The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1905-03-02
HOLDS BIENNIAL GOOD
Judge Evans, of Hampton, Holds that
the New Election Law is Valid
in a Lengthy, Opinion.

llc lOllOWlnS is UlC Iull LcXC OF JuQgG
Evans opinion in the biennial election
test case submitted to him at Nevada,
Iowa.
After considering the question of jurisdiction the
decision says: The court must, therefore, face the
question whether the biennial election amendment
has been legally adopted part of the constitu-
ton. For this purpose this action has been
fessedly brought. The case has been excelently
argued on both sides by able and painstakng attor-
neys whose personal wishes in evident accord
with their respective contentious. So that while the
parties have agreed upon the facts and have singled
out the issue of law and have presented such issue
for immediate trial. the court is embarrassed by
any appearance of collision between them as to the
result to be obtained They have devoted to the case
much thought and research and they have given to
the court the benefit of 1t all
1.-THE amendment with the resolution proposing 1t
is given in FULLY
The defendants contend that the foregoing amend.
ment is not one amendment, but several, and about
this point the whole controversy centers.
discussion OF the constitutional questions involv
ed follows
The decision continues
Sec. e. If two or more amendments shall be SUBJ
mitted at the same time they shall be submitted in
such manner that the electors shall for
against each of such amendments separately. The
question presented by the defendants is whether the
mandate of section has been complied with in the
formulation and submission of the amendment. That
the provision OF section is mandatory, and that
of the highest Importance of the safeguards
OF the constitution, no will ~deny The voter in
the booth has no power to offer an, amendment His
judgment may approve proposed amendment in part
and disapprove it in part but he has no power to
separate. He must vote yes "no', the prop
osition as whole IL has been formulated and
submitted to him by two successive legislatures 1t
is therefore OF the very substance OF his right that
the propositions which separable and substan-
tally Independent should be stated separately, so
that he may vote separately for and against
another if he chooses
The defendants contend that the amendment in
question contains in addition to the provisions for
biennial elections four other distinct amendments
follows: ~ An amendment extending the terms of
the officers therein enumerated; ~ amendment
making the county attorney statuatory rather than
constitutional officer; ~ amendment making
the chief justice of the supreme court statuatory
rather than constitutional officer; ~ amend
met providing for extra session of the legislature
This brings to the question what Is single amend
ment as distinguished from two or more, within the
meaning OF the constitution
QUESTION is VIRGIN SOIL
Our supreme court has never passed upon this aues-
ton. We are therefore left to find the way as best
we can. In constituting section of article our su-
preme court has committed itself to the doctrine of
strict construction of those provisions of the constu
ticn which pertains to its own amendment Koehler
VS.. HILL 90 Iowa, 543; state ex-re VS.. Brookhart lib
Iowa, ESQ. And thar rule must govern us in fixing
upon rule definition of Zone amendment" as we'll
as in applying the definition to the case before u.s.
1t seems too plain for dispute that one amendment
may consist OF more than one grammatical PROPOSE
ton; that II may effect more than one section OF the
constitution; and that it may have Some degree of
complexity according TO the nature and scope of the
subject covered by it,
1t does and must occasionally happen that pro-
posed amendment at one point section of the con-
stitution, incidentally affects other sections thereof
Such other sections may be rendered inappcabe am
bguous, or meaningless, of their provisions
may be inconsistent with the proposed amendment
An amendment, them OF the constitution at one point
may necesstate the amending of it at other points
indeed, take 1t that the right conferred upon the
Legislature TO formulate and submit to the voters
proposed amendment to any part of the constitution
imposes upon 1t the duty go the constitution
carefully and to to it that its broken places b.
mace consistent with the main purpose of the amend
ment; so that If the proposed amendment be adopte
by the voters the constitution shall be harmonious
a whole and consistent in all its parts.
IT, therefore, a proposed amendment have one dis
t1nct purpose, and only and 1t contain only sue
| additional provisions are necessary or proper +
mend the broken places, and to render such parts
the constitution consistent with such main purpose
then it seems to me that such additional provision
must be regarded as proper detail incident of til
amendment itself, and as such, part of it.
On the other hand, If any such provisions propo
sitions amend section of the constitution which
unrelated to the main purpose, and unaffected by
| in Its consistency or applicability meaning, i
ought to be said that such proposition presents
separate amendment, and should be stated and sub
| mltted separately, to be voted up or down on it,
merits
No riding and no "og rolling is the motto o
section 2, article 10.
to constitute constitutional provisions, each of which
almost identical with section g. article 10, ant
while they may differ in their application of the rule
of construction, they in substantial accord IL
their own statement of the u itself. Here follows
discussion OF pertinent court decisions)
THE AMENDMENT DrvIs1BLE?
And now to the at bar. Is the amendment
diyisible into two or more and independent
amendments as contended by the defendants? hav.
already set forth by number the propositions contend
ed for, and will refer to them by such numbers
Number presents provisions which are so plainly
incidental to the main plan of biennial elections tina
claim upon it.
Number seems to lack existence as fact and de
PENDANTS counsel have spent no time upon it in argu
ment.
Number relates the provisions for the selection
OF chief justice of the supreme court. The amend
ment submitted directs that the legislature shall
provide which Of the judges OF the supreme court
shall serve as chief Justice Under the system II
operation when the amendment proposed anC
submitted the term of one judge Of the supreme
terminated each year. Under section g. article S, o.
the constitution, it provided that the Judge hold
ing the shortest should be chief Justice Therefore
each of the judges became chief justice in and during
the last year of his term, and so in rotation
Under the biennial election plan the terms OF two
judges will expire every two years. BY reason of tn,
amendment the court will always have two short tern
judges instead of one The existing provision then il
section 3, article S. will become inapplicable ant
meaningless. 1t of the places in the consti
tuition which affected by the proposed adoption
| the main plan and needed adjusting. True it nigh
have been ignored, but it would have then remained
the dead branch of tree 1t was therefore prone
for the legislature to take notice of it, and to
| the pruning of it minor incident to the majo
purpose of the amendment Some other provisio,
| might have been incorporated in the amendment
| specifying method of designating the chic
justice and retaining the constitutional character
the Office but it would have been subject the sam
| charge the provision actually Incorporated l
the legislature had right to propose any adjustment
at all at this point, lit had right formulate tn
method to be proposed; and the fact that some ohe
and perhaps better, method could have been adopted
furnishes ground for attack upon the method act
ually adopted The most that can be claimed at thi
| point by the defendants is that the provision con
corning the chief justice should have been omitte
altogether for such admission would not have savet
| the constitutional character of the office Tn
| proposed adoption OF the amendment would rende
the only constitutional provision already existing OF
| the subject ineffective and meaningless.
1 For the purpose of the foregoing discussion hav
assumed the correctness of defendants premise viz
that the adoption of the amendment as actually sub
mitted does have the effect of making the office
| statutory rather than constitutional Office 1 d
/ not concede that the premise is true in fact TIL
constitution still recognizes the existence of the oc
| of chief justice. No power is conferred upon tn
| legislature to create or abolish or ignore it.
The fourth (4) specification is directed against tn
| last sentence in the amendment which provides i'd
the sessions of the legislature in 1906 and 1907 Thi
presents defendants principal point of attack. I