No. 12260 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1972 

THE STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel. 

OSCAR S. KVAALEN, 

Relator, 

LEO GRAYBILL, JR., JOHN TOOLE, DOROTHY ECK, 

et al., as Members of and comprising a Committee 

purporting to act pursuant to Resolution No. 14 

$7. of the Montana Constitutional Convention, et al., 

Respondents. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: 

Counsel of Record: 

For Relator: 

Risken and Scribner, Helena, Montana. 

A. W. Scribner argued, Helena, Montana. - 

Amicus Curiae 

Philip W. Strope argued, Helena, Montana. 

Joseph P. Monaghan, Butte, Montana. 

For Respondents: 

Harrison, Loendorf and Poston, Helena, Montana. 

Jerome T. Loendorf argued, Helena, Montana. 

Marshall Murray argued, Kalispell, Montana. 

Ben E. Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana. 

Thomas F. Joyce appeaf&Rutte, Montana. 

Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana. 

John Connor, Assistant Attorney General, argued, 

Helena, Montana. 

Lawrence D. Huss, Deputy Attorney General, appeared, 

Helena, Montana. 

Submitted: April 18, 1972 
PER CURIAM: 

This is a class action by taxpayers seeking a declaratory 

judgment and injunctive relief against nineteen Constitutional 

Convention delegates comprising its voter education committee, 

the state auditor, and the state treasurer. Relator, by an 

original proceeding in this Court, seeks (1) a judgment that 

the voter education committee has no right or authority to 

receive, expend, or obligate any public funds for voter education purposes, and (2) an injunction prohibiting the committee 

from receiving, expending, or obligating public funds for such 

purposes. 

The factual background of this controversy will illuminate 

the legal issues before the Court in this proceeding. The Constitutional Convention was duly convened pursuant to the provisions of the Montana Constitution (Art. XIX, Sec. 8); this 

Court's decision in Forty-second Legislative Assembj.y v. Lennon 

(156 Mont. 416, 481 P.2d 330); and the Constitutional Convention 

Enabling Act of the Forty-second Legislative Assembly (Chapter 

296, 1971 Session Laws, as amended by Chapter 1 of the Laws 

of the First Extraordinary Session of the Forty-second Legislative Assembly). Also to be noted is our decision in Mahoney v. 

Murray, Mont , 9 P.2d , 29 St.Rep.289, a companion case. Its plenary session commenced on January 17, 1972 

and continued until noon on March 24, 1972, when it "adjourned 

sine die". 

Prior to adjournment sine die, the Constitutional Convention in plenary session adopted Resolution 14 which is the focus 

of the present controversy. This Resolution adopted on March 

16, 1972, was quoted in Mahoney and is herewith set out again 

in full: 
"WHEREAS, The Montana Constitutional Convention has 

nearly completed its substantive activities and is 

making arrangements for adjournment sine die in order 

to meet its election date commitment of June 6, 1972; 

and 

"WHEREAS, prior to adjournment sine die the Convention 

will not be able to complete its procedural, administrative and voter education affairs, all of which must 

be concluded in an orderly and responsible manner; and 

"WHEREAS, the Convention anticipates that it will need 

to establish an appropriate committee to manage and 

conclude all of its procedural, administrative and voter 

education affairs after adjournment sine die; 

"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL 

CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AS FOLLOWS: 

n 1. The Convention hereby creates a committee to 

act with the President of the Convention on its behalf 

after adjournment sine die, delegating to it full 

authority to manage and conclude all of the convention's 

procedural, administrative and voter education affairs, 

and to spend the Convention's funds therefor, but only 

within the limits of its appropriation and such other 

funds as the Convention may have. 

"2. The Convention hereby appoints to said committee 

the President, Leo Graybill, Jr., who shall act as its 

chairman, and the following delegates: John Toole, 

Dorothy Eck, Bruce Brown, Jean Bowman, Margaret Warden, 

Fred Martin, Robert Vermillion, Katie Payne, Betty 

Babcock, Marshall Murray, Catherine Pemberton, John 

Schiltz, Thomas Joyce, George Harper, Bill Burkhardt, 

Jerome Loendorf, Oscar Anderson, Gene Harbaugh. 

"3. No delegate may serve on the committee who shall 

seek public office in the primary election to be held on 

June 6, 1972. The President, as chairman of the committee, 

shall have authority to substitute other Convention delegates for any committee members named herein who may 

decide to seek public office. 

"4. The Convention hereby delegates authority to 

the committee to receive, disburse and account for all 

Federal funds which the Convention may receive. 

