon 
the 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y 
o f a 
l e g i s l a t i v e 
a c t , t h e 
c o u r t s 
u n i f o r m l y 
approach the q u e s t i o n 
w i t h e v e r y p r e s u m p t i o n and 
intendment 
i n f a v o r o f i t s 
v a l i d i t y , 
and seek t o s u s t a i n 
r a t h e r t h a n s t r i k e down t h e enactment o f a c o o r d i n a t e 
b r a n c h 
o f 
t h e government."). 
When we 
a f f o r d 
H.B. 
328 
t h a t 
p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y and c o n s i d e r i t 
as a whole, 
we must i n t e r p r e t i t 
i n t h e manner u r g e d by t h e l e g i s l a t o r s 
and c o n c l u d e t h a t H.B. 328 does not o f f e n d § 213. 
17 
1080468 
We n e x t c o n s i d e r the R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s argument t h a t 
§ 
4 
o f 
H.B, 
328 
c o n f l i c t s 
w i t h 
§ 
71 
of 
the 
Alabama 
C o n s t i t u t i o n , which, the R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a r g u e s , b a r s the 
l e g i s l a t u r e from i n c l u d i n g a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
i n 
the 
g e n e r a l - a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l . 
However, a l t h o u g h 
we 
agree 
w i t h 
the 
g e n e r a l 
p r i n c i p l e 
t h a t 
§ 
71 
b a r s 
the 
l e g i s l a t u r e from a d d r e s s i n g m a t t e r s o t h e r t h a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
i n a g e n e r a l - a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l , we cannot c o n c l u d e t h a t t h a t 
i s what the 
l e g i s l a t u r e has done i n H.B. 
328. 
R a t h e r , 
the 
l e g i s l a t u r e 
i n H.B. 
328 
m e r e l y 
imposed 
a 
c o n d i t i o n upon 
c e r t a i n 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
-- 
t h a t 
the 
S t a t e 
t r e a s u r y 
have 
s u f f i c i e n t 
funds 
t o 
s a t i s f y 
t h o s e 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . 
T h i s 
c o n d i t i o n does n o t , i n our view, change the i n t r i n s i c 
n a t u r e 
of those a p p r o p r i a t i o n s as a p p r o p r i a t i o n s so as t o run 
a f o u l 
of § 71. 
See, 
e.g., 
South Dakota Educ. A s s ' n v. B a r n e t t , 
582 
N.W.2d 386, 
3 
92 
(S.D. 
1998) 
( s t a t i n g 
t h a t even though 
the 
South Dakota l e g i s l a t u r e i s f o r b i d d e n f r o m e n a c t i n g , v i a the 
g e n e r a l 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l , 
s u b s t a n t i v e 
l e g i s l a t i o n 
t h a t 
changes, amends, o r r e p e a l s e x i s t i n g law, 
i t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s 
" f r e e t o impose c o n d i t i o n s and 
r e s t r i c t i o n s on 
a p p r o p r i a t e d 
funds w i t h i n the body of a g e n e r a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
b i l l " ) . 
18 
1080468 
The R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n n e v e r t h e l e s s 
a l l e g e s t h a t § 4 o f 
H.B. 
328 
v i o l a t e s § 71 i n the f o l l o w i n g f o u r ways: 
1. 
I t p l a c e s the 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y upon the g o v e r n o r 
t o e s t i m a t e 
how much revenue w i l l be a v a i l a b l e 
f o r 
f i s c a l year 2009 w h i l e § 41-4-90, A l a . Code 
1975, 
p l a c e s 
t h a t 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 
upon 
the 
d i r e c t o r of 
f i n a n c e ; 
2. 
I t c r e a t e s an a l t e r n a t i v e p r o c e s s f o r 
r e d u c i n g 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
i n 
the 
event 
o f 
a 
budget 
s h o r t f a l l , w h i c h p r o c e s s i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h § 
213 
and § 41-4-90; 
3. 