"5. The Convention also delegates authority to the 

committee to supervise and edit any and all voter education materials prepared on behalf of the Convention or 

by other persons relative to the work of the Convention. 

"6. The committee shall terminate its work at such 

time as all of the Convention's procedural, administrative and educational affairs have been completed, and 

all requirements of the Enabling Act have been met." 
Although the exact amount the committee proposes to 

expend for voter education purposes cannot be precisely computed at this time, it is clear that the voter education committee proposes to receive and expend approximately $45,000 

and that some of these public funds have already been spent or 

obligated. The source of this $45,000 is $15,000 in anticipated 

unexpended funds appropriated to the Convention by the 1971 Legislative Assembly, plus a $30,000 HUD grant of federal funds for 

the purpose of providing financial assistance to the Montana 

Constitutional Convention. 

It should also be noted that the 1971 Legislative Assembly 

appropriated the sum of $41,000 to the secretary of state 

"for the elections relating to the constitutional convention". 

The sum of $24,000 from this appropriation has been budgeted 

for voter information concerning the proposed constitution, 

with comments and report to the people pursuant to the requirements of subsections (4) and (5), Section 17, of the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act and Resolution 11 of the Constitutional Convention. 

Section 17 (4) of the Constitutional Convention Enabling 

Act provides: 

11 Each proposed revision, alteration, or amendment, 

together with appropriate information explaining 

each revision, alteration, or amendment, shall be 

published in full and disseminated to the electors 

upon adjournment of the convention but not later 

than thirty (30) days preceding the election and 

in such manner as the convention prescribes. I I 

Section 17(5) of the Constitutional Convention Enabling 

Act reads : 

II The convention shall also publish a report to 

the people explaining its proposals." 

Resolution 11 of the Constitutional Convention provides 

in pertinent part: 
"Section 2. (1) The Secretary of State is hereby 

requested to requisition the Purchasing Division 

of the Department of Administration to call for bids 

for the printing of the proposed Constitution with 

comments and report to the people as required by 

subsections (4) and (5) of Section 17 of the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act, which shall be 

printed in the form prescribed by the Convention. 11 

Attached to Resolution 11 is a requisition form prescribing 

the form, number of copies, and distribution of the copies required. 

Pursuant to the foregoing authority, the secretary of 

state has caused to be printed and distributed 400,000 copies 

of the proposed constitution with comments and report to the 

people. The costs incurred to date for this item are $12,016.89. 

This publication similar in size to the family supplement 

contained in the Sunday editions of our daily newspapers,, consists of 24 pages, in color, and contains the following: sample 

ballot; history and highlights of the proposed constitution; 

the proposed constitution with comments; the preamble; the 

verbatim provisions of the proposed constitution, article by 

article with comments, and a comparison with the existing constitution indicating what provisions are retained from the 

present constitution and what new provisions have been added in 

the proposed constitution; a transition schedule from the present 

constitution to the proposed constitution in the event the latter 

is approved by the people at the constitutional referendum 

election; the adoption schedule; deletions from the present 

constitution in the proposed constitution; the officers and 

delegates of the Constitutional Conventimby districts with 

mailing addresses; and the places where additional copies of 

the publication can be secured. 

Relator does not attack the expenditure of public funds 

by the secretary of state for publication and distribution of 
this publication for voter information. i el at or's attack is 

directed solely at expenditures of public funds by the voter 

education committee for employing an advertising agency, newspaper advertisements, radio and television programs, production 

and distribution of a 15-minute film on convention activities 

and proposals relative to the proposed constitution, a slide 

presentation, administrative expenses, and other voter education expenditures, 

The original proceeding now before this Court was filed by 

relator Oscar S. Kvaalen on April 7, 1972, with supporting 

brief. It is a class action by relator on behalf of Montana 

citizens and residents who are payers of state taxes against 

nineteen Constitutional Convention delegates who comprise the 

voter education committee of the Constitutional Convention 

pursuant to Convention Resolution 14. The state auditor and 

state treasurer, whose official duties encompass the expenditure of public funds, are named as nominal defendants. 

Relator seeks a declaratory judgment of this Court that: 

(1) The powers and authority of the Constitutional Convention became functus officio and ceased to become effective 

upon its adjournment sine die at noon on March 24, 1972; 

(2) Resolution 14 of the Constitutional Convention is in 

excess of the Convention's jurisdiction and power, and is 

illegal insofar as it purports to delegate to the voter education committee any powers or authority of the Convention; 

(3) The voter education committee has no right, standing, 

power, or authority to receive or expend any federal funds 

received for the purposes of the Convention; 

(4) The voter education committee has no right, standing, 

power or authority to incur liabilities or obligate state or 

federal funds for any purpose whatever; 
(5) It is unlawful to incur liabilities or obligations 

from state or federal funds for the purpose of advertising, 

publicizing, or promoting the work of the Convention; attempting 

to promote voter approval of the proposed constitution; or 

attempting to influence the outcome of the proposed constitution referendum election. 

Relator also seeks ancillary relief by injunction prohibiting the voter education committee, the state auditor and 

the state treasurer from receiving or expending public funds 

for voter education activities of the committee. 

Following ex parte oral argument on behalf of relator, 

this application was set for adversary hearing before this 

Court on April 18, 1972, and appropriate notices of this hearing 

were directed to be given to the parties and to the attorney 

general. 

Prior to such adversary hearing, the members of the voter 

education committee of the Constitutional Convention filed 

their answer. In substance it admitted the facts contained in 

relator's application, but denied the committee was doing or 

proposed to do anything unlawful, or that the committee was 

exceeding its powers or authority. The committee filed an 

extensive documentation of the proceedings of the Convention 

and the committee's own proceedings, together with a brief of 

legal authorities supporting its activities. 

A brief was also filed by the attorney general on behalf 

of the state auditor and state treasurer, the import of which 

was that these officials have no interest in the substantive 

merits of this controversy and stand ready to abide by any 

decision rendered by this Court herein. 

Additionally, an amicus curiae brief was filed by Joseph 

P. Monaghan, a Butte attorney, supporting an equal division of 
public funds left over from the Constitutional Convention 

between advocates and opponents of the proposed constitution. 

We need not discuss this because (1) amicus curiae cannot raise 

separate issues not raised by the parties, and (2) our holding 

here, as hereafter appears. 

Prior to the adversary hearing, written interrogatories 

were propounded to Leo Graybill, Jr., president of the Constitutional Convention and chairman of the nineteen delegate voter 

education committee and written answers were filed by him. 

From these interrogatories and answers, it appears the voter 

education cornittee has adopted a proposed budget of $45,657 for 

voter education purposes consisting of $30,650 for film, television time, television spots, radio advertising, newspaper 

advertising, slides, and citizen participation; the remaining 

$15,007 is budgeted for administrative expenses consisting of 

staff wages, employee benefits, postage, telephone, supplies, 

printing, contracted services for use of a Xerox machine, etc., 

and travel. The source of the funds for payment of the budgeted 

amounts is $15,000 from the Constitutional Convention appropriation, and an anticipated $30,000 from a federal HUD grant for 

which the contract is not yet signed nor the grant finalized, 

and which is contingent on the $15,000 state matching funds 

from the Constitutional Convention appropriation. 

As far as we can determine from the record before us, this 

anticipated $15,000 in unexpended funds appropriated to the 

Convention to be used as state matching funds may be more 

fictitious than real. In order to arrive at this surplus, it 

appears that the Convention must ignore the $18,000 deficit 

of the Constitutional Convention Commission established under 

the same Enabling Act, which will have to be paid from taxpayers' 

funds by deficit appropriation or otherwise. Also it appears 

that the cost of printing and distribution of the 400,000 copies 
of the proposed constitution with comments and report to the 

people required of the Convention by Sections 17(4) and 17(5) 

of the Enabling Act is to be paid from the secretary of state's 

budget and appropriation and not the Convention's budget and 

appropriation. This item has been budgeted at not to exceed 

$24,000 of which $12,016.89 has already been spent. We mention 

these matters simply to show that, at least on the record before 

us, this anticipated surplus appears to be the result of a 

bookkeeping transaction producing a "paper surplus" in the 

Convention's own budget and appropriation. 

Referring now to the anticipated $30,000 from a federal 

HUD grant, heretofore mentioned, apparently as of March 24, 1972, 

the date of adjournment, the State Department of Planning and 

Economic Development had a verbal commitment from the Denver 

Regional office. A contract apparently between a state agency, 

the Constitutional Convention operating through its committee 

under Resolution 14, and the federal government is still to be 

negotiated. The machinations of this contractual relationship 

are not clear. It only serves to point up the continuing nature 

of the Convention's activities after adjournment sine die. 