I t 
f a i l s 
t o 
ensure 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
i s 
adequate 
f u n d i n g 
f o r 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y 
r e q u i r e d 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s , such as f o r the j u d i c i a l b r a n c h 
o f 
government, 
even 
though 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
has 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
the 
g o v e r n o r , 
when 
c u t t i n g 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s , i s r e q u i r e d t o c o n s u l t w i t h 
the 
c h i e f 
j u s t i c e 
t o 
ensure 
t h a t 
r e m a i n i n g 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
a r e 
a d e q u a t e 
f o r 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y mandated s e r v i c e s , see 
Folsom 
V . Wynn, 631 
So. 
2d 890 
{ A l a . 1993); 
and 
4. 
I t t a k e s away the d i s c r e t i o n g i v e n the d i r e c t o r 
o f 
f i n a n c e 
i n § 41-19-10 t o m o d i f y the 
funds 
a g e n c i e s 
r e c e i v e 
d u r i n g 
the 
y e a r 
i f 
e x p e n d i t u r e s 
are 
g r e a t e r 
t h a n 
n e c e s s a r y 
or 
revenues are 
i n s u f f i c i e n t . 
I n r e g a r d t o the R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s second argument, 
we 
have 
a l r e a d y 
n o t e d 
t h a t 
§ 
4 
o f 
H.B. 
328, 
p r o p e r l y 
i n t e r p r e t e d , 
does 
not 
a c t u a l l y reduce 
any 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s ; 
t h e r e f o r e , 
H.B. 
328 
does 
not 
c o n f l i c t 
w i t h 
e x i s t i n g 
law 
s u r r o u n d i n g 
p r o r a t i o n or w i t h the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f o r m u l a f o r 
19 
1080468 
r e d u c i n g a p p r o p r i a t i o n s when revenues are i n s u f f i c i e n t t o fund 
the 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . 
S i m i l a r l y , 
the 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s 
t h i r d argument, which i s p r e m i s e d on t h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n 
Folsom V . Wynn, i s p r e m i s e d 
on 
a r e d u c t i o n 
i n the 
amount 
a p p r o p r i a t e d the j 
u d i c i a l b r a n c h ; however, i n the absence of 
any t r u e c u t s t o a b s o l u t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s t h e r e i s no 
c o n f l i c t 
w i t h 
e x i s t i n g 
law. 
F i n a l l y , 
the 
R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
a l s o 
obj e c t s 
t o 
the 
language i n § 4 of 
H.B. 
328 
r e q u i r i n g 
the 
g o v e r n o r 
t o 
e s t i m a t e 
the 
amount 
of 
revenue 
t h a t 
w i l l 
be 
a v a i l a b l e as c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h 
§ 41-4-90, which p r o v i d e s t h a t , 
i n the event p r o r a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y , 
" a p p r o p r i a t i o n s s h a l l be 
p a y a b l e 
i n 
such 
p r o p o r t i o n 
as 
the 
t o t a l 
sum 
of 
a l l 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s b e a r s t o the 
t o t a l revenues e s t i m a t e d 
by 
the 
Department o f F i n a n c e ...." 
S e c t i o n 4 o f H.B. 
328, 
however, 
p r o v i d e s t h a t the c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f 17.75% made t o 
the n o n p r o t e c t e d 
a g e n c i e s s h a l l be a l l o c a t e d p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y 
based on 
t h e amount of revenue 
the 
g o v e r n o r 
e s t i m a t e s 
i s 
a v a i l a b l e . 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , 
a l t h o u g h 
§ 41-4-90 c o n t e m p l a t e s an 
e s t i m a t e 
o f 
a v a i l a b l e funds p r e p a r e d by 
the Department 
of 
F i n a n c e and 
§ 4 o f H.B. 
328 
c o n t e m p l a t e s a s i m i l a r 
e s t i m a t e 
p r e p a r e d by the g o v e r n o r , t h e r e i s no c o n f l i c t because § 
41-4-
20 
1080468 
90 has 
a 
f i e l d 
o f o p e r a t i o n when p r o r a t i o n i s d e c l a r e d 
and 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s are b e i n g r e d u c e d and § 4 of H.B. 
328 a d d r e s s e s 
how 
the 
c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s made 
i n 
H.B. 
328 
are 
funded. 
I f t h o s e c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s are b e i n g funded 
i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h § 4 o f H.B. 