The interrogatories and answers further disclose that the 

staff consists of two full-time employees, a coordinator and a 

secretary receiving $30 and $22.50 per day respectively, whose 

term of employment will run to the date of the election, June 

6, 1972; a part-time employee performing bookkeeping and 

financial services two days a week at $30 per day, whose term 

of employment will likewise terminate on June 6, 1972; and a 

temporary secretarial replament paid $20.78 per day, whose 

duration of employment is not indicated. The voter education 

committee has also engaged by contract the services of an 

advertising agency which is to be paid for time spent at its 
scale per hour which is estimated at $2,500, with about half 

its services already performed. It is unknown at this time 

whether the voter education committee will engage the services 

of other persons or organizations to assist in its activities. 

The advertising agency has earned and billed to date the sum 

of $4,844.71 for film and $405.60 for slides, which is unpaid. 

Various other sums in an undetermined amount may be due for 

partially completed work. The voter education committee anticipates spending approximately $30,000 on media and services 

through the advertising agency. 

The adversary hearing on relator's application was held 

before this Court on April 18, 1972. Oral argument was heard 

on behalf of relator, amicus curiae Philip W. Strope, the 

attorney general, and the respondent voter education committee. 

Following hearing, the case was taken under advisement by this 

Court. 

The ultimate issue to be determined in the instant case 

is whether the voter education committee of the Constitutional 

Convention can receive and expend public funds for voter education in connection with the forthcoming referendum election on 

approval or rejection of the proposed constitution. Two underlying issues control: (1) Can the Constitutional Convention 

delegate its powers and authority to a committee and empower 

that committee to exercise such delegated powers and authority 

following the Convention's adjournment sine die? (2) Does the 

Constitutional Convention itself have the power and authority 

to receive and expend public funds for voter education? 

Summarizing the basic contentions of the parties, we note 

that relator argues the Constitutional Convention cannot act 

through a committee after the Convention has adjourned sine die 

because (1) such delegated powers can last no longer than the 

powers of the delegating authority, and (2) the Convention's 
power and authority must be exercised by the Convention itself 

and cannot be delegated to a committee. Relator further contends 

that the Constitutional Cdnvention itself was granted no power 

and authority concerning voter education and particularly in 

regard to expenditure of public funds for this purpose, and 

accordingly the expenditure of public funds for this purpose 

is unlawful. 

Respondent members of the voter education committee, on the 

other hand, contend that the Constitutional Convention possesses 

plenary power to carry its product to the people; that voter 

education concerning the proposed constitution and the expenditure of public funds therefor is necessary and desirable to 

accomplish this purpose as determined by the Convention; and 

that the power and authority of the Convention in this respect 

was duly delegated to the committee by Resolution 14. Respondent 

committee members further argue the Constitutional Convention 

has the authority to conclude its ministerial, administrative, 

and procedural affairs after its adjournment sine die, and this 

can be done through a committee empowered by the Convention to 

accomplish these activities, which include voter education on 

the proposed constitution and the expenditure of public funds 

for this purpose, 

We note that some of the arguments of the parties herein 

have been laid to rest by our decision in Mahoney, the companion 

case, which we handed down three days after oral argument in the 

instant case. In Mahoney, we held that a Constitutional Convention 

delegate's term of office runs untilrepgal of the Constitutional 

Convention Enabling Act on June 30, 1973, and accordingly such 

delegate was not eligible to file for another public office 

this year. Our decision in Mahoney was based on the Montana 

Constitution, the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act, the 
case of Forty-second Legislative Assembly v. Lennon, 156 Mont, 

416, 481 P.2d 330, and Resolution 14 of the Constitutional 

Convention. We held in Mahoney that although the adjournment 

sine die of the Convention terminated its function of proposing 

revisions, alterations or amendments to the Constitution, all 

other powers of the Convention continued thereafter. Accordingly, 

we have omitted the arguments of the parties in the instant 

case bottomed on the proposition that all powers and authority 

of the Convention expired upon its adjournment sine die; that 

the office of Convention delegate terminated simultaneously 

transforming each from a public officeholder to a private citizen; 

and that a committee of private citizens was prohibited from 

receiving or expending public funds, 

Directing our attention the first underlying issue for 

review, noted above, we hold that our decision in Mahoney 

answers relator's contention that the committee's delegated 

powers can last no longer than the powers of the Convention, 

the delegating authority. In Mahoney, we held that all powers 

of the Convention, other than the power to propose revisions, 

alterations or amendments to the Constitution, continued after 

the Convention's adjournment sine die. Accordingly, relator's 

argument fails. 

We hold, however, that any power and authority the Convention 

may possess to receive and expend public funds for voter education purposes must be exercised by the Convention itself and 

may not be delegated to a committee. All state funds were 

appropriated to the Convention by Section 21 of the Constitutional 

Convention 

l~nablin~ Act. After adjournment of the Convention sine die, 

neither the state of Montana or any state agency possessed the 

absolute control over the appropriation required by Montana 

Constitdon, Art. V, Sec. 35, which provides in pertinent part: 
"No appropriation shall be made for * * * educational JX * 9: purposes to any person * * * not 

under the absolute control of the state * * JX," 

It may be argued that because the committee is composed 

of Constitutional Convention delegates who hold public office 

until repeal of the Constitutional Convention Enabling Act on 

June 30, 1973, the required "absolute control of the state1' over 

the appropriation exists. Likewise it may be argued that the 

state possesses such "absolute control" by reason of the power 

of state officers and agencies to deny purchase requests from 

such appropriations, to disapprove expenditures from such appropriations, and to refuse payment therefor. But does such 

"absolute control of the state1' over the appropriation exist 

under the facts here? Not at all. The power and authority 

delegated to the committee under Resolution 14 is "full authority to manage and conclude all of the Convention's procedural, 

administrative and voter education affairs, and to spend the 

Convention's funds therefor1' within the limits of its appropriation; "to receive, disburse and account for all Federal funds 

which the Convention may receive"; and "to supervise and edit any 

and all voter education materials prepared on behalf of the 

Convention or by other persons relative to the work of the Convention". The receipt and expenditure of public funds derived 

from the state and federal government for voter education is 

delegated to the committee without substantial guidelines, other 

than that "money budgeted for public information" shall not be 

expended for "anything but factual reporting of the proceedings 

of this convention", Other than this limitation the committee 

is free to expend these funds as it sees fit for voter education 

activities under Resolution 14. 

The presumption of regularity attaches to the committee's 

acts and expenditures under Section 93-1301-7(15), R.C.M. 1947, 
which provides a statutory presumption "That official duty 

has been regularly performed." The state auditor and the 

state treasurer indicate they will act on this presumption of 

regularity in connection with their own official functions 

concerning public funds, absent a contrary ruling by this 

Court. Under the circumstances disclosed here, the required 

"absolute control by the state" over its appropriation of 

public funds is pneely fictitious. 

Respondent committee members cite State ex rel. James v. 

Aronson, 132 Mont. 120, 314 P.2d 849, as authority that the 

committee can conclude the Convention's ministerial, administrative and procedural affairs after the Convention adjourns 

sine die. We are not concerned here with the administrative 

and procedural matters to conclude the Convention duties 

through the election held. Rather, we are concerned with 

I1 voter education" contemplated by Resolution 14 which obviously 

involves the discretion of the committee. Therefore, James 

is not applicable here. 

Thus we hold that under the facts here, the Convention 

cannot delegate to a committee whatever power and authority 

it possesses to receive and expend public funds for voter 

education purposes to be exercised by the committee after the 

Convention's adjournment sine die. 

Proceeding to the second underlying issue in this case,, 

respondent committee members claim that aside from the question 

of delegation of the Convention's power and authority, the 

Convention has the power to take its product, the Convention's 

proposed constitution, to the people, and to receive and expend 

public funds for voter education to this end. The source of this 
power, they argue, is plenary arising from the Montana Constitution, Article XIX, Sec. 8; the Constitutional Convention Enabling 

Act, Sections 9, 17(4) and 17(5); and the Convention's inherent 

plenary power and authority. 

Article XIX, Sec. 8 provides, in part, that the Convention 

shall meet within three months after the election of delegates 

and prepare such revisions, alterations, or amendments to the 

Constitution as may be deemed necessary, which shall be submitted 

to the electors for their ratification or rejection at an election 

appointed by the Convention for that purpose, to be held not less 

than two nor more than six months after Convention adjournment. 

We find nothing in this provision granting any authority, express 

or implied, to the Convention to expend public funds for voter 

education. The power or duty to hold an election does not, in 

itself, imply a corresponding power to educate the voters and 

expend public funds therefor. 

Section 9 of the Enabling Act provides that the Convention 

I1 may make such other expenditures as it deems proper to carry 

out its work". Section 17(4) provides that each proposed 

revision, alteration, or amendment, together with appropriate 

information explaining the same, shall be published in full 

and disseminated to the electors upon adjournment of the Convention not later than 30 days preceding the referendum election 

in such manner as the Convention prescribes. Section 17(5) 

provides that the Convention shall also publish a report to the 

people explaining its proposals. 