328, 
then § 41-4-90 
has 
no 
f i e l d 
o f 
o p e r a t i o n because f u n d i n g 
the 
c o n d i t i o n a l 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o § 4 n e c e s s a r i l y means t h a t 
t h e r e 
were s u f f i c i e n t funds f o r a l l a b s o l u t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s and t h a t 
p r o r a t i o n was 
not 
n e c e s s a r y . 
The 
R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s r e m a i n i n g 
argument, t h a t § 4 
o f H.B, 
328 
c o n f l i c t s w i t h § 41-19-10 inasmuch as i t p u r p o r t s 
t o take away the d i r e c t o r o f f i n a n c e ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o m o d i f y 
the funds an agency r e c e i v e s d u r i n g the year i f 
e x p e n d i t u r e s 
are g r e a t e r than n e c e s s a r y or revenues are i n s u f f i c i e n t , 
may 
or may 
not have m e r i t ; however, we 
are u l t i m a t e l y p r e v e n t e d 
from a d d r e s s i n g 
t h a t argument because, 
a l t h o u g h 
t h e 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y made the t h r e e p r e c e d i n g arguments 
i n the t r i a l c o u r t , i t d i d not make the f o u r t h argument i n the 
t r i a l c o u r t . 
I n the b r i e f the R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f i l e d w i t h 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the l e g i s l a t o r s ' m o t i o n f o r 
a summary judgment, i t summarized i t s arguments as t o how 
§ 4 
21 
1080468 
o f 
H.B. 
32 
8 
v i o l a t e d 
§ 
71 
w i t h 
a 
t a b l e 
(see 
R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s 
t r i a l - c o u r t 
b r i e f , 
pp. 
24-25, a t t a c h e d 
t o 
t h i s o p i n i o n as Appendix A) . That t a b l e i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e ways 
i n which § 4 o f H.B. 
328 
a l l e g e d l y m o d i f i e d e x i s t i n g law 
— 
the 
same 
t h r e e 
arguments 
d i s c u s s e d 
i m m e d i a t e l y 
above. 
A l t h o u g h § 41-19-10 i s c i t e d i n the c o n t e x t of whether § 4 of 
H.B. 
328 m o d i f i e s e x i s t i n g law i n r e g a r d t o the " [ p ] r o c e s s f o r 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
how 
much 
revenue 
i s 
a v a i l a b l e 
f o r 
p a y i n g 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s , " i t i s not quoted or o t h e r w i s e r e f e r r e d t o , 
nor 
i s t h e r e 
any 
d i s c u s s i o n of whether 
§ 
4 of 
H.B. 
328 
a b r o g a t e s 
t h e d i s c r e t i o n g i v e n the d i r e c t o r o f f i n a n c e i n § 
41-19-10 t o m o d i f y 
the funds 
an agency r e c e i v e s d u r i n g 
the 
y e a r i f e x p e n d i t u r e s are g r e a t e r than n e c e s s a r y or revenues 
a r e 
i n s u f f i c i e n t . 
In i t s b r i e f 
t o 
t h i s 
C o u r t , 
the 
R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
a g a i n r e l i e s on a t a b l e t o i l l u s t r a t e the ways i n w h i c h § 4 of 
H.B. 
328 
v i o l a t e s § 71 by 
a l l e g e d l y m o d i f y i n g 
e x i s t i n g 
law 
(see R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s b r i e f , 
p. 
46, 
a t t a c h e d t o 
t h i s 
o p i n i o n as Appendix B) . T h i s t a b l e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y 
i d e n t i c a l 
t o the t a b l e i n c l u d e d i n the R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s 
t r i a l -
c o u r t b r i e f ; however, i t has been expanded t o i n c l u d e a f o u r t h 
22 
1080468 
way i n 
w h i c h § 4 o f H.B. 328 c o n f l i c t s w i t h e x i s t i n g law — by 
a l l e g e d l y t a k i n g away t h e d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d t h e e x e c u t i v e 
b r a n c h i n § 41-19-10(c)(3) 
" t o spend 
funds 
a c c o r d i n g t o 
s h i f t i n g 
p r i o r i t i e s and r e v e n u e s . " 
T h i s i s a p p a r e n t l y t h e 
f i r s t time t h i s argument has been a r t i c u l a t e d by t h e R i l e y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; i t was n o t i n c l u d e d i n i t s t r i a l - c o u r t 
b r i e f , 
nor i s i t f o u n d anywhere e l s e i n t h e r e c o r d . 