We do not construe Section 9 of the Enabling Act to grant 

carte blanche power to the Convention to expend public funds for 

voter education purposes. If the Convention's work does not 

encompass voter education, Section 9 does not authorize such 

expenditure of public funds; nor is there any grant of power 

in the field of voter education contained in this provision. We 

must look elsewhere for such power if it exists. 
The provisions of Sections 17(4) and 17(5) of the Enabling 

Act are satisfied by the printing and distribution by the 

secretary of state of 400,000 24-page, tabloid size, color reproductions of the proposed constitution, a comparison with the 

present constitution, appropriate comments, explanations, and 

voter information including a sample ballot, as previously noted. 

This was printed and distributed by the secretary of state pursuant 

to Convention resolution, was paid for from public funds appropriated by the legislature to the secretary of state, and 

constitutes compliance with voter information requirements of 

the Enabling Act, contained in Sections 17 (4) and 17 (5). 

Finally the Convention claims inherent plenary power of 

voter education, including the expenditure of public funds for 

that purpose. It cites the 1945 Missouri case of State ex rel. 

News Corporation v. Smith, 353 Mo. 845, 184 S.W.2d 598, as 

authority for this view. That case holds a constitutional convention with power to submit its work to the voters has the 

power to appoint a committee of the convention, who in reality 

are agents of the state or of the public, to supervise the expenditure of public money legally appropriated for convention 

purposes. This decision is contrary to the facts here and can 

be explained in terms of a practical decision to enable the 

state to pay a just bill for publication of an "Address to the 

People" adopted by the convention. The logic of this decision 

on any other grounds escapes us, and it is not persuasive in 

the instant case under our facts and law. 

There is some authoritative support for the doctrine of 

inherent, plenary, and sovereign power of a constitutional convention; however it is derived from early cases during the 

American Revolution and in the reconstruction era following 

the Civil War where there was no effective or established government to supervise the work of the convention. In our view, 
this doctrine is not applicable to present conditions where, 

as here, the constitutional convention is called pursuant to the 

provisions of an existing constitution, and by enabling legislation enacted thereunder. See Dodd, The Revision and Amendment 

of State Constitutions,p. 92; Hoar, Constitutional Conventions, 

p. 166. Even in situations where the existing constitution provided no means for calling a constitutional convention, the 

Pennsylvania court refused to apply this doctrine of inherent 

plenary power. Woods's Appeal, 75 Pa. 59 (1874); Wells v. Bain, 

75 Pa. 39 (1874). 

Accordingly, we hold that the Constitutional Convention 

itself possesses no power or authority to receive or expend 

public funds for voter education beyond the specific requirements and authority found in the Enabling Act; that these requirements in the Enabling Act have already been satisfied; 

and that the Convention lacks power or authority to receive 

or expend further public funds for voter education in the manner 

proposed by the committee. 

The additional arguments of respondent committee that public 

policy supports a decision in its favor, and that the intent of 

the framers of the 1889 Constitution supports post adjournment 

voter education do not merit extended discussion. The public 

policy argument is valid to the extent that the legislature has 

enacted a public policy of voter education and expenditure of 

public funds therefor; but to the extent the legislature has so 

provided, the Convention has already completed its duties of 

voter information, as heretofore set forth. The argument that 

the intent of the framers of the 1889 Constitution supports post 

adjournment voter education is drawn from tenuous, and perhaps 

nonexistent, facts. We find nothing in the cited convention 
proceedings supporting respondent's conclusion. 

We wish to make it clear that this decision does not in 

any manner limit the right of any Constitutional Convention 

delegate to promote approval of the proposed constitution in 

any lawful manner. Emphasizing, so there may be no question 

about this holding, our decision is limited to proposed voter 

education activities of the committee acting under Resolution 

14, and the further expenditure of public funds for voter 

education thereunder. 

A declaratory judgment in favor of relator is hereby 

entered determining (1) the voter education committee has no 

lawful delegated authority to exercise any power and authority 

the Convention possesses regarding voter education and the 

expenditure of public funds therefor, and (2) the Constitutional 

Convention itself has no further power and authority concerning 

voter education or the receipt or expenditure of further public 

funds, state or federal, for such purposes. A permanent injunction is hereby granted against the nineteen members of the 

voter education committee, the state auditor, and the state 

treasurer enjoining further receipt or expenditure of public 

funds for voter education purposes. 
/ CWef Justice 

Associate Justices.