N o t a b l y , t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s o r d e r e n t e r i n g a summary 
j 
udgment i n f a v o r o f 
the l e g i s l a t o r s i s c o m p l e t e l y 
s i l e n t as t o t h i s i s s u e . 
" T h i s 
C o u r t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r arguments r a i s e d f o r 
t h e f i r s t time on 
a p p e a l ; r a t h e r , our r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and 
arguments c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " 
Andrews v. M e r r i t t 
O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992) 
( c i t i n g 
R o d r i g u e z -
Ramos V . J . Thomas W i l l i a m s , J r . , M.D., P.O., 580 So. 2d 1326 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 1 ) ) . 
For t h a t r e a s o n , we do not r e a c h t h e m e r i t s o f 
t h i s argument. 
IV. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary 
j 
udgment i n f a v o r o f 
the l e g i s l a t o r s , h o l d i n g t h a t Governor R i l e y ' s v e t o o f § 4 o f 
H.B. 328 was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
because i t f a i l e d t o comply w i t h 
the p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 126. 
The t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a l s o 
23 
1080468 
r e j e c t e d t h e R i l e y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s argument t h a t § 4 o f H.B. 
328 was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , h o l d i n g t h a t § 4 of H.B, 328 was i n 
f a c t " l a w f u l and o f f u l l e f f e c t . " 
For the r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h 
above, t h a t judgment i s hereby 
a f f i r m e d . 
APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF APRIL 3, 2009, WITHDRAWN; 
OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. 
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, W o o d a l l , 
Smith, 
B o l i n , 
P a r k e r , 
Murdock, and Shaw, J J . , concur. 
2 
4 
APPENDIX A 
be an "appropriation"? The answer is that it cannot be, and that it is therefore off limits 
for inclusion in a general appropriations bill such as House Bill 328. "Just as the 
Governor may not use his item-veto power to usurp constitutional powers conferred on 
the legislature, neither can the legislature deprive the Governor of the constitutional 
powers conferred on him as the chief executive officer of the state by including in a 
general appropriation bill matters more properly enacted in separate legislation " Henr}', 
346 So. 2d at 158, 
A closer look at the details of Section 4 reveals that Section 4 is an 
unconstitutional attempt to substantively amend the proration scheme estabhshed in Ala. 
Code § 41-4-90. First we have the two provisions' similarities. Both § 41-4-90 and 
Section 4 declare appropriations to be "conditional." Both § 41-4-90 and Section 4 
impose those conditions to assure that the State will not spend more tban it takes in. And 
both § 41-4-90 and Section 4 make that assurance by requiring certain amounts to be paid 
proportionately out of available resources in the event of a shortfall Clearly, the t
v
^
^
o 
provisions occupy the same field of operation. 
More telling are the differences between the general proration statute and Section 
4, as reflected in the following table: 
Issue 
Vs^ut Happens Under 
Existing Law 
What Would Chasge If 
Section 4 is Enforced 
Process for determining 
how much revenue is 
available for paying 
appropriations 
The Department of Finance 
is charged with estimating 
how much revenue is 
available. See Ala. Code §§ 
41-4-90; 41-19-10. 
The Govemor is charged 
with estimating how much 
revenue is available. 
Process for reducing 
appropriations if necessary 
'*The Governor shall restrict 
allotments . . . by prorating 
without discrimination . . . 
."Ala. Code § 41-4-90. 
Six agencies retain theu* full 
appropriations while all 
others are cut. Section 4 
eliminates § 41-4-90's non-
discrimination principle. 
24 
Issue 
Wdat Happens Under 
Existing I
^
a
w 
What Would Change If 
Section 4 is Enforced 
Process for protecting 
constitutionally required 
appropriations (sucli as for 
tiie Judiciary) 
In the event of a funding 
shortfall, the "Govemor and 
appropriate executive 
agencies" shall consult with 
the Chief Justice to 
determine which 
appropriations are 
"adequate and reasonable 
for the constitutionally 
mandated services" 
provided by the state 
judiciary. Wynn v. Folsom^ 
631 So. 2d 890, 900-01 
(Ala> 1993). 
In the event of a flmding 
shortfall, such 
appropriations are subject to 
a reduction of 17.75 
regardless of whether such a 
cut would leave "adequate 
and reasonable" 
appropriations for the 
conduct of constitutionally 
required activities. There is 
no indication that the 
Legislature has consulted 
(or would consult) the Chief 
Justice as required by 
Wynn. 
It is clear, then, that Section 4 would bring about a change in the substantive law of this 
State governing the State's fmances intlie event of a funding deficit. 
While the Legislature may have tlie power to change these procedures in stand-
alone legislation, Section 71 of the Constitution prevents it from doing so in a general 
appropriations bill for the precise reason illustrated by this litigation. If the plaintiffs 
prevail here (both on the scope of the item-veto power md on Section 4's 
constitutionality), they will have established a veto-proof way for the Legislature to 
amend the general law of this State. The Alabama Constitution does not coxmtenance 
such a result. 
B, The Legislature cannot alter the self-executing provisions of Araendment 
26 to the Alabama Constitution. 
Section 4 is also unconstitutional because it contradicts the self-executing 
proration regime established in Section 213 of the Alabama Constitution as amended by 
Amendment 26. Amendment 26 self-executing and cannot be altered. It provides that, in 
the event of a shortfall of tax revenues, "the comptroller shall issue warrants for that 
25 
APPENDIX B 
More t e l l i n g , however, are the d i f f e r e n c e s between the 
general 
s t a t u t e 
and 
S e c t i o n 
4, 
as 
r e f l e c t e d 
i n the 
f o l l o w i n g t a b l e : 
Issue 
What Happens Under 
E x i s t i n g Law 
What Would Change 
I f S e c t i o n 4 
i s 
E n f o r c e d 
Process f o r 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
how much 
revenue i s 
a v a i l a b l e 
The Department of Finance 
i s charged w i t h e s t i m a t i n g 
how much revenue 
i s 
a v a i l a b l e . See A l a . Code 
§§ 41-4-90; 41-19-10. 
The Governor i s 
charged w i t h 
e s t i m a t i n g how much 
revenue i s 
a v a i l a b l e . 
Process f o r 
r e d u c i n g 
a p p r o p r i a -
t i o n s 
i f 
necessary 
^^The Governor s h a l l 
r e s t r i c t a l l o t m e n t s . . 
. 
by p r o r a t i n g without 
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . . 
. 
A l a . Code § 41-4-90. 
S i x agencies 
r e t a i n 
t h e i r 
f u l l 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
w h i l e a l l o t h e r s 
are c u t . 
Process f o r 
p r o t e c t i n g 
c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l l y 
r e q u i r e d 
a p p r o p r i a -
t i o n s 
(such 
as f o r the 
J u d i c i a r y ) 
The Governor s h a l l c o n s u l t 
w i t h t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e t o 
determine which 
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s are 
"adequate and reasonable 
f o r the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y 
mandated s e r v i c e s . " 
Wynn 
V . Folsom, 631 So. 2d 890, 
900-01 ( A l a . 
1993). 
In t h e event of a 
f u n d i n g 
s h o r t f a l l , 
such a p p r o p r i a t i o n s 
are s u b j e c t t o a 
r e d u c t i o n o f 17.75% 
r e g a r d l e s s of any 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
mandate. 
E x e c u t i v e ' s 
d i s c r e t i o n 
t o spend 
funds 
a c c o r d i n g 
t o 
s h i f t i n g 
p r i o r i t i e s 
and 
revenues 
E x e c u t i v e may " [ m j o d i f y o r 
w i t h h o l d the planned 
e x p e n d i t u r e s at any time 
d u r i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n 
p e r i o d i f . . . such 
e x p e n d i t u r e s are g r e a t e r 
than those necessary t o 
execute the programs at 
the l e v e l a u t h o r i z e d " or 
"the revenues and 
r e s o u r c e s 
w i l l be 
i n s u f f i c i e n t . " A l a . 
Code § 
41-19-10 (c) (3) 
. 
N e i t h e r t h e 
Governor nor 
Finance D i r e c t o r 
has d i s c r e t i o n t o 
w i t h h o l d funds t o 
P r o t e c t e d Agencies 
as p r i o r i t i e s and 
revenues change 
over the course of 
the F i s c a l Year, 
46